Stupidest rule in all of sports...

[Bluedawg]

Fir me it's in baseball. On a third strike if the catcher drops the ball the batter can run to first. If he makes it the pitcher gets credit for the strikeout, but the out does not count.

[hc5duke]

Fir me it's in baseball. On a third strike if the catcher drops the ball the batter can run to first. If he makes it the pitcher gets credit for the strikeout, but the out does not count.

I'm pretty sure he DOES get credit for the K, but not the out. I'm 99% sure I've seen an inning (in the 90s) where Billy Wagner (or possibly Octavio Dotel) got four strikeouts, with one runner reaching base.

[hc5duke]

I'm pretty sure he DOES get credit for the K, but not the out. I'm 99% sure I've seen an inning (in the 90s) where Billy Wagner (or possibly Octavio Dotel) got four strikeouts, with one runner reaching base.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats19.shtml
The game I'm remembering is Octavio Dotel in 2003.

[Bluedawg]

I'm pretty sure he DOES get credit for the K, but not the out. I'm 99% sure I've seen an inning (in the 90s) where Billy Wagner (or possibly Octavio Dotel) got four strikeouts, with one runner reaching base.

yes ne does get credited for throwing a strikeout:


If he makes it the pitcher gets credit for the strikeout, but the out does not count.

An out is an out. I find that strange. makes me wonder where that rule came from.

[ugadevil]

I'm pretty sure he DOES get credit for the K, but not the out. I'm 99% sure I've seen an inning (in the 90s) where Billy Wagner (or possibly Octavio Dotel) got four strikeouts, with one runner reaching base.

I think Randy Johnson did the same thing one time.

[hc5duke]

yes ne does get credited for throwing a strikeout:

An out is an out. I find that strange. makes me wonder where that rule came from.

Oops, I read your original post wrong. Yup, dumb rule.

[DukieInKansas]

Does this go down as an E-2?

[hc5duke]

Does this go down as an E-2?

I was under the impression that it counts as a passed ball or wild pitch, depending on whose fault it is. In either case, it wouldn't be an error, so would count towards the ERA, if they score (correction: WP would hurt your ERA).

Hey, I found another dumb rule in baseball - how come PB and WP don't count as errors? Also, a run scored with PB is unearned, yet WP is earned

[DukieInKansas]

I was under the impression that it counts as a passed ball or wild pitch, depending on whose fault it is. In either case, it wouldn't be an error, so would count towards the ERA, if they score (correction: WP would hurt your ERA).

Hey, I found another dumb rule in baseball - how come PB and WP don't count as errors? Also, a run scored with PB is unearned, yet WP is earned

So a strikeout can also be either a PB or WP? That seems strange.

Of course, baseball also has the other dumb rule - the DH. (I used to enjoy teasing my nephew by asking him where the DH stood on the field when we would go to Royals games.)

[Lavabe]

If you consider chess a sport, the errant pawn has always bothered me.:D

In other sports, here's one I don't know: what exactly is the rule on scoring with a drop kick in the NFL?:confused:

NASCAR's Lucky Dog rule is also a bit bizarre.:eek:

[juise]

<Dickie V on tranquilizers>The alternating possession following a jumpball in college basketball punishes the defense for making an effort.</Dickie V on tranquilizers>

[Mal]

It is an archaic rule - I've always thought quaint and only mildly annoying, but wouldn't be upset if it were repealed. The reasoning behind it is (I think) that the defense is supposed to be in control of the ball (i.e., has to actually catch the ball at some point) to make any out in baseball. In other words, technically you're not out just because the pitcher threw it past you. The catcher records the out by catching the ball the pitcher threw past you. How that works with a bunted foul third strike is beyond me. I guess you have to pick it up to have it officially declared foul, maybe.

By the way, this is a timely topic, as Scott Baker of the Twins got 4 K's in an inning just yesterday.

I would nominate the following:

- NFL overtimes decided by sudden death, with a coin flip to determine who gets the ball first

- The jumping out of bounds timeout in basketball

- The two-line pass rule (abolished now, I guess, but it still irks me that it ever was an issue)

- The "tuck" rule?

