Dumb rules in sports (6 Viewers)

[Otis]

you dont like LBW rule?

so really you dont like cricket do you?

you dont have to make a thread every day you know otis. quality not quantity.

Quality never got me anywhere, so I just try and saturate the market.

I understand the LBW rule, but that came in probably a century before us now having the video replays at our disposal. I just think it makes common sense that if the ball is shown to be going on to hit the wicket then that is out.


And it's not even now as if they are are saying not out when the ball is pitching outside, they are merely saying upmpire's call and referring it back to the umpire.

 

---

[Sky Blue Kid]

100 years from now there won't be any sports. Football has changed drastically over the last 25 years, f**k me, there wouldn't be any players from that era left on the pitch today, after making tackles that were allowed back then! All this technology doesn't belong in sport, that's what the f**king Refs and linesmen are there for. I Laugh my head off at some of the suggestions being bandied about on this thread(Game looked at ...AFTER the game, looking for "Diving") what a load of bo**ox. The very next game would be called off because neither side would be able to field a team. The game survived for well over 100 years without technology. We didn't have or need it then, we don't need it now! As for Cricket, the bails are an integral part of the wicket(Electronic wickets, f**k off) why not sit on your arse in front of a tv screen playing xbox ffs. Fiction is going to become reality soon, Rollerball will take the place of sport, and wars.(If you've never seen the film...watch it!)

 

[Huckerby]

100 years from now there won't be any sports. Football has changed drastically over the last 25 years, f**k me, there wouldn't be any players from that era left on the pitch today, after making tackles that were allowed back then! All this technology doesn't belong in sport, that's what the f**king Refs and linesmen are there for. I Laugh my head off at some of the suggestions being bandied about on this thread(Game looked at ...AFTER the game, looking for "Diving") what a load of bo**ox. The very next game would be called off because neither side would be able to field a team. The game survived for well over 100 years without technology. We didn't have or need it then, we don't need it now! As for Cricket, the bails are an integral part of the wicket(Electronic wickets, f**k off) why not sit on your arse in front of a tv screen playing xbox ffs. Fiction is going to become reality soon, Rollerball will take the place of sport, and wars.(If you've never seen the film...watch it!)

Keep your hair on pal.

Fine, so let's take your unlikely situation where the next game is called off...the one after that there wouldn't be any diving would there?

Diving isn't part of the game is cheating and it's embarrassing. I imagine back in yester year it wasn't something so common.

So you disagree with retrospective punishment completely then? So if a player twats somebody in the face off the ball and noone sees it they should get away with it?

You do talk some shit don't you, and you're so aggressive about it....

 

[Hobo]

I am waiting for someone to score a goal, run to their fans taking their shirt off and throwing it into the crowd. Underneath they are still wearing a numbered club shirt.

would the ref have to book him for removing a shirt in celebration?

 

[lewys33]

I'd say penalising someone in rugby for 'not releasing' when under a pile of 20 stone men is a little dubious. Penalties in sport should be awarded for deliberate infringement of the rules, I think.

How is it dubious? You are supposed to release the ball immediately. You would be surprised how quickly they will release the ball when several penalties have been given away and someone in the sin bin.

 

[ccfcway]

100 years from now there won't be any sports. Football has changed drastically over the last 25 years, f**k me, there wouldn't be any players from that era left on the pitch today, after making tackles that were allowed back then! All this technology doesn't belong in sport, that's what the f**king Refs and linesmen are there for. I Laugh my head off at some of the suggestions being bandied about on this thread(Game looked at ...AFTER the game, looking for "Diving") what a load of bo**ox. The very next game would be called off because neither side would be able to field a team. The game survived for well over 100 years without technology. We didn't have or need it then, we don't need it now! As for Cricket, the bails are an integral part of the wicket(Electronic wickets, f**k off) why not sit on your arse in front of a tv screen playing xbox ffs. Fiction is going to become reality soon, Rollerball will take the place of sport, and wars.(If you've never seen the film...watch it!)

hate to mention it, but technology has been used in football since it started. How else does the ref know when its HT ?

