The Dumbest Rules in Sports

As a sports fan, I consider myself a conservative. You know, a staunch advocate of small government, minimal regulation, and free enterprise. As such, I have no patience for rules that serve no apparent purpose other than to give the official a reason to blow his whistle. Nor do I understand rules that reward or punish teams for no good reason.

And here they are: the most annoying examples of sports rules we would all be better without:

1. College basketball's five seconds closely guarded rule: In the college game, a team has but 35 seconds to possess the ball. They should be able to do whatever they wish with the ball during that time. If a player wants to spend the time putting on an unproductive dribbling show, so be it.

But why do we affirmatively reward defensive players for simply doing what they are supposed to do? If the defender wants to obtain possession of the ball, he should go the next step and take it. The referee should not order a possession turnover merely because a defender manages to stand four feet from the ball handler for five consecutive seconds.

2. Pro Basketball's illegal defense: In 2001, the NBA took a step in the right direction by eliminating the mysterious and annoying "illegal defense" rule. But not entirely. As a compromise measure, the league instituted the equally stupid defensive three seconds rule. The rule prohibits a defensive player from remaining in the painted lane for three seconds while not defending another player. Thankfully, the college game enforces no such rule.

The rationale for the three second lane, as applied to offense, makes sense enough. But why should defenses be prohibited from setting up wherever they wish? The reasoning is supposed to be to prevent a large player, such as a Shaquille O'Neal or a Theo Ratliff, from clogging the lane. But shouldn't that be the defender's prerogative? And if a big man wishes to defend nothing but the lane, the offensive team's remedy should be for the opposing player to feast off of the resulting wide open ten to twelve foot shots that he will enjoy.

3. Baseball's dropped third strike rule: We all know the song: "For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out at the old ball game." Well, not really. Actually, you're out after three strikes - unless the catcher drops the ball while first base is unoccupied. Can someone explain to me why a batter should get new life just because the catcher drops the ball? What on earth should that have to do with anything?

This pointless rule also has an unfair impact on knuckle ballers, who are regularly penalized for having mastered a style of pitching that baffles batters and catchers alike. The rule should be simple: three strikes, and you're out - no ifs, ands, or drops.

4. Football's fair catch: Some of the most exciting plays in a football game occur on special teams. Kick and punt returns bring us twenty players sprinting towards one another at high speeds, with big-time impacts all over the field. That is, of course, assuming the returner chooses against the wimpy way out. There is perhaps no greater anticlimax in sports than the fair catch.

It's also a completely unnecessary rule. Without it, the receiver has two options available. He can either catch the ball and deal with the oncoming defenders, or he can allow it to drop, bounce, and roll wherever it will.

5. Basketball's midcourt timeline: In college basketball, a team must advance the ball over the midcourt line within ten seconds or the ball is turned over. Pro ball now enforces an eight second rule.

Why?

Here again, a team is given a mere 35 seconds to possess the ball in college and only 24 seconds in pro ball. If they want to spend that time piddling around in the backcourt, have at it. The desire to score should be all the incentive needed to induce a team to advance the ball frontcourt as quickly as possible. There is no reason why the defense should be rewarded for gratuitously pressuring the ball seventy feet from the basket.

6. Baseball's Designated Hitter: I know I'm far from the first to complain about this creation of American League baseball, and I'm sure comprehensive discussions of the topic abound. But suffice it to say, a rule designed to relieve an athlete from a fundamental aspect of his game has no place in American sport. What's next? A designated free throw shooter for the Shaquille O'Neals of the world? Maybe a designated tackler who can replace the kicker once the football leaves the tee?

7. Basketball's three point shot: I know I'm probably in the minority here, as lots of folks love the three point shot. And I understand the basic theory here - that longer shots are more difficult and therefore worthy of higher reward. But, in practice, this rule is fraught with fallacy. First of all, an outside shot is certainly not fifty percent more difficult. One could in fact argue that most inside shots are more challenging because they are more aggressively contested. It can also be argued that a team does more to score inside. Think about it: to score inside against a set defense usually requires a series of passes, screens, and strong moves in the paint. The "trifecta," meanwhile, is usually a mere catch and shoot. Sure, there's the occasional high screen, but, by and large, an outside shot requires less overall team play than an inside hoop.

But the real problem with this rule is its all or nothing arbitrariness. In college, a nineteen foot nine inch shot nets three points, but if the shooter's foot is one inch closer, it's a mere two. To make matters worse, we now have referees regularly going to the monitors to review whether the shooter's toe touches the arc or not. Please, spare us this insanity. It's a problem with the rule that will exist no matter where the arc is painted, so the NCAA should forget about moving that arc back a whopping twelve inches. Discard it outright.

8. Basketball's player disqualification rule: I don't think anyone disputes that basketball referees make bad calls. To err is human, particularly in the high paced action of college and professional basketball.

But while the reality of blown calls is perhaps understandable, disqualifying players on top of it all is not. No other sport disqualifies players due to an arbitrarily established maximum foul count. Why should basketball? In my mind, the game of basketball, where so many foul calls are based on a fleeting, split second, subjective judgment, is the last sport that should follow such a rule.

Just think about it for a moment. You can review the game video of virtually any college game in which a key player fouled out, and you will undoubtedly find one or more fouls that should never have been whistled against the player. Games should not be decided on the basis of such injustices.

So there you have it. Eight rules that need to go.