- Not really a rule, but the NBA lottery needs to be fixed or put down

- Alternate possession arrow, babeeeee! Why do you want to penalize the defense? I'm blind in one eye and even I can see that's wrong, babeeee! Mike, I've been talking about this for years now - the committee doesn't like me because I'm bald, babeeeee!

(Actually, I'm not opposed to the alternate possession rule. I just wanted to try to get this thread to the main board - :))

[hurleyfor3]

Hey, I found another dumb rule in baseball - how come PB and WP don't count as errors? Also, a run scored with PB is unearned, yet WP is earned

Because errors are fielding errors. Catching pitched balls (or not) isn't fielding. Also, WPs are the pitcher's fault; PBs aren't. That's the way it should be.



Fir me it's in baseball. On a third strike if the catcher drops the ball the batter can run to first. If he makes it the pitcher gets credit for the strikeout, but the out does not count.

What is so stupid about it? I think stupider baseball rules are:

* you don't get an at bat for a sac fly, but you do on a fly ball that advances a runner who does not score. A sac fly is unlike a sacrifice bunt in that you are not trying to give up your time at bat so that baserunners may advance

* you can't score from first on a ground rule double. Ground-rule doubles are worse than conventional doubles to the offense for this reason.

[Shammrog]

I hate it, just hate it when soccer games are decided by penalty kick shoot-outs. Same for hockey; although soccer seems more arbitrary in this regard.

A close second is the alternate possession arrow. I agree with Dickie V on this one; don't penalize a good defensive effort by making it an "alternating" arrow. Either jump it up, or find something else that puts it in the hands of the players. Hell, just let em fight it out!

[Shammrog]

...and that idiotic "balk" rule in baseball. Maybe it is needed for an obvious "balk" - I just remember how stupid it got for a while there a few years ago. The pitcher would scratch himself and it would be "BALK!!! BALK!!! BALK!!!"

[jimsumner]

None of the scoring rules cited actually impacts the playing of the game, simply the statistical record of the game. Not that important in the overall scheme and things and IMO, they all make sense.

I do agree that losing an NFL game in OT without ever actually having the ball makes little sense. I much prefer the college rule.

[hc5duke]

WPs are the pitcher's fault; PBs aren't. That's the way it should be.

A fielding error or errant throw by a pitcher is still an unearned run - inconsistent.

[EarlJam]

Oops, I read your original post wrong. Yup, dumb rule.

Here's what I, EarlJam, want to know:

What is the "defined" difference between a foul tip and a foul fly? Say the count is 1-1. Here's the pitch, batter swings, foul tips it and the catcher has to reach quickly to catch it. The count goes to 1-2.

Now same deal. The count is 1-1, the batter tips it but it bloops a little and the cather can dive out and catch it. That's ruled a foul ball catch, batter out.

In both cases, the ball and bat made contact, the ball went airborne, and ended up in a glove before it hit the ground.

So, in short, what is the official designation between a "foul tip" and a "foul fly?"

Has this ever sparked a controversy?

-EarlJam

[Bluedog]

Yeah, you guys are fretting over how statistics are done in baseball. This is so minor as it doesn't affect the outcome of the game. The rules that I find incredibly stupid:

1.) Soccer - if somebody is tripped near the goal and gets a penalty kick, he (the one who was fouled) should HAVE to kick the penalty kick. Instead they can choose anybody! That's like being able to choose anybody on your basketball team to shoot the free throws when one particular person was fouled. Who the heck came up with that?!

2.) Golf - disqualification for signing the wrong score a la Sergio Garcia at the 2007 PGA Championship. Come on...we have TV cameras everywhere and we know what they scored. They can't cheat the score. They don't even keep scores themselves - their playing partner does. Boo Weekley put that Sergio had a 5 when he had a 4 on the 17th. But DQ for Sergio! <end rant about antiquated golf rules.>

3.) OT in the NFL

4.) Shootouts in soccer

6.) Dangerous shot in women's lacrosse. If you shoot too fast or something at the goalie you get a penalty. What?!? I'm not sure how anybody judges this accurately and it would seem to me that the point is to shoot the ball as hard as you can.

