Obvious Rule Patch: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (fix broken external links) |
m (Mass update links) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
*** Chinese chess, Xiangqi, is less forgiving of perpetual checks. If you check five turns in a row without pause, ''you lose the game''. However, in Xiangqi, the general's movement is limited to a small area called the palace, so if you really can't figure out how to checkmate him, you deserve the loss. |
*** Chinese chess, Xiangqi, is less forgiving of perpetual checks. If you check five turns in a row without pause, ''you lose the game''. However, in Xiangqi, the general's movement is limited to a small area called the palace, so if you really can't figure out how to checkmate him, you deserve the loss. |
||
** The castling rules in chess also have an [[Obvious Rule Patch]] requiring the king and the rook to be on the same rank, to prevent the one-in-a-million scenario of a never-moved king using ''vertical'' castling along the e-file with a pawn promoted to rook. |
** The castling rules in chess also have an [[Obvious Rule Patch]] requiring the king and the rook to be on the same rank, to prevent the one-in-a-million scenario of a never-moved king using ''vertical'' castling along the e-file with a pawn promoted to rook. |
||
** And speaking of pawn promotion, that's another rule which is now specified very carefully to avoid certain abuses -- such as remaining a pawn or promoting to an ''enemy'' piece. Yes, there are positions where those options are good, although it's vanishingly unlikely that they'd ever occur. See [ |
** And speaking of pawn promotion, that's another rule which is now specified very carefully to avoid certain abuses -- such as remaining a pawn or promoting to an ''enemy'' piece. Yes, there are positions where those options are good, although it's vanishingly unlikely that they'd ever occur. See [[wikipedia:Joke chess problem#Offbeat interpretations of the rules of chess|here]] for an example of when promoting to an enemy piece is more beneficial. |
||
** There's |
** There's [http://books.google.com/books?id=IopUJv7-_NYC&pg=PA173&dq=%22three+king+circus%22&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22three%20king%20circus%22&f=false one story] where a student promoted his pawn to a king because his teacher, George Koltanowski, had forgotten to mention this was illegal. George says he responded by [[Crowning Moment of Awesome|checkmating both kings at once]]. |
||
* In [[Shogi (Tabletop Game)|Shogi]], almost all games end in checkmate. However, there's a situation which was not originally thought of where it can be impossible for either side to achieve a checkmate if both kings enter the opposing sides promotion ranks. This is called "entering king," and is regarded as one of the only possibilities for a stalemate. If such a position arises, arbitrary rules on counting the amount of pieces 'owned' by each side and assigning a point value to them were created. If either side has less than 24 points, then they lose. If both sides have enough points, then the game is simply replayed over again with the starting move switched to the other player. |
* In [[Shogi (Tabletop Game)|Shogi]], almost all games end in checkmate. However, there's a situation which was not originally thought of where it can be impossible for either side to achieve a checkmate if both kings enter the opposing sides promotion ranks. This is called "entering king," and is regarded as one of the only possibilities for a stalemate. If such a position arises, arbitrary rules on counting the amount of pieces 'owned' by each side and assigning a point value to them were created. If either side has less than 24 points, then they lose. If both sides have enough points, then the game is simply replayed over again with the starting move switched to the other player. |
||
** Another situation arrived relatively recently in shogi professional matches. The rule used to be that if a player caused a repetition of moves three times in a row, the game would be considered a draw. (This would happen through one player dropping a piece, a sacrifice occurring, and then an endless cycle of sacrificing and replacing the same piece.) However, one shogi professional found that he could avoid this rule by switching the type of piece he played every other move, so that the repetition did not occur three times in a row. Under those rules, there was nothing that could be done and play continued with the same moves being made until the defending player finally got fed up and tried something else, allowing the instigator to go on and win. The rules were hastily changed so that if an exact same board position (including pieces in hand) happens four times, regardless of sequence, then it's an automatic draw. (Note that this is different from perpetual check, which results in an auto-loss for the instigator.) |
** Another situation arrived relatively recently in shogi professional