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Keep your hair on pal. Fine, so let's take your unlikely situation where the next game is called off...the one after that there wouldn't be any diving would there? Diving isn't part of the game is cheating and it's embarrassing. I imagine back in yester year it wasn't something so common. So you disagree with retrospective punishment completely then? So if a player twats somebody in the face off the ball and noone sees it they should get away with it? You do talk some shit don't you, and you're so aggressive about it....

I think you're taking what I say totally the wrong way mate. I'm saying with technology being introduced more and more into sport, it no longer becomes a sport does it. Refs/Umpires take coaching/badges/exams, over a long period of time(Sometimes years) to be overuled on decisions by computers, tv's, etc. Why should they bother? "Slow mo" replays being played over, and over, and over again to see if contact was actually made to decide if it was/wasn't a penalty/foul/punch/kick. A decision is made by a Ref instantly sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Serious foul play being "Looked at again" I totally agree with, but stupid ideas about diving, or did the ball cross the line, "Man up" for God's sake, these sort of things should be left up to the Ref/Umpire to make decisions on. Too much high tech in sport will kill it. As for me being aggressive, I'm sorry if it comes across like that, it's passion mate. Like I've already said, there will be no sport in the not too distant future, only fiction becoming reality...Rollerball(Watch the film)

 

[Houchens Head]

Tiddlywinks! Now there's a game that needs its outdated rules looking at! Just had a look at the English Tiddlywinks Association Rules. "Squidging", "Squopped up", "Squidge-off". Almost as daft as "Silly mid-on"! Unbelievable! Just an example.........

11. A player may choose to pass rather than to play a shot. If this is done, the pass constitutes a shot and the opponents must be informed.
11.1 In some cases a player may be unable to play a shot because there are no free winks of the colour to be played, or because that colour was forfeiting a shot according to Rule 14. In these cases the player is deemed to pass with immediate effect.

There are 26 long-winded rules in all! And I thought this was a kids game!

 

[chiefdave]

There was a situation in the recent Cricket WC final when the ball hit the wicket but the bails did not come off. The batsman was therefore not out. Seems like they need electronic stumps that ring a buzzer when the ball or the player touches them. The 'bails' are an outmoded concept.

They do have electronic stumps, the stumps and wickets light up when the stumps come off and that's what's caused the problem as they are heavier than regular stumps. It's happened more than once during the world cup.

 

[Covstu]

I think you're taking what I say totally the wrong way mate. I'm saying with technology being introduced more and more into sport, it no longer becomes a sport does it. Refs/Umpires take coaching/badges/exams, over a long period of time(Sometimes years) to be overuled on decisions by computers, tv's, etc. Why should they bother? "Slow mo" replays being played over, and over, and over again to see if contact was actually made to decide if it was/wasn't a penalty/foul/punch/kick. A decision is made by a Ref instantly sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Serious foul play being "Looked at again" I totally agree with, but stupid ideas about diving, or did the ball cross the line, "Man up" for God's sake, these sort of things should be left up to the Ref/Umpire to make decisions on. Too much high tech in sport will kill it. As for me being aggressive, I'm sorry if it comes across like that, it's passion mate. Like I've already said, there will be no sport in the not too distant future, only fiction becoming reality...Rollerball(Watch the film)

Previously there wasnt £100M riding on the game like there is now with 20 cameras pulling the poor ref apart week after week. I know what you mean and to a certain extent agree with what you are saying, its always been good to debate wrong decisions etc but football in particualr has moved on significantly and they need technology to help keep up with it. You only have to look at the design in balls, kits, fitness, diets, stadia to name a few which reflect the change in which the game has changed.

If you listen to talksport etc all you hear is about how bad the ref is and that they keep getting decisions wrong, i dont think they are that worse (maybe a little this season) but previously these decisions havn't been analysed to the nth degree.