7.) Lacrosse in general - person closest to the ball after a shot gets the ball. I feel like the team that threw it out of bounds should never get it back. I say turnover!

That's all I got for now.

[jimmymax]

i think if a foul ball goes over the batter's head and is caught he is out, else it's a foul-tip strike. but at least baseball, with the exception of the abominable DH, is relatively grounded in its rules.

my stupidest rules would all revolve around football and the rules du jour, tweaked annually to "enhance" a 60 minute game with something like 5 minutes of actual cumulative playing time (snap to whistle -- usa today did a time test once). that and the obscure nascar rules about size & weight that i am in no position to analyze -- is that really a sport anyway?

[Mal]

EarlJam -

I think the rule is that a foul tip travels directly into the catcher's mitt with no discernible redirection after nicking the bat. If the catcher has to move his glove based on the contact, it's a foul pop, not a tip. I would guess there's never been an argument on the issue, because the in between cases of having to move the glove only an inch or two result in balls hitting the catcher in the chest or mask. Given the speed of a thrown ball, it's just impossible to react to and catch a ball that's sent more than an inch or so off its line but not up into the air. The catcher's already begun the act of squeezing the glove to close it when the ball hits the bat.

hc5 -

Think of it this way: an earned run is a run that scores due to the pitching ability of the pitcher. A wild pitch is a pitching mistake and the runner is thus charged to the pitcher. A throwing error by the pitcher is a fielding mistake and is treated like other fielding mistakes. Same with the passed ball. It's not who makes the mistake, it's in what capacity they make it.

[rockymtn devil]

Think of it this way: an earned run is a run that scores due to the pitching ability of the pitcher. A wild pitch is a pitching mistake and the runner is thus charged to the pitcher. A throwing error by the pitcher is a fielding mistake and is treated like other fielding mistakes. Same with the passed ball. It's not who makes the mistake, it's in what capacity they make it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the distinction between earned and unearned runs based on how the runner got on base? If the runner gets on because of a hit/walk and then scores, it's an earned run because his being on base is attributable to the pitcher. If the runner gets on base because of error by someone other than the pitcher and then scores, it's unearned. I'm not sure how fielder's choice situations are handled, but I would assume it's scored as an earned run (since presumably one of base runners was on because of the pitcher).

This is why, when a relief pitcher inherits runners that eventually score, it's counted against the previous pitcher.

Am I wrong?

[throatybeard]

I do agree that losing an NFL game in OT without ever actually having the ball makes little sense. I much prefer the college rule.

Likewise, but OTOH, the defense does have the option of stopping the team that lucked out into getting the ball first.

Agree with H43, 2-line-pass was asinine. It's gone.

Shoot outs are bad in any sport. You might as well have a FT contest at the end of a tied BB game, or a FG kicking contest at the end of a FB game, or timing a 4-tire change in NASCAR.

Most games though, I have no issue with the rules. How they're enforced in another issue of course.

[hurleyfor3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the distinction between earned and unearned runs based on how the runner got on base? If the runner gets on because of a hit/walk and then scores, it's an earned run because his being on base is attributable to the pitcher. If the runner gets on base because of error by someone other than the pitcher and then scores, it's unearned. I'm not sure how fielder's choice situations are handled, but I would assume it's scored as an earned run (since presumably one of base runners was on because of the pitcher).


Not exactly. To determine earned runs (and RBIs, to an extent), you have to reconstruct the inning as if no errors or passed balls occured. A error that prevents an out from being made counts as an out, but not all errors are lost out opportunities. So batters who advance due to throwing errors may or may not be earned, depending on what subsequent batters do.

Even a batter who reaches on error can be an earned run. Say a batter hits a grounder that normally results in a close play at first, but not a clear infield single. But the shortstop throws the ball over the first baseman's head, and the batter gets to second. Next batter hits a homerun... both runs are earned.

