Worst rules/regulations/practices in pro and/or college sports. - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 08:51 AM

Personally, I'd go with:

BCS

Sudden Death OT in the NFL

2 line pass in hockey

allowing more than 1 pitching change per inning in MLB

lack of calling the travel violation in the NBA

College Football's rules on punts crossing the plan of the endzone. They're automatically touchbacks even if the player saves the ball before ever landing in the endzone and bats/throws it back.

Dooby · 10-22-2003, 08:54 AM

They got rid of the stupidest rule in sports- the college football "halo" rule.

u2sarajevo · 10-22-2003, 08:55 AM

I don't mind sudden death OT in the NFL, but that may be because I grew up with it that way. When I watch an OT College game, it just seems unnatural.

I HATE 5 minute OT's in regular season NHL. Nothing more deflating than a tie, I want a winner each game.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 08:59 AM

on to hockey. I forgot one...this is perhaps the stupidest rule in the history of stupid rules.... giving a team a point for an OT loss.

MavsFanatik33 · 10-22-2003, 08:59 AM

Both OTs, NFL and College...really dumb
2 line pass in hockey
most blocking calls in basketball, too judgemental
one foot in for a catch in college
that dumb rule where you can't land on anybody trying to block a field goal
not getting the ball at halfcourt in NCAA when calling a TO under 2 minutes

That's all I got right now...

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

one foot in for a catch in college

what's wrong with that rule?

MavsFanatik33 · 10-22-2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3

Quote:

one foot in for a catch in college

what's wrong with that rule?

I think if you only have one foot then you are only half in, I like the NFL rule where you have to have both feet in.

u2sarajevo · 10-22-2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
Both OTs, NFL and College...really dumb

So what would the alternative be?

Dooby · 10-22-2003, 09:08 AM

No self-respecting sport should ever end in a tie.

MavsFanatik33 · 10-22-2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
Both OTs, NFL and College...really dumb

So what would the alternative be?

I don't know, I thought about that the other day...couldn't come up with anything, maybe play with 10 minutes on the clock or something.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3

Quote:

one foot in for a catch in college

what's wrong with that rule?

I think if you only have one foot then you are only half in, I like the NFL rule where you have to have both feet in.

Maybe the player should only get half the yards if he's only half in?

Or, perhaps they have the 'one foot in' requirement because it's too difficult to tell when a player is forced out of bounds when he catches a ball while in the air. It's too difficult to judge whether or not the player would have come down in bounds with both feet in. So, college football just went with the standard 'one foot in' rule with no force outs.

Rhylan · 10-22-2003, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Dooby
No self-respecting sport should ever end in a tie.

AMEN.

The 19'9" three point line in college hoops is also a joke. They're moving it back somewhere in the FIBA range next year, I believe, but that's not enough. It needs to be pushed back to NBA range.

MavsFanatik33 · 10-22-2003, 09:32 AM

There has to be ties sometimes, think about it... hockey games could last for like 4 OTS if that was the case.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 09:34 AM

Rhylan, good point.

I'm kinda torn on whether or not I like 'intentional grounding' being allowed when the QB is outside of the pocket.

I still think the QB should be forced to at least throw it in the direction of a receiver

MavsFanatik33 · 10-22-2003, 09:36 AM

I agree Murph.
Are they really moving the 3 point line back next year

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
There has to be ties sometimes, think about it... hockey games could last for like 4 OTS if that was the case.

Don't give a team a point for an OT loss, have no ties, and go with 4 on 4 hockey and guess what... there will be very, very few games that last more than the average hockey period.

There was always alot of ties in the past because teams played scared. They didn't want to lose the 1 point. So, OT hockey became a game where teams played nothing but defensive hockey to protect their 1 point.

A couple of years back, the NHL decided to give teams a point for an OT loss AND to go with 4-4 in OT.

Well, if they would have just went with the 4 on 4 and if they would played until someone scored with no ties and no points for losing in OT... your problem is solved.

It takes away any motivation that a team would have for playing for 'one point'. Teams would be forced to open it up with the 4 on 4. They'd be gunning for the win. With so much open ice, it wouldn't take long.

u2sarajevo · 10-22-2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
There has to be ties sometimes, think about it... hockey games could last for like 4 OTS if that was the case.

No.... No there does not HAVE to be ties sometimes. Fans pay hundreds of dollars to bring their familes to these games, to send them home without either celebrating a win or lamenting a loss is pathetic.

So what if a game lasts 4 OT's? There are few sports situations more exciting than a multi-OT Hockey game (my opinion of course). The reason they allow it(5 min single OT) is because the fan base does not bitch about it.

MavsFanatik33 · 10-22-2003, 09:43 AM

Well yes, it's exciting, but it wears down the players. This could cause many injuries, think about it.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 09:53 AM

think about what i said in my post
think about it... think about it.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 09:56 AM

On to some regulations.
I'm not a huge fan of the way the NFL cracks down on the players for uniform regulations.. such as towels hanging down too far out of a players pants... or a player being fined because his sock isn't pulled up.

u2sarajevo · 10-22-2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavsFanatik33
Well yes, it's exciting, but it wears down the players. This could cause many injuries, think about it.

It's hard for me to be sympathetic about the injustice of a tie if the reason for the rule comes down to protecting they player. When you buy a ticket to a game the reasonable assumption is made that the game will have a winner and a loser.

