I am watching the Giants-Saints game and Joe Horn just fumbled the ball against the pylon. Any other time the offensive player fumbles and it goes out of bounds before the a defensive player can gain possession, the ball rightfully stays with the offense, because the defense never took it away from them. So why penalize the team for fumbling in the end zone? How is that any different than fumbling at midfield? Why not just give the ball to the offense at the spot of the fumble? What are some other rules in the various sports that you simply don't understand or agree with?

I think they should change that pylon rule and make the pylon part of the playing field. If it hits the pylon and goes out of bounds in the endzone, it should go to the other team. If it stays in bounds after hitting the pylon, it should be a live ball.

Other rules I don't get or rules I think are dumb:
- The Balk rule in baseball (it's not dumb, I just haven't seen enough of it)
- They changed it this year, but in football, if a punting team committed a penalty after the punt, they had to rekick. This was a dumb rule because it overrode a good return or a bad punt.
- I don't like the NFL's sudden-death overtime rules.
- Not really a rule, but I think some form of instant reply should be used in all the major sports.
- I don't like the false start rules in sprinting and swimming.

The NFL should have Kansas City Tiebraker rules, just like in College.

Baseball, especially. I know many don't like it because it takes away from the "tradition" of the game, and I once felt that way. But I've seen too many bad calls this year, it's really necessary. A game shouldn't be decided because of a bad call.

I don't care for sudden death overtime either. Places too much importance on the coin flip and simply getting into field goal range.

Have a time limit, or at least a guarantee that both teams have the ball at least once.

Then a team will think twice when they have a first down on the other teams 20 on the first OT possession. They won't be so quick to run it up the middle twice and try a FG on 3rd down, knowing that if the other team comes back with a TD, they would lose.

I don't like the "ground can't cause a fumble" rule, either.

It's the guy's responsibility to hold onto the ball. Maybe he got hit so hard he was dazed when he hit the ground, and fumbled because of the hit. A fumble is a fumble.

The three-point line in basketball is too close. The shot should be really hard, so teams only try it when they are desperate.

I like the rule. If it's a definate complete pass or firm possession is established on a run then as soon as that player hits the floor, as long as he's down by contact, then the play is dead regardless if the ball is fumbled. I only think it's debatable if the ground caused a fumble where the player wasn't down by contact. Then the play is still very much alive. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what happens?

I instantly thought of this rule as Jimmy Buffer was on about the pylon rule. The pylons, in effect, are an extension of the ground. I haven't seen the play but if Horn established possession in and hit the pylon then it should be a touchdown.

I've got another dumb rule. The current interpretation of the offside rule in soccer. Traditionally it's been a great rule and has stopped strikers just goal poaching. But last years interpretation was a farce where you can be in an offside position as long as you didn't interfere with play. But this year it's even worse. You can be offside as long as you don't touch the ball first.

What's worse about the whole thing is there's no consistency amongst referees and linesmen. I'm seeing completely different calls from game to game.

Offside should be offside. It should be back to basics.

In college each offense gets a possession. That levels the opportunity and creates some strategy; kick or go for it.

'The ground can't cause a fumble' is stupid. That's part of the tackle. It should fall into the realm of continuous motion. Hit-fall-ground-fumble...free ball! And if it's not part of the tackle then it's butter-fingers....free ball!

Also, synchronized swimming should be done naked. How do we know that everything is in synch?

I completely agree Turi, the current "interpretation" is a mess.

For abour 70 years there were three determinants in deciding offside. The player had to be a) in an offside position, b) interfering with play, c) seeking to gain an advantage. Broadly referees only took into consideration the first, if he was in an offisde position he was offside. That seemed to work fairly well so all this bollocks about active-passive and not being offisde until you touch the ball has only served to confuse matters greatly.

And now it's not only women who are confused by the rule.

Luckily there seems to be less messing about in the lower leagues. I attend all the Scunny home games and the flag is up as soon as the ball is passed if someone is in the offside position. But I can imagine some confusion in tonights game against Birmingham. Up the Iron! Hopefully I'll be witnessing an upset and Spurs and Man City destroy Grimsby and Donny.

The reason for making the rule where the defense gets the ball if an offensive player fumbles the ball going into the end zone is because in the past, an offensive player who was about to cross the goal line but was being taken down from behind or was falling down right before the goal line, would sometimes intentionally fumble the ball forward in hopes that another from his team would recover it in the end zone. This was a practice if a team was losing, the clock had run out, and the offensive player on the losing team was about to go into the endzone and was being brought down before the goal line. They would "take a shot" that another player from their team would recover that fumble and win or tie the game for them. If it was recovered by the offensive team, they could win or tie the game. If it is recovered by the defense, then at least they had taken a shot and it didn't matter. Before that rule was made, the losong team had nothig to lose by taking a gamble like that to try and win at the end of the game.
So now it is just a blanket rule.

What I think is a stupid rule is the delay of game penalty. If a team is called for a delay of game, then it should also lose the down. Many times a team intentionally delays the game on 4th down and say 4 yards to go while in punt formation, to try and draw the defense offsides in order to get a first down from the offside penalty. If it works, then fine. But if it doesn't, then what has the team who intentionally delayed the snap lost? A few more yards with the ability to still punt the ball. Or even in the case where a winning team is letting the clock run down and let's the play clock run out, not caring about a penalty. They should lose the down also.


Don Cardi

Kansas City Tiebraker rules? [/b][/quote]That's what they were called last time I checked.

I understand why the offense can't advance the fumble and understand what you're saying DC, but it still seems dumb to me. They have similiar rules anywhere on the field. If it's 3rd down and the offensive player needs to get a first down and is near the sideline, he could merely fumble the ball forwards out of bounds and hope that it gets past the marker for a first down. The offense obviously wouldn't get the first down because of the rule you mentioned, but they would keep possession at the spot of the fumble and it would be 4th down. So what I'm saying is why doesn't the offensive team just keep possession at the spot of the fumble when it goes out of the endzone? If it was 4th down or time had expired when the player fumbled, then either the drive or game would be over so it wouldn't matter, but if it is second down and the offense fumbles the ball at the opponents 3 yard line and it rolls out of the endzone before the defense can gain possession, then why not just give the offense the ball at the 3 and it will be 3rd down? That's what they'd do if they fumbled it out of bounds on the 50 yard line, so why punish a team for driving down the field?

According to the NFL, the winner of the coin toss in overtime wins the game just a shade over 50% of the time.

Also, spot the ball at the 30 or 35 yard line, maybe even the 40, to start college overtime. Force the team to put together a decent offensive drive. Otherwise, keep it at the 25 and eliminate the field goal and extra point in overtime. Force the offense to score the touchdown and make the two-point conversion, or have the defense stop them.

I never liked the "two line" offsides in the NHL. But this year, hasn't the NHL has changed the rule so they'll "ignore" the center line and eliminate the two-line offsides? It will be interesting to see how, at NHL speeds, the teams adapt to a rule that was largely meant to open-up the college game.

tony b.