If an error prevents the third out from being made, ALL subsequent runs in that half inning are unearned. And so on.

[killerleft]

The above ERA descriptions leave out the most important fact, although most of us may know it. Any run scored after the third out would have been made absent an error is not earned. The official scorer can reconstruct the inning as it would have happened if not for the error or WP. The pitcher should get the benefit of the doubt.

[ugadevil]

2.) Golf - disqualification for signing the wrong score a la Sergio Garcia at the 2007 PGA Championship. Come on...we have TV cameras everywhere and we know what they scored. They can't cheat the score. They don't even keep scores themselves - their playing partner does. Boo Weekley put that Sergio had a 5 when he had a 4 on the 17th. But DQ for Sergio!

Why am I not surprised with this story about Boo Weekley? Someone would have be pretty persuasive in convincing me that Boo even knows how to read or count to five.




7.) Lacrosse in general - person closest to the ball after a shot gets the ball. I feel like the team that threw it out of bounds should never get it back. I say turnover!


I don't understand this rule either. It seems ridiculous that those people go diving behind the goal just so they're the closest to it. I think they should just make it so there's no out of bounds and it's whoever gets to the ball first. That's playground style!

[Reisen]

Easily the offside rule in soccer. The rule itself is great in theory, but the way it is implimented and called across the world is absolutely retarded, and one of the main things holding soccer back in the US.

Where else do you have a defensive player sprinting AWAY from both the player he is trying to guard and the goal he is trying to protect, simply in an effort to get the play stopped on a technicality?

The offside trap is a huge gamble, and can either stop what really SHOULD have been a goal, or create a goal out of nothing, all at the ref's whim. Get rid of it, or change the way offside is called, and you probably boost scoring by a significant margin, and place more of an emphasis on quick, strong defenders, as they no longer have the linesmen as a crutch to lean on.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Not exactly. To determine earned runs (and RBIs, to an extent), you have to reconstruct the inning as if no errors or passed balls occured. A error that prevents an out from being made counts as an out, but not all errors are lost out opportunities. So batters who advance due to throwing errors may or may not be earned, depending on what subsequent batters do.

Even a batter who reaches on error can be an earned run. Say a batter hits a grounder that normally results in a close play at first, but not a clear infield single. But the shortstop throws the ball over the first baseman's head, and the batter gets to second. Next batter hits a homerun... both runs are earned.

If an error prevents the third out from being made, ALL subsequent runs in that half inning are unearned. And so on.

Are you sure about that first run being earned? That doesn't make sense to me - if the runner would have been out with a good throw, then the run would/should be unearned. And, if it is as you say in the last paragraph, the safe runner would have been the third out in the inning, then both runs are unearned. Now if the runner would have been safe on first (he would be credited with a single) and then advanced on the errant throw, yes, both runs would be earned, regardless of how many outs there were.

[hurleyfor3]

Are you sure about that first run being earned? That doesn't make sense to me - if the runner would have been out with a good throw, then the run would/should be unearned. And, if it is as you say in the last paragraph, the safe runner would have been the third out in the inning, then both runs are unearned. Now if the runner would have been safe on first (he would be credited with a single) and then advanced on the errant throw, yes, both runs would be earned, regardless of how many outs there were.

I'm thinking of a case where the play is so close that you can't assume a hit or an out. Sometimes this is scored FC+E6, rather than 1B+E6 or a two-base E6.

Usually the scorer will give the batter a hit, but it does happen. I've seen FC+E plays (that were neither hits nor outs) on balls hit to the outfield!

[Shammrog]

Easily the offside rule in soccer. The rule itself is great in theory, but the way it is implimented and called across the world is absolutely retarded, and one of the main things holding soccer back in the US.

Where else do you have a defensive player sprinting AWAY from both the player he is trying to guard and the goal he is trying to protect, simply in an effort to get the play stopped on a technicality?

The offside trap is a huge gamble, and can either stop what really SHOULD have been a goal, or create a goal out of nothing, all at the ref's whim. Get rid of it, or change the way offside is called, and you probably boost scoring by a significant margin, and place more of an emphasis on quick, strong defenders, as they no longer have the linesmen as a crutch to lean on.

