Good Rules and Bad Rules

Every sport needs rules to assure fair competition. Good rules are intended to assure that skill is rewarded and deliberate cheating is penalized. The logic of some rules is questionable, but most any dispute can be settled by the KEY QUESTIONS, which are "Was there any unfair advantage gained by an unintentional minor violation?", and "Did this have anything to do with skill?". In other words, there is a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The spirit of the law calls for sportsmanship, the letter of the law, without considering the context, is for lemmings incapable of rational thought. Here are some examples:

Golf - A back issue of Sports Illustrated tells a story of a guy in Arizona leading a local tournament by 5 strokes. While walking up the last fairway, victory assured, his young son runs up to him and he lets the kid carry his putter up to the green, what a thrill for the kid, right? As a result, the guy is disqualified for having more than one caddy. Now read the KEY QUESTIONS again, and you will have to admit that there was no unfair advantage gained, and this had nothing to do with skill, so the incident should have been waved off, and in the interest of good sportsmanship, the 2nd place player should have insisted on waving it off. Instead, the ruling stood, which means if you want to be a good lemming, you have to follow all the other lemmings and jump off the cliff into the sea because it is the rule if you want to be a real lemming. I hope the poor kid does not carry a scar for the rest of his life because local officials did not have the guts to overrule this minor unintentional infraction that had no bearing on the competition.

Golf - Dan Forsman’s caddie was only trying to help when he stopped a ball from rolling into a bunker while Brett Quigley was taking a free drop due to a plugged lie. The rule says after 2 drops that roll away, you are allowed to place the ball, so the caddie was just trying to save time. The result was a penalty for caddie interference. So I guess you are supposed to just let the ball roll and disappear into a water hazard as well and lose 2 more balls to avoid a penalty. Now read the KEY QUESTIONS again, and you will have to admit that there was no unfair advantage gained, and this had nothing to do with skill, so the incident should have been waved off, unless of course, the official is a lemming.

Golf is not alone when it comes to stupid rules, here are some examples:

Basketball - A dribbler makes a good move and dribbles past a defender to attempt a layup. The defender prevents the layup by fouling the dribbler before the shot. Hello, a foul is an illegal move, that's why it is called a foul. So you can make an illegal move to legally stop a shooter from making a basket. Hockey has the right idea, allow play to continue until the offense loses possession, then halt play for the foul. Another example for basketball would be a defender who braces for impact of an aggressive drive to the basket, and the defender gets called for the foul because she/he was not standing perfectly still. Hello, who initiated the contact? Wasn’t that the way the rule was originally written?

Hockey - A skillful puck handler weaves thru the defense, only to get his body legally blasted by a bigger stronger player. Where is the skill or finesse in that? However, the fans seem to like that, and it is a business, so when it comes to selling tickets, what do I know? Soccer has the right idea, use yellow cards and red cards for dangerous play.

Soccer – On a penalty kick, which is almost an automatic goal, the goalie is not allowed to move too soon, so as the kick is being made, the goalie has to guess whether or not to dive to the left or right. For pete’s sake, somebody change this stupid rule and let the goalie have a chance by allowing her/him to move sooner.

Football - You can legally hit a person hard enough to knock off his helmet, but a penalty is called if a player removes his helmet away from the play but before the play is over. Just to be consistent (?), the rule for pass interference is waved off if the ball is deemed not catchable. Hello, the guy who removed his helmet was nowhere near the play, so why is that any different than the pass interference rule?

Golf and Football - The Raiders apparently beat the Patriots in the playoffs to get to the Super Bowl. However, upon further review, the obvious fumble is ruled not to be a fumble, and the Patriots go to the Super Bowl instead. Roberto DeVicenzo apparently beats everyone in the Masters but there was an error on the scorecard, not in his favor, so he was not trying to cheat. In the name of rewarding skill, if Roberto had gotten the same courtesy of a “further review”, he obviously would have had his winning score corrected, because the whole world saw the true score. Roberto, to me you are a Masters Champion. For those who do not think so, read the KEY QUESTIONS again and then decide if you are a thinking human being or a good lemming. (Oh boy, the purists are going to get me for that one. Go ahead, let me have it!).

Bowling – Despite limited space on the ball rack, bowlers who are successful because they can throw a big nasty hook are allowed to change balls to shoot at spares. Golf has the right idea. You cannot change balls on the putting green just because the green is too fast or too slow for you.

Local officials should have the right to wave off certain rules when the KEY QUESTIONS justify the situation. It’s all about fairness and rewarding skill. Just because some rules are traditional rules, that does not automatically mean they are good rules. Hey, there are lots of examples of strange rulings in all sports, especially golf. If you have heard some of them, send them in and let's have some fun debating them.
(see www.geocities.com/golfwithjoey)