matches. The rule used to be that if a player caused a repetition of moves three times in a row, the game would be considered a draw. (This would happen through one player dropping a piece, a sacrifice occurring, and then an endless cycle of sacrificing and replacing the same piece.) However, one shogi professional found that he could avoid this rule by switching the type of piece he played every other move, so that the repetition did not occur three times in a row. Under those rules, there was nothing that could be done and play continued with the same moves being made until the defending player finally got fed up and tried something else, allowing the instigator to go on and win. The rules were hastily changed so that if an exact same board position (including pieces in hand) happens four times, regardless of sequence, then it's an automatic draw. (Note that this is different from perpetual check, which results in an auto-loss for the instigator.) |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
** Another one is the ''agari yame'' [[House Rules|House Rule]]. Normally, if the dealer wins a hand, an extra hand is played which does not count towards the total number of hands in the match, and the dealer keeps the dealer button for the extra hand(s). With the ''agari yame'' rule in effect, the extra hand is not triggered if the dealer wins on the last hand and they are in first place. This is to prevent a [[Springtime for Hitler]] scenario - in the Japanese variant, it is not uncommon for the player who ends in first place to receive a large bonus (of ranking points in league or tournament play, or cash in gambling play). Thus, on the final hand without ''agari yame'', if the dealer is in first place, they might be better off not winning the hand to end the game and secure their first-place finish, while winning the hand would trigger an extra hand, during which they would have to risk being knocked out of first. |
** Another one is the ''agari yame'' [[House Rules|House Rule]]. Normally, if the dealer wins a hand, an extra hand is played which does not count towards the total number of hands in the match, and the dealer keeps the dealer button for the extra hand(s). With the ''agari yame'' rule in effect, the extra hand is not triggered if the dealer wins on the last hand and they are in first place. This is to prevent a [[Springtime for Hitler]] scenario - in the Japanese variant, it is not uncommon for the player who ends in first place to receive a large bonus (of ranking points in league or tournament play, or cash in gambling play). Thus, on the final hand without ''agari yame'', if the dealer is in first place, they might be better off not winning the hand to end the game and secure their first-place finish, while winning the hand would trigger an extra hand, during which they would have to risk being knocked out of first. |
||
* A game of Scrabble ends when a player runs out of tiles, or when each player takes three straight non-scoring turns ''and at least one player actually has points''. The last clause had to be added because of a strange tournament game where a player accidentally dropped a tile face up in attempting to put tiles on his rack. The opponent noticed that this tile would combine with his own rack to form a word allowing him to reach the edge of the board, and so simply passed. The player who showed the tile, however, wasn't in a hurry to make the first word either, and started by just exchanging some tiles to get a better rack. When he finally did make a play, on the 3rd turn, it was a fake word. The other player still had the opportunity to make the play he was looking for, but opted for something better: challenge the word off the board! As this was the sixth scoreless turn, the game ended immediately, and each player lost points from the value of their tiles. The player who made the challenge was able to see that by doing so, he would automatically win by a score of negative 8 to negative 10. |
* A game of Scrabble ends when a player runs out of tiles, or when each player takes three straight non-scoring turns ''and at least one player actually has points''. The last clause had to be added because of a strange tournament game where a player accidentally dropped a tile face up in attempting to put tiles on his rack. The opponent noticed that this tile would combine with his own rack to form a word allowing him to reach the edge of the board, and so simply passed. The player who showed the tile, however, wasn't in a hurry to make the first word either, and started by just exchanging some tiles to get a better rack. When he finally did make a play, on the 3rd turn, it was a fake word. The other player still had the opportunity to make the play he was looking for, but opted for something better: challenge the word off the board! As this was the sixth scoreless turn, the game ended immediately, and each player lost points from the value of their tiles. The player who made the challenge was able to see that by doing so, he would automatically win by a score of negative 8 to negative 10. |