I agree.

And, I know this will never happen, but I don't see soccer really taking off in the U.S. until either the field gets shorter, and/or the goal gets bigger. Just so much ball moving, and usually not much scoring (unless we play Barbados.)

[hurleyfor3]

I agree.

And, I know this will never happen, but I don't see soccer really taking off in the U.S. until either the field gets shorter, and/or the goal gets bigger. Just so much ball moving, and usually not much scoring (unless we play Barbados.)

Also, the ball should be oblong and brown, not round and white, and you should be allowed to throw, catch and run with it. And anyone not throwing, catching or running with the ball should be running into someone on the other team as hard as possible.

[Shammrog]

Also, the ball should be oblong and brown, not round and white, and you should be allowed to throw, catch and run with it. And anyone not throwing, catching or running with the ball should be running into someone on the other team as hard as possible.

(That would help too. :))

[Highlander]

I agree.

And, I know this will never happen, but I don't see soccer really taking off in the U.S. until either the field gets shorter, and/or the goal gets bigger. Just so much ball moving, and usually not much scoring (unless we play Barbados.)

I always felt one of the big reasons Soccer never caught on in the US was that it doesn't translate well to TV, because there are no built in Television timeouts. Baseball, Football, Basketball, and Hockey all have natural breaks for commercials, but not soccer.

As for dumbest rule, I actually like the alternating possesssion in basketball, b/c I see it just like calling "firsts" on the playground. Football used to have a rule where if you fell from the field of play into the endzone on an interception, it was a touchback, but if you did so after a fumble, it was a safety. Thankfully that one was abolished.

I also don't like the DH rule. If you're going to play offense, you should have to play defense too.

[Clipsfan]

If an error prevents the third out from being made, ALL subsequent runs in that half inning are unearned. And so on.

I know that if there should have been 3 outs in the inning but that there was an error, all runs which score after what should have been the third out are considered unearned. Is this still the case if a relief pitcher replaces the pitcher who was on the mound at the time of the error/chance to get a 3rd out? Let's say Pitcher A gets pulled with 2 outs and a man on due to an error (dropped fly). Now, the man on would be an unearned run no matter what. However, Pitcher A is pulled and Pitcher B replaces him, promptly giving up a HR. Is he charged with 0 or 1 ERs?

[hc5duke]

I agree.

And, I know this will never happen, but I don't see soccer really taking off in the U.S. until either the field gets shorter, and/or the goal gets bigger. Just so much ball moving, and usually not much scoring (unless we play Barbados.)

Isn't that basically indoor soccer with a bigger goal? That didn't take off either.

[hurleyfor3]

I know that if there should have been 3 outs in the inning but that there was an error, all runs which score after what should have been the third out are considered unearned. Is this still the case if a relief pitcher replaces the pitcher who was on the mound at the time of the error/chance to get a 3rd out?

Rule 10.16i. Short answer is, the reliever is charged with one earned run, but the team is charged with zero. When a reliever comes in, previous errors are reset only for the new pitcher and the "live" out total is same as the reliever's "virtual" out total.

I didn't think it was this way until I looked the rule up.

[Bluedawg]

It is an archaic rule - I've always thought quaint and only mildly annoying, but wouldn't be upset if it were repealed. The reasoning behind it is (I think) that the defense is supposed to be in control of the ball (i.e., has to actually catch the ball at some point) to make any out in baseball. In other words, technically you're not out just because the pitcher threw it past you. The catcher records the out by catching the ball the pitcher threw past you. How that works with a bunted foul third strike is beyond me. I guess you have to pick it up to have it officially declared foul, maybe.

That is the best explination I've heard for that rule.

[Shammrog]

I always felt one of the big reasons Soccer never caught on in the US was that it doesn't translate well to TV, because there are no built in Television timeouts. Baseball, Football, Basketball, and Hockey all have natural breaks for commercials, but not soccer.