Rollerball was shite film by the way...

 

[Grendel]

100 years from now there won't be any sports. Football has changed drastically over the last 25 years, f**k me, there wouldn't be any players from that era left on the pitch today, after making tackles that were allowed back then! All this technology doesn't belong in sport, that's what the f**king Refs and linesmen are there for. I Laugh my head off at some of the suggestions being bandied about on this thread(Game looked at ...AFTER the game, looking for "Diving") what a load of bo**ox. The very next game would be called off because neither side would be able to field a team. The game survived for well over 100 years without technology. We didn't have or need it then, we don't need it now! As for Cricket, the bails are an integral part of the wicket(Electronic wickets, f**k off) why not sit on your arse in front of a tv screen playing xbox ffs. Fiction is going to become reality soon, Rollerball will take the place of sport, and wars.(If you've never seen the film...watch it!)

Football is right to not allow the characters you are referring to.

Crude thugs like Chopper Harris and Bite your legs Hunter had a sole purpose to destroy and remove grace from the game. Their like are not missed.

 

[Covstu]

They do have electronic stumps, the stumps and wickets light up when the stumps come off and that's what's caused the problem as they are heavier than regular stumps. It's happened more than once during the world cup.

Keep the bails the way they are, if the player has the luck of the bails not being lifted then fair play to him. The example in the WC was that the bails jumped and landed back on the stumps! Freak luck but it happens!

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

I believe there is not actually a law or rule in the game of football that limits the dimension of keepers gloves.....

....With that in mind, can we have a whip-round & get some of these for Burge?

 

[Huckerby]

I think you're taking what I say totally the wrong way mate. I'm saying with technology being introduced more and more into sport, it no longer becomes a sport does it. Refs/Umpires take coaching/badges/exams, over a long period of time(Sometimes years) to be overuled on decisions by computers, tv's, etc. Why should they bother? "Slow mo" replays being played over, and over, and over again to see if contact was actually made to decide if it was/wasn't a penalty/foul/punch/kick. A decision is made by a Ref instantly sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Serious foul play being "Looked at again" I totally agree with, but stupid ideas about diving, or did the ball cross the line, "Man up" for God's sake, these sort of things should be left up to the Ref/Umpire to make decisions on. Too much high tech in sport will kill it. As for me being aggressive, I'm sorry if it comes across like that, it's passion mate. Like I've already said, there will be no sport in the not too distant future, only fiction becoming reality...Rollerball(Watch the film)

Apologies for misinterpreting your aggression.

I think to an extent what you're saying is right, but it's definitely not an "all or nothing" situation. As CovStu says...nowadays refs are being pulled apart for decisions that are made in a split second, by 5 different cameras over and over again with all sorts of technology. If we are going to critique them in this manner (and I enjoy the analysis!) then we have to give them the same benefit of seeing a replay. Not on every decision about whether it's a throw in or not. But on whether it's a goal (which we do now), or a penalty. Maybe it should be the refs choice which ones he needs help on. It should be a tool for the referee, not the crown/fans.

It can be overused to the point of ruining it and we have more breaks than playing time, like american football, but don't Tennis do something where they can challenge something and it works quite well?

I think that retrospective punishment for diving is absolutely essential. Kids are growing up prancing around and falling like they've been shot and rolling 6 times like fucking Neymar and its embarrassing to watch. Stamp it out.