||
* The Finnish board game ''[ |
* The Finnish board game ''[[wikipedia:Afrikan t%C3%A4hti|Afrikan tähti]]'' (Star of Africa) had a small flaw in the original rules - the game could become [[Unwinnable By Mistake|unwinnable]] for one or more players because of the cost of travelling by sea and the possibility of getting robbed on one of the islands. After 50 years of unwinnable games and [[House Rules]], the sea travel was patched to resolve the formerly unwinnable situations by making sea travel free if the player has no money but only 2 spaces at a time. |
||
* The [[Battlestar Galactica]] board game has had a few. In the base game, the secrecy rules were essentially a patch for the core mechanic, since the game breaks if players are allowed to openly discuss their card plays. The first expansion included replacements for a particular skill card to fix a degenerate human strategy, and an overlay for certain spaces of the board to fix a degenerate Cylon strategy. It also introduced an execution mechanic, which was patched in the ''next'' expansion so that it couldn't be used as a cheap loyalty check. |
* The [[Battlestar Galactica]] board game has had a few. In the base game, the secrecy rules were essentially a patch for the core mechanic, since the game breaks if players are allowed to openly discuss their card plays. The first expansion included replacements for a particular skill card to fix a degenerate human strategy, and an overlay for certain spaces of the board to fix a degenerate Cylon strategy. It also introduced an execution mechanic, which was patched in the ''next'' expansion so that it couldn't be used as a cheap loyalty check. |
||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
== Non-Gaming Examples == |
== Non-Gaming Examples == |
||
* The International Obfuscated C Code Contest added a rule in 1995 that required all submissions to have source code at least one byte in length. Why? In 1994, "the world's smallest [ |
* The International Obfuscated C Code Contest added a rule in 1995 that required all submissions to have source code at least one byte in length. Why? In 1994, "the world's smallest [[wikipedia:Quine (computing)|self-replicating program]]" won an award for "Worst Abuse of the Rules" by being zero bytes in size. Another rule, banning machine-dependent code, was added after the first winner in 1984 wrote the entire main program as a block of PDP-11 machine code. |
||
* Several ad hoc laws arguably fall under this trope, especially those which are quickly struck down by the country's respective supreme court. |
* Several ad hoc laws arguably fall under this trope, especially those which are quickly struck down by the country's respective supreme court. |
||
** This applies to the US Constitution; for example, the Eleventh was passed to fix a loophole in Article III which allowed residents of one state to sue other states in federal court when states were normally immune from suit. The people suing? The State's creditors. |
** This applies to the US Constitution; for example, the Eleventh was passed to fix a loophole in Article III which allowed residents of one state to sue other states in federal court when states were normally immune from suit. The people suing? The State's creditors. |
||
| Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
** If stating what a law does sounds ridiculous (such as "you can't put an ice cream sandwich in your back pocket"), it's probably one of these. The given example came about because of horse theft, which is a crime (understandable, since it's theft). If an animal wanders onto your property, it's yours. So if you want a free horse, all you have to do is bait it in a nonobvious manner (such as allowing it to smell the food in your pocket), and walk home, allowing it to follow you. |
** If stating what a law does sounds ridiculous (such as "you can't put an ice cream sandwich in your back pocket"), it's probably one of these. The given example came about because of horse theft, which is a crime (understandable, since it's theft). If an animal wanders onto your property, it's yours. So if you want a free horse, all you have to do is bait it in a nonobvious manner (such as allowing it to smell the food in your pocket), and walk home, allowing it to follow you. |
||
* Even science and math have been known at various times to have Obvious Rule Patches. A couple of the famous ones: |
* Even science and math have been known at various times to have Obvious Rule Patches. A couple of the famous ones: |
||