As for dumbest rule, I actually like the alternating possesssion in basketball, b/c I see it just like calling "firsts" on the playground. Football used to have a rule where if you fell from the field of play into the endzone on an interception, it was a touchback, but if you did so after a fumble, it was a safety. Thankfully that one was abolished.

I also don't like the DH rule. If you're going to play offense, you should have to play defense too.


Very good observation about soccer - hadn't thought about the TV element. I just think there MUST be more scoring. I mean, I like soccer, but it can get pretty dull for long stretches.

[Shammrog]

Isn't that basically indoor soccer with a bigger goal? That didn't take off either.

Sort of; I guess a happy medium is what I'm thinking. Indoor soccer was always a derivative of real soccer, kinda like Arena football, and so was never going to take off too big.

[Bluedawg]

* you can't score from first on a ground rule double. Ground-rule doubles are worse than conventional doubles to the offense for this reason.

that one I undestand. If you scored from 1st that would be giving the runner 3 bases, not 2 [2nd, 3rd and home]

[Bluedawg]

Here's what I, EarlJam, want to know:

What is the "defined" difference between a foul tip and a foul fly? Say the count is 1-1. Here's the pitch, batter swings, foul tips it and the catcher has to reach quickly to catch it. The count goes to 1-2.

Now same deal. The count is 1-1, the batter tips it but it bloops a little and the cather can dive out and catch it. That's ruled a foul ball catch, batter out.

In both cases, the ball and bat made contact, the ball went airborne, and ended up in a glove before it hit the ground.

So, in short, what is the official designation between a "foul tip" and a "foul fly?"

Has this ever sparked a controversy?

-EarlJam


Definition of foul tip


n. A ball that glances off the bat directly into the catcher's hands and legally caught. It counts as a regular swinging strike rather than as a foul ball; thus the batter is out if he foul tips a ball with two strikes against him and the ball is in play. ...
http://members.tripod.com/bb_catchers/catchers/wordmo.htm

[hurleyfor3]

that one I undestand. If you scored from 1st that would be giving the runner 3 bases, not 2 [2nd, 3rd and home]

My point was that it is rare for a runner on first to stop at third on a conventional double. If the batter can make it to second, a runner should make it more easily to a place (home plate) that's a farther throw for an outfielder. So ground-rule doubles "count less" than conventional doubles, even though they're usually better hits becuase they land nearly all the way at the wall or roll into the ivy at Wrigley or whatever.

[cspan37421]

what about "in the grasp" for football? Do they still have that rule? To me that's a stupid rule, and though I understand the rationale, I'm not very keen on it. If the QB wants to go down to protect himself, he can.

[pfrduke]

Stupidest rule in sports - the three inning save. By rule, any pitcher that completes the final three innings of a win, no matter how lobsided the score, gets a save. Remember the Rangers-Orioles game last year where Texas put up a 30-spot and won by 27? Wes Littleton got a save (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL200708221.shtml) in that one. Ridiculous.

[hc5duke]

Stupidest rule in sports - the three inning save. By rule, any pitcher that completes the final three innings of a win, no matter how lobsided the score, gets a save. Remember the Rangers-Orioles game last year where Texas put up a 30-spot and won by 27? Wes Littleton got a save (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL200708221.shtml) in that one. Ridiculous.

Or how about determining the winner in a game where the starter doesn't complete five innings? From this pdf file (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/10_the_official_scorer.pdf) from mlb.com:


10.17 Winning and Losing Pitcher

(b) If the pitcher whose team assumes a lead while such pitcher is in the game, or during the inning on offense in which such pitcher is removed from the game, and does not relinquish such lead, is a starting pitcher who has not completed

(1) five innings of a game that lasts six or more innings on defense, or
(2) four innings of a game that lasts five innings on defense,
then the official scorer shall credit as the winning pitcher the relief pitcher, if there is only one relief pitcher, or the relief pitcher who, in the official scorer’s judgment was the most effective, if there is more than one relief pitcher.

Rule 10.17(b) Comment: ... If two or more relief pitchers were similarly effective, the official scorer should give the presumption to the earlier pitcher as the winning pitcher.