 

[shmmeee]

Three that annoy me:

- High feet. I know it's about safety or whatever, but technically any overhead kick would be banned. The game is football and you should always be able to go for the ball with your feet IMO.
- "Shepherding" the ball. It's fucking obstruction, they have no intention of playing the ball. Only allowed in certain areas of the pitch, you couldn't do it anywhere else.
- Players who are offside when the ball is kicked but onside when they recieve the ball should be classed as onside IMO.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Previously there wasnt £100M riding on the game like there is now with 20 cameras pulling the poor ref apart week after week. I know what you mean and to a certain extent agree with what you are saying, its always been good to debate wrong decisions etc but football in particualr has moved on significantly and they need technology to help keep up with it. You only have to look at the design in balls, kits, fitness, diets, stadia to name a few which reflect the change in which the game has changed. If you listen to talksport etc all you hear is about how bad the ref is and that they keep getting decisions wrong, i dont think they are that worse (maybe a little this season) but previously these decisions havn't been analysed to the nth degree. Rollerball was shite film by the way...

I don't mind the "20 cameras pulling the poor ref apart week after week." and I don't mind the "If you listen to talksport etc all you hear is about how bad the ref is and that they keep getting decisions wrong," THAT, is what the game is all about, and how it should stay...."Human Error" is part and parcel of sport. That's what makes sport exciting to watch and debate for the next week in work till the next game comes around again. Can you imagine if every minute detail of the game was analysed by "Slow Mo's" for the next 24 hours before a decision wether to let a goal stand, or if that player should have a red card. How many would debate that, "The computer and panel" still got that decision wrong? How many would be saying, their player tripped our CB and scored and it cost us 3 points? How many would debate that the "Winning goal" we scored was miles off side but we got away with it? Keeping mouths firmly shut on that one eh? There wouldn't be any debating, and no need for forums like this one!........The James Caan film from 1975 was much better than the later version, but the Idea of my post remains the same.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Whilst you bring up "Talk Sport" I remember when Mike Parry and Alan Brazil presented the sports breakfast some 6 months previous to the 9-11 disaster, in which Parry would often talk about technology in sport, and in particular, Football. a subject (btw) Brazil never questioned Parry about. Parry very often said it was bad for football, and the sport was "Going to hell in a handcart" do you remember that?

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Three that annoy me:

- High feet. I know it's about safety or whatever, but technically any overhead kick would be banned. The game is football and you should always be able to go for the ball with your feet IMO.
- "Shepherding" the ball. It's fucking obstruction, they have no intention of playing the ball. Only allowed in certain areas of the pitch, you couldn't do it anywhere else.
- Players who are offside when the ball is kicked but onside when they recieve the ball should be classed as onside IMO.

Agree on the shepherding of the ball it is crazy and they start doing it around the 18 yard box.

Booking of goalkeepers for time wasting has there ever been an occasion where one has been sent off for it or show two yellow cards for the same offence and sent off, they get booked and carry on again, should be a direct free on the edge of the box in any area the team wants it.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Whilst you bring up "Talk Sport" I remember when Mike Parry and Alan Brazil presented the sports breakfast some 6 months previous to the 9-11 disaster, in which Parry would often talk about technology in sport, and in particular, Football. a subject (btw) Brazil never questioned Parry about. Parry very often said it was bad for football, and the sport was "Going to hell in a handcart" do you remember that?

Is that the one where parry spoke about wing mirrors for horses as well?

 

[Paxman II]

If you did this you would be strangling the very nature of the game. There needs to be fewer 'whistle stops' in the game. Let the referee do his job.

 

[Covstu]

I don't mind the "20 cameras pulling the poor ref apart week after week." and I don't mind the "If you listen to talksport etc all you hear is about how bad the ref is and that they keep getting decisions wrong," THAT, is what the game is all about, and how it should stay...."Human Error" is part and parcel of sport. That's what makes sport exciting to watch and debate for the next week in work till the next game comes around again. Can you imagine if every minute detail of the game was analysed by "Slow Mo's" for the next 24 hours before a decision wether to let a goal stand, or if that player should have a red card. How many would debate that, "The computer and panel" still got that decision wrong? How many would be saying, their player tripped our CB and scored and it cost us 3 points? How many would debate that the "Winning goal" we scored was miles off side but we got away with it? Keeping mouths firmly shut on that one eh? There wouldn't be any debating, and no need for forums like this one!........The James Caan film from 1975 was much better than the later version, but the Idea of my post remains the same.