I use the tie ploy with my children when we play games sometimes to avoid heart-breaks (and the fact that they are too young to understand that in a game there should always be a winner and a loser), but the players are not children.

That is the most glaring pimple on the sport of Hockey, in my opinion. That and the fact that they allow fighting (which is allowed to increase the fan base, and cheaply at that).

Dooby · 10-22-2003, 11:16 AM

I'd rather have shootouts in hockey after 1 overtime than have the game end in a tie.

u2sarajevo · 10-22-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Dooby
I'd rather have shootouts in hockey after 1 overtime than have the game end in a tie.

I agree. If the players can't play a full game (OT included) and MUST have only 1 5 minute OT then let them shoot "penalty shots" until a winner emerges.

....as long as that doesn't spill over into the playoffs.

OutletPass · 10-22-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Dooby
I'd rather have shootouts in hockey after 1 overtime than have the game end in a tie.

Totally agree. Ties suck. And let's be honest, hockey needs a little more excitement added today.

And the lack of calling the travel violation in the NBA drives me batshit. Murph's right.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 12:06 PM

Ahh, something else that drives me crazy is the incosistency on the pass interference call.

IMO, the defensive backs need to be given a little more freedom. Half the 'pass interference' penalties that you see are when both the receiver and the DB are pushing off or swiping at each other's hands...

Big Boy Laroux · 10-22-2003, 01:32 PM

half the pass interference calls could be called on the receiver instead.

bogey · 10-22-2003, 01:37 PM

You guys nailed many of the ones that drive me nuts.

One other......instant reply. Get rid of it.

bogey · 10-22-2003, 01:38 PM

Travelling and palming are never called i nthe NBA. It drives me nuts too.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 01:40 PM

ahh.. The Refs in the NFL ruling everything 'Down by Contact'. That way, it can't be challenged. If they don't know for sure, let the damn play go. There's probably 3-4 cases a week in the NFL where a Ref screws up by ruling 'down by contact'

dirt_dobber · 10-22-2003, 03:51 PM

ineligable lineman downfield.
To heck with that ... they should be compleatly
free to go anywhere they can move there fat arse.
I want to be able to see a QB dump a pass to them.

Oh! wait ..... the XFL tried this

seriously, I do not like the call.

LRB · 10-22-2003, 05:30 PM

I would vote for the star system of calls in the NBA.

steponhens · 10-22-2003, 05:53 PM

With the one point for an overtime loss, it had to be done. Like others have said before, everyone wants a winner and a loser, but in hockey nobody would even try to score near the end of games and in overtime for fear of losing a point. Therefore the game was extremely boring to watch, and OT had no real reason to even be there.

As for the rule I hate the most is the celebration rules for football. In the NFL I think it is rediculous that you cannot taunt your opponent. It's not pee wee football, this is a game for men and if you can't take it either stop him from scoring or get off the field. In college players can't even spike the ball. In the NFL it's worse bc they allow celebrations, but then after the game they give fines for excessive celebration even though the refs didn't flag the play.

Also, I don't know why players cannot take off their helmets when they are on the field. I don't know if this is just college or in the NFL too, but it really has nothing to do with the play or endangering an opponent, whats with that.

It seems as though most of the rules we have problems with are from football, yet it is still the greatest game right now.

Murphy3 · 10-22-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

With the one point for an overtime loss, it had to be done. Like others have said before, everyone wants a winner and a loser, but in hockey nobody would even try to score near the end of games and in overtime for fear of losing a point. Therefore the game was extremely boring to watch, and OT had no real reason to even be there.

That's why you get rid of the tie and go to 4 on 4 hockey.

Both teams will play for the win AND with it being only 4 on 4, it would happen rather quickly.

LRB · 10-23-2003, 01:48 PM

The other thing that I hate is the ref's calling tech's because a player or coach just looks at them. That is just sooooo childish and has no place deciding a game.

u2sarajevo · 10-23-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB
The other thing that I hate is the ref's calling tech's because a player or coach just looks at them. That is just sooooo childish and has no place deciding a game.

I thought Joey Crawford was the only parasite that would pull that kind of shiznit. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

bogey · 10-23-2003, 02:31 PM

Joey Crawford should be banned from the NBA. What a tool.

jayC · 10-23-2003, 03:36 PM

Possesion Arrow in college they should jump it up like they do in the pros.
15 yard pass interference in college football.

Instant Replay:
Why can't you challenge a fumble down by contact?

ames7 · 10-23-2003, 03:44 PM

Point for OTL in hockey definitely. You shouldn't be rewarded for losing.

There are a couple other ones in hockey too. The most annoying of which is if the goal post is lifted at all when the puck goes in, no goal. Screwed us in Game 6 last year.

bogey · 10-23-2003, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: ames7
Point for OTL in hockey definitely. You shouldn't be rewarded for losing.

There are a couple other ones in hockey too. The most annoying of which is if the goal post is lifted at all when the puck goes in, no goal. Screwed us in Game 6 last year.

Those goals should be attached to poles that go 20 feet deep. if you hit one, that's too bad. Learn not to hit one. That is an incredibly stupid rule.

ames7 · 10-23-2003, 04:45 PM

All they have to do is change it so that the goal stands if it would have gone in regardless, as Stu(uuu)'s would have in Game 6 & the Ducks' would have in the third OT of Game 1. Army actually campaigned for this over the summer & the league wouldn't hear it b/c they didn't want to make any more rule changes after last year's overhaul w/obstruction.