The official scorer gets to subjectively determine who gets credited with the win, but exclude the starting pitcher. Who's to say the crucial moment in the game didn't happen in the 3rd inning, or the starter pitched the most effectively for the longest? Less likely in a game where the starter leaves before the 6th, but still, I don't like that the starter doesn't even get a chance.

[pfrduke]

Or how about determining the winner in a game where the starter doesn't complete five innings? From this pdf file (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/10_the_official_scorer.pdf) from mlb.com:



The official scorer gets to subjectively determine who gets credited with the win, but exclude the starting pitcher. Who's to say the crucial moment in the game didn't happen in the 3rd inning, or the starter pitched the most effectively for the longest? Less likely in a game where the starter leaves before the 6th, but still, I don't like that the starter doesn't even get a chance.

I have almost never seen this rule applied subjectively. Pretty uniformly, the win will go to the earliest pitcher to leave the game with a lead that is never lost, after the starter. So if the starter goes 4 2/3, a guy comes in to get the last out in the 5th, and then another reliever goes the last four, the win will go to the guy who got the last out in the 5th.

[hc5duke]

I have almost never seen this rule applied subjectively. Pretty uniformly, the win will go to the earliest pitcher to leave the game with a lead that is never lost, after the starter. So if the starter goes 4 2/3, a guy comes in to get the last out in the 5th, and then another reliever goes the last four, the win will go to the guy who got the last out in the 5th.

I'm 99% sure I've seen a boxscore where the second or third reliever gets credited for the win, and not having seen the game, I had no idea why. Also in a game where a starter injures himself early on, and the relievers do a horrible job while the offense scores just enough runs to win, they won't give any credit to the starter.

[colchar]

- The two-line pass rule (abolished now, I guess, but it still irks me that it ever was an issue)



There was never any such thing as a two-line pass rule. It was an offside pass that was erroneously called a two-line pass (think about it - player from Team A dumps the puck into the opponent's end in an attempt to ice the puck but another player from Team A makes it down there and touches the puck first thus negating the icing...that puck would've crossed more than two lines but isn't whistled as a two line pass because no such rule ever existed).

For me, the dumbest rule is that overtime hockey games that still end in a tie are decided by a shootout. Nice one there Bettman. God I cannot wait until that moron no longer has anything to do with the NHL.

[ugadevil]

Nice one there Bettman. God I cannot wait until that moron no longer has anything to do with the NHL.

Gary Bettman is my uncle on my mom's side

[colchar]

I always felt one of the big reasons Soccer never caught on in the US was that it doesn't translate well to TV, because there are no built in Television timeouts. Baseball, Football, Basketball, and Hockey all have natural breaks for commercials, but not soccer.



So you're saying that it has never caught on because it lacks breaks in play* and/or commercials?



*I could argue that, throughout most of a soccer game, there is usually less action than there is during stoppages in play in football, hockey, etc. but that is another argument for another time.

[colchar]

Gary Bettman is my uncle on my mom's side

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Highlander]

So you're saying that it has never caught on because it lacks breaks in play* and/or commercials?



*I could argue that, throughout most of a soccer game, there is usually less action than there is during stoppages in play in football, hockey, etc. but that is another argument for another time.

I think broadcast media (television, radio, etc) has a lot to do with the fact that soccer never caught on. With no timeouts, limited substitutions, and low scoring, it's really tough to hold a broadcast audience. Soccer certainly has its faults as a game, so it's lack of media friendliness is not the only reason it hasn't caught on.

As for the amount of action in soccer, it depends on your definition of 'action.' In baseball, 95% of the time there are only 3 people on the field actively doing anything athletic, while everyone else stands around and watches. The average football play lasts about 7-8 seconds max, and 40-50 snaps a game (roughly 7minutes of 'action') is on the high end. And both of those games have unlimited substitutions.

[colchar]

I think broadcast media (television, radio, etc) has a lot to do with the fact that soccer never caught on. With no timeouts, limited substitutions, and low scoring, it's really tough to hold a broadcast audience.


