Most professional auto/motorcycle racing series will race in any weather on road courses.
Anyhow, golf is probably unique in that the players are also the referees, and that the players are expected to call fouls on themselves.
Taking the ball out of bounds deliberately is a penalty in Australian Rules.
In Australian Rules it is a penalty to deliberately score for the other team.
In what circumstances would scoring for the other team even be advantageous in Aussie Rules?
I know it happened a while ago in a CONCACAF match due to weird tie break rules. By the end of the match both teams were defending each others’ goals.
That’s also true of Formula One racing - often, one of the two racers in a given team will run interference and try to slow the pack down so that the better racer can run away with the win and/or have an easier time duelling with another team’s hot shot.
Heck, accidentally shooting the puck out of play from the defensive zone in a penalty in hockey.
I’d have to check and see if the rules of baseball ever formally barred trees. There certainly were a few fields with trees in them, way back in the day.
There are still one or two fields with flag poles or similar objects inside the wall. Then of course there are things like rolled field tarps which are in foul territory, but still potentially in play (perhaps impeding a fielder trying to make the play Tanbarkie is thinking of).
Also still permitted in baseball fields, though rarely seen, are hills. That’s right-field fair territory in Johnson City, TN, a professional ballpark in the Cardinals system. Notice how the foul line runs up the slope, and the pole stands atop it.
Ultimate (Frisbee) also has the expectation that players will call fouls on themselves. The standard game does not have referees, although I believe high level competitions will have a neutral observer to help out in case of major disagreements.
Actually, Ultimate (frisbee) is the same way.
Edited to add: I should have read glowacks post before responding.
Short answer is that Aussie Rules is in essence a game of keepings off.
Longer answer:
The scoring zone for AFL is a configuration of 4 posts at the two opposing ends of the ground. Consisting of 2 goal posts, set 6.4 metres apart on the boundary line and two behind posts each set 6.4 metres either side of the goal posts on the boundary line.
A goal (6 points) is scored only by the attacking team kicking the ball between the central pair of posts.
A behind (1 point) can be scored in a number of ways. When the ball passes between the outer pair, when the ball touches one of the goal posts, when the the ball was last touched by a defender, or when the ball crosses the goal line by either team “off hands”.
So the defensive team with play close to the goal line may take the view that the risk of the attackers scoring a goal is very high and concede a behind. Most typically this was in a goal line marking contest.
So this anomaly that you could score for the opposition was a curiosity of the game. A sort of moral victory for the attackers, and obviously the score counted.
To restart play after a goal the ball comes back to the centre of the field. To restart the game after a behind, the ball is kicked in from the goal line by the defenders i.e. a clean possession.
A relatively recent development was the assessment by teams that the cost of conceding 1 point was less than the advantage of getting possession and potential of scoring a goal (6 points) at the other end.
As a tactic it never sat well with the followers, but it became commonplace, usually accompanied by boos from both sets of spectators. This reached it’s nadir in the 2008 grandfinal when Hawthorn defeated the favourites Geelong largely due to the tactic.
From 2009 a free kick is now awarded to the attacker if the defenders rush a behind as a deliberate tactic, the same interpretation as deliberately over the boundary in any part of the field. The tactic has now disappeared and the penalty was only enforced a couple of times. The games balance has been restored.
British Bulldogs - No ball is required at all.
I don’t think that really fits a definition of a sport. A children’s game, yes. But nothing like a national/Olympic/international sport.
And in any event it wouldn’t be the only sport without a ball.
I have a couple of friends who’ve been to Nationals, and I think they’ve said that there still weren’t any officials there. I could double-check, though.
Bam Boo Gut, while it’s certainly true that British Bulldog doesn’t have a ball, the same is also true of countless other sports, including many that are played much more seriously.
43 Man Squamish cannot be played. 
Two-man Squamish is the only sport in which the object is to lose.
Speaking of intentionally scoring for the other team, American football has a similar situation. (There’s no penalty other than giving up the points, however.) Late in a game if a team is leading by, say, three to eight points, they may intentionally take a safety and give the opponent two points. It happens most commonly when they have to punt from their own end zone. The center may just snap the ball over the punter’s head and out of bounds, rather than risk a blocked punt that results in a touchdown. Then the team that took the safety can kick from a more reasonable spot (the 20 yard line).
More then that, teams (and individual riders) tacitly or explicitly cooperating with each other even as they compete. Which leads to a very interesting strategic dynamic that would be even more interesting if they didn’t all have two-way radios and team managers watching the whole race on TV.
Or the punter will run around in the end zone until time expires and then step out of bounds for the safety. The Packers did that in a playoff game once.
Actually in the case of cricket it is the exact opposite of both points above. In cricket the defensive team is the one batting as they try to defend their wicket.
Scratch the above. I can’t find any references to confirm what I posted. In fact, the Laws of Cricket never (I think) refers to the teams in the terms of offence and defence but seems to use the terms “batting team” and “bowling team” in stead. I suppose one could say that both the batting and the bowling team are involved simultaneously in defending and attacking in some way. Weird.