Human error is one thing that was accepted before but not anymore, you may not mind refs getting hammered but they need someone to defend themselves and technology does that. Manager should be able to pull technology one (maybe two) times a game on big decisions similar to what they do in tennis. It wouldnt slow the game down as the game had stopped anyway but actually may add a bit of drama which can help the game.

I will look at the other film and review....

 

[Nonleagueherewecome]

One thing in cricket that really annoys me is the Hawkeye and review system, whereby a decision goes upstairs.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the object of the game of cricket to get players out by either hitting the wickets or by catches from the batsman hitting the ball in the air?

I therefore just cannot get my head round a decision that goes upstairs and the replay shows the ball was actually going to hit the stumps, but that because it was pitched outside the line it doesn't count. If it was going to hit the stumps it was going to hit the stumps wasn't it? Surely if the ball is shown that it would have been hitting the stumps then to my mind that should be out.

Some really trivial penalties in rugby annoy me too. A tiny, silly little foul and suddenly it results in 3 points and this happens with extreme regularity. At times it also seems like the ref has to explain the foul on many occasions, to players with baffled looks on their faces.


Thought the Montenegro Euro qualifier thing was wrong on Friday too. A Russian player during the game is hit by a flare thrown from the Montenegrin crowd, which puts him out of the game and yet Russia are charged with using one of their subs. Even more annoying as it is their first choice keeper, in which is obviously a very key role to any team.


Any other dumb rules to be found out there in the world of sports?

Firstly, if the ball pitched outside leg-stump (not off-stump), it cannot result in an LBW decision because that is the law. It has nothing to do with the replays whatsoever. It's no dumber a rule than any other, it's the rule of the game and has been for decades.

What I think you probably actually have an issue with is probably the way that the ball can be hitting the stumps but not given out when it goes to a Decision Review if the original umpire's decision was that it was not out; in these circumstances, more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the wicket. This is to allow for the fact that the umpire may still be slightly better than the technology. Which is fair enough as DRS is designed to rule out "the absolute howler", rather than adjudicate fine-line decisions.

 

[Hobo]

Players in an off side position but deemed not to be interfering with play? If they are blocking the keepers view of the ball, or step over the path of the ball....how is that not interfering with play?

 

[Nick]

Players in an off side position but deemed not to be interfering with play? If they are blocking the keepers view of the ball, or step over the path of the ball....how is that not interfering with play?

That is interfering with play isn't it?

 

[Otis]

Firstly, if the ball pitched outside leg-stump (not off-stump), it cannot result in an LBW decision because that is the law. It has nothing to do with the replays whatsoever. It's no dumber a rule than any other, it's the rule of the game and has been for decades.

What I think you probably actually have an issue with is probably the way that the ball can be hitting the stumps but not given out when it goes to a Decision Review if the original umpire's decision was that it was not out; in these circumstances, more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the wicket. This is to allow for the fact that the umpire may still be slightly better than the technology. Which is fair enough as DRS is designed to rule out "the absolute howler", rather than adjudicate fine-line decisions.

Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about. I am not talking about the umpire's original decision, I am talking about when it has been referred upstairs and is shown to be quite clearly hitting the stumps.

 

[Otis]

That is interfering with play isn't it?

Some people would argue that every time Adam Barton takes to the field he is interfering with the play

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Firstly, if the ball pitched outside leg-stump (not off-stump), it cannot result in an LBW decision because that is the law. It has nothing to do with the replays whatsoever. It's no dumber a rule than any other, it's the rule of the game and has been for decades.

What I think you probably actually have an issue with is probably the way that the ball can be hitting the stumps but not given out when it goes to a Decision Review if the original umpire's decision was that it was not out; in these circumstances, more than 50% of the ball has to be hitting the wicket. This is to allow for the fact that the umpire may still be slightly better than the technology. Which is fair enough as DRS is designed to rule out "the absolute howler", rather than adjudicate fine-line decisions.