That hasn't hurt them in the rest of the world where they have no problem holding a broadcast audience.




In baseball, 95% of the time there are only 3 people on the field actively doing anything athletic, while everyone else stands around and watches.


Baseball is boring too.

[greybeard]

I think that it hasn't caught on because kicking a soccer ball properly, I am not talking about no push pass here, which even yours truly can execute, is impossible for most Americans to do. Guys take their kids to soccer and try to kick the thing and look more like idiots than when they have a 3 iron in their hands (do they even make 3 irons anymore). And, trying to control the ball when it comes in your direction with pace, forgetaboutit. Dad looks like a dweeb, which does not please him.

Psych 101, reduce cognitive dissonance. I stink at kicking a soccer ball, but kicking a soccer ball is "stupid" so it is a skill not worthy of an American.

Look, most guys who go out on a basketball court are pathetic when it comes to executing even the most elemental skills. Only they and their buddies don't know it. All they know is that they can hit the rim with reasonable certainty, and take solace in the fantacy that, if they only practiced that shot of theirs more, it would go in. It won't; not if they shoot a million shots, unless they change their concepts, which they won't or they would have already.

So, soccer gives Pops no cover. He tries to kick it and it goes nowhere, at least nowhere remotely resembling where he would want it to go; he tries to stop the ball, and ends up having to chase it, hopefully not down a hill, although all too frequently that is the case. The consequence, we have soccer Moms.

Passing and catching are the most fun things in sport. Doing them on the move, as in football and basketball, or catching in baseball, guys can do all day. In football, great passes and catches, whether they produce touchdowns or not, make ESPN tick. In basketball, that aspect of the game is way under appreciated except by those who play it, or at least use to, because there are much better things to show on highlights. Still terrific fun though, as even the guys who can't shoot a lick will readily tell you.

So, how come passing and catching a soccer ball is suddenly boring? Pops can't do it is why. That, as my man Tony who can't stand the game would say, is the list!

[ugadevil]

Please tell me you're kidding.

Am I? Or does Uncle Gary give me the most wonderful Christmas presents?!

[dukeblueyes]

6.) Dangerous shot in women's lacrosse. If you shoot too fast or something at the goalie you get a penalty. What?!? I'm not sure how anybody judges this accurately and it would seem to me that the point is to shoot the ball as hard as you can.

7.) Lacrosse in general - person closest to the ball after a shot gets the ball. I feel like the team that threw it out of bounds should never get it back. I say turnover!

That's all I got for now.

Dangerous shot- This is not necessarily at the goalie, but a dangerous shot can be when someone shoots and a defensive player who is legitimately guarding (within a stick's length) another offensive player (or the shooter) closer to the goal could be or is hurt by the shot. Basically, if someone is guarding someone right on the crease, they shouldn't be put in harms ways since they happen to be right by the goal if that's where the offensive player is. Prevents a lot of shots to the face. Well, maybe not prevents, but at least penalizes it.

Out of bounds- Women used to not have boundary lines. It was awesome. Sigh.

[bird]

Dangerous shot- This is not necessarily at the goalie, but a dangerous shot can be when someone shoots and a defensive player who is legitimately guarding (within a stick's length) another offensive player (or the shooter) closer to the goal could be or is hurt by the shot. Basically, if someone is guarding someone right on the crease, they shouldn't be put in harms ways since they happen to be right by the goal if that's where the offensive player is. Prevents a lot of shots to the face. Well, maybe not prevents, but at least penalizes it.

Out of bounds- Women used to not have boundary lines. It was awesome. Sigh.

My least favorite rules actually are in women's LAX. Put pads on 'em, and let them play!

[throatybeard]

1) Greybeard, that's absurd. You're arguing that the reason the sport hasn't caught on is that the fundamental skill is hard? Relative to the general populace, that's true of almost every athletic skill. Baseball is tremendously popular in this country. I'd like to see Joe Schmoe hit a 95mph fastball.

2) Others: "Worst rule ever" ought to affect outcome, not trivial issues of how baseball gets scored for stats.