** Euclid's ''Elements'', which was '''the''' geometry textbook for 2,000 years, begins by assuming some axioms and postulates that are obvious enough to make a solid foundation -- with one exception. [ |
** Euclid's ''Elements'', which was '''the''' geometry textbook for 2,000 years, begins by assuming some axioms and postulates that are obvious enough to make a solid foundation -- with one exception. [[wikipedia:Parallel postulate|Euclid's fifth postulate]] is clumsy and not at all self-evident. Countless mathematicians over the years tried to derive the "parallel postulate" from the others instead of assuming it. But the old Greek's intuition was right. The postulate ''can't'' be proven or disproven that way; if you choose a contradictory postulate, you get a "non-Euclidean" geometry that's perfectly consistent. |
||
** Betrand Russell essentially broke set theory with his [ |
** Betrand Russell essentially broke set theory with his [[wikipedia:Russellchr(27)s paradox|paradox]]: does "the set of all sets that don't contain themselves" contain itself? To escape this paradox, mathematicians had to put restrictions on what constituted a set. The current system basically says ''no'' set can contain itself -- anything big enough to do that is too big to be a set, and has to be a "class" or some such. Some mathematicians find this unsatisfying, and the debate over whether there's a better solution continues. |
||
*** The [ |
*** The [[wikipedia:Cantorchr(27)s diagonal argument|underlying nature]] of Russell's paradox unfortunately indicates that any better solution will ''also'' need to be logically "patched". |
||
** Should the number 1 be counted as a [ |
** Should the number 1 be counted as a [[wikipedia:Prime number|prime number]]? There's a case to be made either way, and in fact it was widely considered prime until quite recently, per the classic definition ("a number whose only factors are itself and 1"). But 1 doesn't act like a prime in most of the ways we need primes to act; in particular, it has to be left out if we want the [[wikipedia:Fundamental theorem of arithmetic|Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]] to work. Thus we now define primality in ways that are less intuitive but exclude 1, such as "a number with exactly two factors" (and hence, 0 is right out). |
||
* The [[Discworld]]'s Assassin's Guild Diary has School Rule 16: "No boy is to keep a crocodile in his room." Followed by rules 16a to 16j to counter various forms of [[Loophole Abuse]], from the obvious ("16a. No boy is to keep an alligator or any large amphibious reptile in his room"; "16c. Nor in the cellar.") to the outlandish ("16h. No boy is to convert to Offlerism without permission in writing from the Head Master." [Offler is the Discworld's Crocodile God]) |
* The [[Discworld]]'s Assassin's Guild Diary has School Rule 16: "No boy is to keep a crocodile in his room." Followed by rules 16a to 16j to counter various forms of [[Loophole Abuse]], from the obvious ("16a. No boy is to keep an alligator or any large amphibious reptile in his room"; "16c. Nor in the cellar.") to the outlandish ("16h. No boy is to convert to Offlerism without permission in writing from the Head Master." [Offler is the Discworld's Crocodile God]) |
||
** According to [[Discworld (Literature)/Night Watch|Night Watch]], the Assassins' Guild School is now co-ed, so that rule would have to have been rewritten to avoid girls keeping crocodiles in their room and [[Loophole Abuse|pointing to Rule 16's use of the word "boy"]]. |
** According to [[Discworld (Literature)/Night Watch|Night Watch]], the Assassins' Guild School is now co-ed, so that rule would have to have been rewritten to avoid girls keeping crocodiles in their room and [[Loophole Abuse|pointing to Rule 16's use of the word "boy"]]. |
||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
School Rule No.149 : Arguing over the wording of school rules is forbidden. }} |
School Rule No.149 : Arguing over the wording of school rules is forbidden. }} |
||
** This is surely a [[Historical In-Joke]] referring to Lord Byron. He wanted to keep a dog when he was at Cambridge, but school rules forbid it. He inspected the rules carefully and found there was nothing prohibiting [[Everything's Worse With Bears|pet bears]], so he got one. It's unknown when Cambridge applied the highly-necessary patch. |
** This is surely a [[Historical In-Joke]] referring to Lord Byron. He wanted to keep a dog when he was at Cambridge, but school rules forbid it. He inspected the rules carefully and found there was nothing prohibiting [[Everything's Worse With Bears|pet bears]], so he got one. It's unknown when Cambridge applied the highly-necessary patch. |
||
* In 2008 when the State of Nebraska tried to implement a [ |
* In 2008 when the State of Nebraska tried to implement a [[wikipedia:Safe-haven law|Safe Haven Law]] it neglected to notice that its definition of "children" included anyone 18 or younger which resulted in 36 teenage children being driven in from out of state and abandoned at Nebraska hospitals. The law was patched to exclude older children later that year. |
||