I think he's saying the actual law is stupid, why does it matter if the ball pitches outside of leg stump? Does pitching outside leg stump give the bowler some sort of unfair advantage with regards to LBW?

Also as part of the LBW law, if the ball impacts the pads outside the line of off stump it is not out (even if it was going onto hit the wickets) Whats the reason for that?

 

[Otis]

I think he's saying the actual law is stupid, why does it matter if the ball pitches outside of leg stump? Does pitching outside leg stump give the bowler some sort of unfair advantage with regards to LBW?

Also as part of the LBW law, if the ball impacts the pads outside the line of off stump it is not out (even if it was going onto hit the wickets) Whats the reason for that?

Just doesn't sound right does it.

 

[stupot07]

I think he's saying the actual law is stupid, why does it matter if the ball pitches outside of leg stump? Does pitching outside leg stump give the bowler some sort of unfair advantage with regards to LBW?

Also as part of the LBW law, if the ball impacts the pads outside the line of off stump it is not out (even if it was going onto hit the wickets) Whats the reason for that?

I think its because bowling outside leg is very negative line and difficult to score from, so if you allowed outside leg lbw's every bowler would bowl that way.

a batsman can be given out if it hits outside off stump if the batman offers no stroke.

 

[Woz01]

Speedway has a crazy rule where if a team is 10 points back then they can pick a rider for 'double points'. If that rider wins and his team mate comes 2nd it becomes an 8-1 and then the team losing is only 3 points behind. It's pretty much punishing a side for being too far ahead. It's like someone being 3-0 up in football but then if the other score it counts as 2.

 

[ccfcway]

If you did this you would be strangling the very nature of the game. There needs to be fewer 'whistle stops' in the game. Let the referee do his job.

Far to much riding one letting on guy make a call as he sees it.

Rugby has it right.

 

[SkyBlueSid]

I am waiting for someone to score a goal, run to their fans taking their shirt off and throwing it into the crowd. Underneath they are still wearing a numbered club shirt.

would the ref have to book him for removing a shirt in celebration?

Exactly that happened at Highfield Road in 1998. We were playing Sheffield United in the FA Cup and a player called Marcello equalised right on half time. He took off his shirt to celebrate and threw it to someone, but had an identical one on underneath.

I am not sure if he got a yellow card. Probably not as it may not have been a mandatory card back then.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I'd bring in video technology under these rules
Goals: Everytime a goal is scored a video ref can be watching the replay whilst the team celebrates, checks for any infringement so foul/handball/offside etc. No infringement, referee does nothing restarts game as normal it would be exactly as it is now, clear infringement goal ruled out, if its undecided on the replay the referee can blow the whistle and just say hang on a sec while we have another look.
Off the ball incidents: This can be ongoing throughout the 90 minutes, video ref spots off the ball incident, alerts the ref through headset and ref takes appropriate action. Doesn't matter if incident was 5 minutes back, referee can blow whistle and send off player if necessary and has been caught on camera by the video ref.
All tackles, fouls, penalties etc. should be decided by the referee out on the field. I'm not keen on video referrals by the ref as it could become farcial if he refers a decision every 10 minutes and also encourages lazy refereeing.
Having the team have 'challenges' is nonsensical and should never enter football.
Diving and simulation should be punished retrospectively.

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Is that the one where parry spoke about wing mirrors for horses as well?

lol I vaguely remember something about that. One thing I do remember vividly is top players were on approx £70-80k per match. He said "There has to be a cap introduced, I can see wages rocketing to £250k to £300k per game, everyone took the piss out of him. Who was right in the end?

 

[Hobo]

That is interfering with play isn't it?

Rooney recently moved out of the path of the ball on the edge of the six yard box, the ball went in, goal. Why because he made no attempt to play the ball. Moving away from the balls path is not interfering even though he was between keeper and the ball.