Friday, April 2, 2010

Explanation, please?

I at least pretend to understand the reasoning behind most rules in sports.
That said, there are a few that just don't make sense to me.
Furthermore, there are other rules that create a "punk move" potential that I just don't like.
As a side bar, I will define "punk move" as any play, game decision, or physical movement that would make me want to punch the person doing so in the head.
Not that I WOULD punch them in the head, but that I would want to.
So I decided to list my top five aggravating rules of sport for you with a detailed description of my dilemma, since you obviously care about my opinions on sports rules.

#5- College Football Pass Interference
The rule is the same as the professional game, but it's the penalty that I don't get. In the pro game, the penalty is a spot foul, with the offense getting the ball wherever the penalty occurred. In college, it's a fifteen-yard penalty, which hurts the defense...unless the penalty took place fifty yards downfield. This is the first appearance of the "punk move"- the intentional pass interference because a defensive back knows he's been beat.

#4- "Intentional" Foul in All Levels of Basketball
Basically, the Referee's Convention needs to either re-think this call, or eliminate it. If everyone in the arena knows you're going to foul in the last minute when you're losing by four, you tell the ref you're going to do so, and then you run up and hug the ballcarrier, that's an intentional foul. Yet it's not called as such, and this prolongs and even changes the game. Not that fouling is a bad strategy, but the fact that the same foul is called differently depending on what the clock says is just weird to me. If the defender clearly INTENDED to FOUL the guy with the ball, that makes the call clearly an INTENTIONAL FOUL. Note that "intentional" is the adjective form of the verb "intend," which is what makes the connection between the bold words in the above sentence. That's a little grammar lesson for the kids at home.

#3- Taking a Charge in Basketball
So I agree that the rule needs to be in place that, if a ball handler is out of control and runs over or strikes a defender, the foul should be on the ball handler. That said, intentionally taking a charge any distance from the basket is a "punk move" in my book. Many will argue that this shows an incredible amount of patience and timing, but I will argue back that so does running over a poodle with a golf cart. Neither is actually a gutsy move. The gutsy play is to find a way to block the shot, steal the ball, or just plain defend the ball handler. I especially hate to see the "help defender" slide over and take the charge because it's usually a 6'8" or taller post player wincing and flopping like a sissy while a 6'2" guard gets called for a foul for running into a brick wall. Here's a shorter synopsis... swat the shot or get out of the way!

#2 Holding... On the Offense... 10-yard Penalty from the spot of the foul... Replay the Down?
I like things to be logical. In the game of football, a false start occurs before the play begins, so it's a ten yard penalty from the line of scrimmage and you play that down again, because the down never happened. That makes sense. A holding penalty costs the offense ten yards from the spot of the foul because the play HAD to happen for the offensive player to commit the penalty, but the down is replayed. Huh? Granted, if the situation is right, the defense can just decline the penalty and take the result of the play instead, but this is odd. Wouldn't it make more sense if it was either a ten-yard penalty from the line of scrimmage with a replay of the down or a penalty from the spot and you move on to the next down? I'll use an example: My partner in crime Craig "Boogey" Foster carries the ball 15 yards down field, but I hold a defender at the 12-yard mark. Which makes the least sense as a result of a PENALTY: 1st and 20, 2nd and 8, or 1st and 8? You could argue which of the first two options is the best, but the third is the worst to me, and that's what is currently in use. What's even worse is that, under the current system, a statistician has to give the ball carrier two yards and what could result in five carries in a four-down series. Odd, just odd.

#1 The Dropped Strike, Run to First Rule in Baseball
If you claim this rule makes sense to you, you are a dirtier liar than they guys who say 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea. Under NO circumstances should a pitcher have to get four outs in an inning simply because the catcher spaced out or the breaking ball was that nasty. That would be like saying that a fly-out didn't count if the shortstop dropped the lob-in from the outfielder. Yet, for some reason, no one has thought to take this rule off the books. If you're dumb enough to swing at a pitch so far out of the strike zone that the catcher can't reach it and it rolls all the way to the back stop, there shouldn't be a reward for that. Guys already on base should be able to advance, but the batter should go sit down in the corner and think about what he just did.

So that's it. That's the list.
Feel free to disagree with me, write your own list, or just tell me how dumb my opinions on these rules really are.
My e-mail is jtimm684@gmail.com, or you can just comment on this post.
Whatever you do, tell your friends about this blog because I'm about to start writing with more regularity, and I hope there are some brilliant posts to come.
Until then, keep your "punk moves" to a minimum.

1 comment:

Andre Asbury said...

I agree with almost everything you write in here except the dropped third strike. I mean, to get a put out in the field you have to catch the ball so why should there be a special rule that the catcher doesn't have to catch the ball also. In most situations where a player does reach base on a third strike, at least in high level baseball, it's because the batter see that it's going to be a wild pitch and tries to take advantage of the opportunity to get a free base.

You got any take on the offisdes rule in soccer?