* In 2010, the polar bear was granted the status of Threatened under the Endangered Species Act...with a rider attached by Secretary of the Interior stating that the bear's new status couldn't be used to sue oil companies or greenhouse gas emitters (arguably, the two biggest threats to the species). The environmental activist organizations that had planned to do just that were not amused. |
* In 2010, the polar bear was granted the status of Threatened under the Endangered Species Act...with a rider attached by Secretary of the Interior stating that the bear's new status couldn't be used to sue oil companies or greenhouse gas emitters (arguably, the two biggest threats to the species). The environmental activist organizations that had planned to do just that were not amused. |
||
* In many places, there are obsolete, oddly specific, and/or downright weird laws that are still on the books, many of which are clearly patches created due to some [[Noodle Incident]] or another. One has to wonder what prompted lawmakers in San Francisco to prohibit [http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california?page=80 elephants from strolling down Market Street unless they're on a leash or wiping one's car with used underwear.] |
* In many places, there are obsolete, oddly specific, and/or downright weird laws that are still on the books, many of which are clearly patches created due to some [[Noodle Incident]] or another. One has to wonder what prompted lawmakers in San Francisco to prohibit [http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california?page=80 elephants from strolling down Market Street unless they're on a leash or wiping one's car with used underwear.] |
||
* The [ |
* The [[wikipedia:World Fantasy Award for Best Short Fiction|World Fantasy Award for Best Short Fiction]] is an extremely prestigious award intended for short stories, but was originally only defined as "speculative fiction under 10,000 words". That is, until 1991, when the judges selected [[Neil Gaiman]] and Charles Vess' "A Midsummer's Night Dream" issue of [[The Sandman]], which (horror of horrors) ''[[What Do You Mean It's Not Heinous?|is a comic book]]''. The World Fantasy Convention sniffily [[Executive Meddling|changed the rules]] almost immediately, relegating any future graphic novel submissions to the Special Award: Professional category. This means the [[The Sandman]] is the only comic book that ever has or ever will win this particular award. |
||
** According to Gaiman, "It wasn't like closing the stable door after the horse had gotten out, it was like closing the stable door after the horse had gotten out and won the Kentucky Derby." |
** According to Gaiman, "It wasn't like closing the stable door after the horse had gotten out, it was like closing the stable door after the horse had gotten out and won the Kentucky Derby." |
||
* In 2011, UK supermarket chain Tesco ran a promotion that if whatever they had happened to be cheaper at its competitor Asda, they will pay you double the difference (e.g., an item that costs 8 pounds but is only 5 at Asda would earn you 6 pounds). However, the difference in prices could be big enough that shoppers would get back more money than they spent. Naturally, many [[Genre Savvy|savvy]] shoppers exploited this by finding products they didn't even need but potentially gave them the biggest profit and using that to do their actual grocery shopping. Tesco had since put the difference cap to 20 pounds. |
* In 2011, UK supermarket chain Tesco ran a promotion that if whatever they had happened to be cheaper at its competitor Asda, they will pay you double the difference (e.g., an item that costs 8 pounds but is only 5 at Asda would earn you 6 pounds). However, the difference in prices could be big enough that shoppers would get back more money than they spent. Naturally, many [[Genre Savvy|savvy]] shoppers exploited this by finding products they didn't even need but potentially gave them the biggest profit and using that to do their actual grocery shopping. Tesco had since put the difference cap to 20 pounds. |
||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
** Making tribal switches more common to shake the game up a bit. |
** Making tribal switches more common to shake the game up a bit. |
||
** The Final Two became the Final Three. While not all fans like this, Probst says that this was so people would have to face a competitor and not just drag [[The Load]] into the finals. Chances are, everyone's thoughts towards Courtney in ''Exile Island'' (intending to bring her to the finals because everyone ''hated'' her) made the producers think. Probst has pointed out there have been plenty of seasons where [[Unpleasable Fanbase|everyone complained the final two was a wash anyways]], one of them conveniently being ''Exile Island''. Again, this didn't stop Earl from claiming the first uanimous victory against two disliked players and Rob from pulling the [[Too Dumb to Live|two dumbest and laziest players]] to the finals. |
** The Final Two became the Final Three. While not all fans like this, Probst says that this was so people would have to face a competitor and not just drag [[The Load]] into the finals. Chances are, everyone's thoughts towards Courtney in ''Exile Island'' (intending to bring her to the finals because everyone ''hated'' her) made the producers think. Probst has pointed out there have been plenty of seasons where [[Unpleasable Fanbase|everyone complained the final two was a wash anyways]], one of them conveniently being ''Exile Island''. Again, this didn't stop Earl from claiming the first uanimous victory against two disliked players and Rob from pulling the [[Too Dumb to Live|two dumbest and laziest players]] to the finals. |
||
