Each coach gets 2 challenges per game. If he uses them both, and was correct on both, he’s allowed a third challenge. If he uses the third, he’s done, regardless of the outcome.
The rule that golfers must return an accurate scorecard, or else they will be penalised strokes (for submitting a score that is too high), or disqualified (for submitting a score that is too low).
I understand why this rule exists for small local tournaments, where there are few if any officials watching, and scoring must be done using an honor system, but for the big televised tournaments, there is one rules official for every group of players, as well as the TV footage to spot any mistakes; players shouldn’t need to do the official scoring themselves.
That is rather old-school.
I suppose it because golf is a “gentlemen’s game” where you are supposed to govern your own actions.
But, it does seem idiotic when coupled with the amount of money to be won.
NASCAR has come up with several stupid rules over the last 11 years.
The Lucky Dog Rule
The Top 35 Rule
All of the small technical rules that have made each car exactly the same.
The constant rule changes for Talladega and Daytona.
The double file restarts are good, but they shoud knock it off if there’s less than 10 laps to go, it just causes there to be a lot of torn up equipment.
Not racing back to the line is a good one, but they need to allow it on the last lap instead of just deciding on the fly if they’re going to adhere to their own rules or not.
This one makes sense to me, because the referee is the senior official and is the person ultimately responsible for calling everything on the field. Taking the replay out of his control would be contrary to the way the NFL has defined his role.
For consistency. Outside of appeal plays, you can’t be out at any base unless you’re tagged or its a force play; you are never automatically out without a play (a called third strike is a play). The fielding team always must put you out.
Going on that basis, the umpire’s job is to be neutral. If the fielding team did not make the out, he has no business calling a player out. It’s the same if a first baseman is pulled off the bag on a force play: the fielding team doesn’t get the batter called out (assuming the ump doesn’t blow the call) because no out was made.
John Mcenroe has been suggesting the elimination of “let serves” for some time.
Also, he suggests that all warm up hitting be eliminated from tennis. The first exchange between the players should be the first serve of the match.
I kind of agree as well.
He also has no business calling it a run, since the rule is “One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first,
second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning.” A team’s failure to appeal does not change the fact that the runner did not touch one of the bases.
It’s not a rule per se but basketball needs to find a way to prevent the last minute of a close game from taking thirty fucking minutes. All these intentional fouls and then hoping the other team misses free throws leads to the most boring 30 minutes in American sports.
Perhaps allow only one timeout per team in the last two minutes?
I think the batter running to first base on a dropped third strike was an intentional effort to make baseball more like quiddich: just another stupid rule for no good purpose.
I love football, but I just can’t figure out why the rules have to change every. single. year. How many people here have noticed how much more exciting and fair the game is now that the kicking team can only run for 5 yards prior to the kickoff? Am I right? I just keep thinking to myself, if this new rule were not in place, we’d be looking at a an Eagles-Raiders Super Bowl, because those teams were EASILY the most held back by this massive change of a VERY important rule on how much the kicking team gets to run before the ball is kicked.
Also, the whole idea that the offensive line needs to be “covered” on the line of scrimmage by a tight end or receiver. Who the F cares.
In the NFL, automatic replay of all scoring plays is good, but it should be expanded to potential scoring plays, too. For example, a receiver making a juggling catch in the end zone ruled to have made the catch will have the play reviewed, and then can be overturned. The exact same play, but ruled by a ref to not be a catch and has the same consequences is not reviewed automatically (unless in the last 2 minutes of the half). If a play happened at 2:06 remaining and a team had used its challenges, they’d have no chance to get it reviewed, and it could completely turn the game.
Rules question: if a team has used its 3 timeouts in a half, but only used 1 challenge, can they still use that last challenge?
In soccer, throw-ins should just be “two hands, where the ball went out, standing on/behind the white line.” I think there’s something about having both feet on the ground and the ball has to go behind the player’s head (I’m not sure of the specifics). Every now and then, the ref rules a throw-in illegal, and it’s rarely clear what was wrong.
Illegal defense in the NBA. I mean, I can understand why the league thinks it’s ‘necessary’ (because if we don’t have superduperstars scoring at will, then OMG only basketball fans will watch the games!) but I completely disagree with it. Come on, these are the best players in the world, on teams where 4 out of 5 guys can reliably hit three- pointers, but they can’t overcome a zone defense? Give me a break.
I understand for historical reasons why in cricket the fielding side needs to appeal to the umpires as to whether they’ve gotten the batsman out (except when the batsman is bowled), but I think it’s unnecessary now. It seems to me that the umpires are perfectly capable of deciding on their own whether the batsman is out. Sure, the fielding side can shout “howzat” all they want still, but I don’t think an appeal should be necessary before the batsman must go.
Relevant story: I once was in a club match where one of their players hit the ball high in the air, and it was easily caught by one of ours. Much cheering and backslapping ensued, but when we turned around the batsman was still there–nobody had appealed and the guy wasn’t going anywhere! Of course at that point we all appealed immediately and the umpire raised his finger. Later on the umpire confirmed to us that if we had not appealed the batsman could have legally stayed on.
One way that might handle this would be to still allow teams to call their timeouts during the last two minutes, but this only ends the play - the game doesn’t break like a normal time out. The teams retain the tactical value of the timeout (moving the ball to midcourt, avoiding a 5-second inbound violation, etc.) without the delay to the game.
To answer your second question first, if a team has no timeouts left, they can’t challenge.
For your other point, the automatic reviews of touchdowns introduces some odd strategy considerations. For example, say there’s a questionable “fumble or forward pass” by a QB. If it’s called a fumble on the field, the defence returning the fumble might be better off running out of bounds at the 1. This would force the other team to use a challenge, or make the play non-reviewable if the other team is out of challenges.
Touch icing, in hockey, doesn’t make any sense. It shouldn’t be necessary for the defending team to touch the puck when icing is called. The international no-touch rule would speed up the game and help prevent injuries.
Pushrod engines in NASCAR
The NBA agrees with you and zone defense is now allowed. However, I came in here to add the defensive 3 second rule in the NBA. I don’t see why teams can’t just plant their big guy under the basket. Oh yeah, because it might decrease the number of highlight reel dunks.
TV timeouts.
Travelling in the NBA. They don’t call it anyway; why bother having a rule you won’t enforce?