I think it’s to prevent “bush league” plays. Instead of catching the easy popup, I’m going to deliberately drop it because a quirk in the rules makes dropping an easy catch better than catching it. Rules aren’t just about fairness, they’re also about putting on a high quality game.
I think that if a batter is at two strikes, he should be out after the second foul ball. Silly to see batters foul five in a row with no repercusions.
I would keep the rule, with a slight modification: if you submit a score that is too low, your official score becomes what you actually shot plus the difference between that and your posted score (so if you shot a 72 but posted a 70, yuor score would be 72 + 2 = 74).
The Lucky Dog Rule is there because of “no racing back to the line” (usually, the leader would not pass cars when heading back to the line uncontested, so they would not be a lap down). Also, NASCAR does tend to hold off on a yellow once the white flag comes out unless the leaders would have to go through the wreck to reach the checkered flag.
The main reason the Top 35 rule exists is money - specifically, money from a driver’s fans who might not show up to a race if they didn’t know he would be in it in advance. (What needs to be changed is the rule that lets teams transfer points between the end of one season and the start of the next. The top 35 based on the number on the car should be the numbers given automatic entry into the first five races in the following season - and they should not apply that to Daytona.)
The NCAA tried this once, where all fouls in the last few minutes would be 2-shot fouls, but too many teams complained that it became impossible to stage a comeback (to which I would have replied, “Then you should have played better in the first part of the game!”) by forcing teams to choose between better players and better free-throw shooters. (The “double bonus” rule is a compromise. Personally, I would get rid of the 1-and-1 bonus and make all bonus free throws 2 shots.)
It’s there to prevent a team camping its really tall player underneath the basket, pretty much preventing any dunks - and if no-dunk ball was popular at all, the WNBA wouldn’t be losing money.
Agreed. I also think they should make fighting a game penalty, but that’s not going to happen because (a) it puts enforcers/“goons” out of a job (so the players’ union would never accept it), and (b) it makes it far too easy to take out a team’s star player without much fear of retailation as the retaliators would be ejected.
This is a common myth, but it’s not true. The rule about not hitting quarterbacks below the knees was enacted after the 2005 season because of serious hits on Carson Palmer, Ben Roethlisberger, and Brian Griese.
Turn that around. Why should the pitcher be rewarded for not throwing clean strikes? Baseball is already gives a heavy advantage to pitching over batting.
Well in theory the head referee has final say, but in practice he always defers to whichever official had the best view and/or is most confident in his assessment. This would be no different: the guy in the booth has the best angle, let’s go with his call.
Are you sure there’s been a rule change? Maybe you’re going back a really long time, but for as long as I can remember the rule has always been the same (or nearly the same): out of bounds stops the clock only until the ball is reset and the ready-to-play is given, excepting in the final 2 minutes of the 1st half and the final 5 minutes of the 2nd half, during which time the clock doesn’t restart until the snap. In any event, I like the rule; it speeds up the game.
Hah, out of all the rules in rugby you pick a pretty damn obscure one. My pick would be barring hands from the ruck, When it was removed under the Experimental Laws Variation (ELVEs) it seemed to work fairly well IMHO.
As a kid I never realised the random howls (more like “HOOOOW” than “Howzat”)we made as fielders were actually ‘appeals’. I thought they were just the traditional way to celebrate a wicket. I was well into high school before I found out otherwise. I agree it’s probably unnecessary but support keeping it if only for tradition’s sake.
He defers to officials who have a better angle than he does because he can’t be everywhere on the field all the time. For challenges, anybody viewing the replay has the same angles, so the senior guy makes the call.
I don’t see the rationale for illegal formation and ineligible receiver downfield penalties in American football. Were these rules made in response to an easily-exploited loophole, like baseball’s infield fly rule?
Think what it does to strategy. If you can get an easy 5 yards by making the other guys jump offside, then it makes sense to get up to the line early, and spend 30 seconds before each and every play coming up with ever-more-elaborate feints and bluffs in an attempt to get that cheap 5. And then when you do snap it, all you need to do is run up the gut, as the defense will be on their heels and have a very hard time stopping the offensive line’s initial surge.
A defensive offsides plus three two-yard gains = a first down. This would be logical strategy for the participants, but it would suck to be in the stands or on TV trying to watch it.
The rule I don’t think is necessary is an “unwritten rule” in baseball: Replace the itty-bitty strike zone that umpires call with the actual strike zone that’s in the rulebook. More strikes equals more swings equals more balls in play equals a more interesting game.
NFL - Illegal batting or kicking. If you can swat a loose ball, go for it.
A hockey one-If the puck is en route when a period ends, it counts.
Think back to the days before the modern passing game. If an offense can put 10 guys in the backfield, it makes sense to snap it deep and set up flying-wedge type formations. Teams did, and it was very, very violent. Seven men on the line prevents that.
The eligible receiver rules are there as an aesthetic and competitive balance thing. If the defense can’t tell who is eligible, they’re at a huge, huge disadvantage. The game would look pretty much like the early versions of the A-11 offense (which exploited a loophole in the eligible-reciever rules, which has since been closed; a modified version of the offense still exists under the new rules). Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people look at and think it isn’t the same “football” they grew up watching.
To add: In the modern game, the OL could set up in pocket around the QB deep in the backfield and make it far, far more difficult to get pressure on him. Sacks, or even hurried throws, would be very rare.
there is a lot of discussion (well, some discussion in any case) of changing the inflield fly rule.
Personally, I haven’t taken a position on it,
The umpire does not call it a run, nor does he rule a runner safe or out if the play is in question. Most typically, this happens during a play at the plate where the runner misses touching home. The umpire will not make a signal until such time as the defense tags the runner out, appeals the play, or the runner safely touches the plate after the fact.
The lack of a safe or out gesture by the umpire can frequently be a tip off to both teams that something is amiss, assuming the teams are paying attention. If no correction is made by either side before the next pitch is thrown, a runner who has not been ruled out is, by default, considered to be safe.
That rule was introduced to reduce injuries.
Many, many rules are instituted for the BIG TWO reasons of reducing injuries and speeding up the game, and a bunch of others are instituted to improve competitive balance.
I like it too, but it’s a recent change. I remember it being instituted, and if I had to guess I’d say early-to-mid 2000s, like maybe 2004.
This is not true, as there are in fact a number of ways a runner can be made out without the fielding team making a play:
- If the runner overtakes another runner
- If the runner abandons his attempt to advance the bases
- Obstruction
The “Neutrality” of the umpire is not in doubt if the rule simply says that you’re automatically out by touching a base without having touched a preceding base, just as it says you’re automatically out if you pass another runner.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I think it’s to prevent “bush league” plays. Instead of catching the easy popup, I’m going to deliberately drop it because a quirk in the rules makes dropping an easy catch better than catching it. Rules aren’t just about fairness, they’re also about putting on a high quality game.
[/QUOTE]
In fact, while a lot of people don’t know this, there’s a rule against dropping a line drive for the same purpose.
In D1 men’s college tennis they play the let. I don’t know what the stats are, but from the matches I watched, it didn’t really seem to make a huge difference. Maybe once or twice a match a server would get a cheap point from a let falling over the net and the returner not having a chance to get to it, but then again, what would have been a booming serve hits the net and results in a weak sitter that gets crushed by the returner. It all comes out even.
Targeting in NCAA football. The rules on it are so vague that two-thirds of the time it just penalizes good defense. They should at least make it reviewable.