*** This was also done as a result of [[Fan Dumb]] complaining about "Blowout" final twos because people had on ''many'' different seasons said that the winner was pretty obvious, nobody would've voted for [insert second place winner here], and the final tribal council was essentially just [[Padding]] because it was obvious that [insert winner here] had it. Or people just pulling [[What Measure Is a Non |
*** This was also done as a result of [[Fan Dumb]] complaining about "Blowout" final twos because people had on ''many'' different seasons said that the winner was pretty obvious, nobody would've voted for [insert second place winner here], and the final tribal council was essentially just [[Padding]] because it was obvious that [insert winner here] had it. Or people just pulling [[What Measure Is a Non-Badass?]] when the fan favourite or most likely winner finished fifth-third place and a person deemed "undeserving" won. |
||
* In the American ''[[Big Brother]]'': |
* In the American ''[[Big Brother]]'': |
||
** After Season 3 where the jury voted 9-1 in favour of Lisa, the Jury was reduced to 7 and sequestered away from the game and unable to watch the show. The reason the jury voted in such a way was that they saw what Danielle was saying about them in the diary room and was angered. |
** After Season 3 where the jury voted 9-1 in favour of Lisa, the Jury was reduced to 7 and sequestered away from the game and unable to watch the show. The reason the jury voted in such a way was that they saw what Danielle was saying about them in the diary room and was angered. |
||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
== Sports == |
== Sports == |
||
* The baseball rules committee instituted the [ |
* The baseball rules committee instituted the [[wikipedia:Infield Fly Rule|Infield Fly Rule]] in 1895 to block a specific [[Game Breaker]] in which an infielder would let a fly ball drop and go for the easy double play (or, should the runner choose to run, catch the fly ball and throw the runner out before he could tag up for an equally easy double play) instead of just getting the one out that would normally result. Which makes this [[Older Than Radio]]. |
||
** Arguably the fly ball rule ''itself'' is such a patch (albeit an even older one)--it means batters can't just hit the ball straight up and run to first base before it comes down. |
** Arguably the fly ball rule ''itself'' is such a patch (albeit an even older one)--it means batters can't just hit the ball straight up and run to first base before it comes down. |
||
** Currently there's a minor league pitcher who can pitch with both arms. Which causes problems when he's facing a switch hitter, because switch hitters hit from different sides of the plate depending on which arm the pitcher throws with and this pitcher pitches based upon which side of the plate the hitter hits from. So minor league umpires have been forced to create a brand new rule forcing both the hitter and pitcher to declare before the at-bat, and only allowing one change of side for each player. An interesting case, since rather than this patch being the result of one game breaker, it's the combination of two slight advantage-gaining tactics that independently would work just fine, combining to break the game. |
** Currently there's a minor league pitcher who can pitch with both arms. Which causes problems when he's facing a switch hitter, because switch hitters hit from different sides of the plate depending on which arm the pitcher throws with and this pitcher pitches based upon which side of the plate the hitter hits from. So minor league umpires have been forced to create a brand new rule forcing both the hitter and pitcher to declare before the at-bat, and only allowing one change of side for each player. An interesting case, since rather than this patch being the result of one game breaker, it's the combination of two slight advantage-gaining tactics that independently would work just fine, combining to break the game. |
||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
** The Chaparral 2J forced the legendarily-free Can-Am racing series to implement a rule explicitly stating that every car can have only one engine aboard. |
** The Chaparral 2J forced the legendarily-free Can-Am racing series to implement a rule explicitly stating that every car can have only one engine aboard. |
||
** In 2012, the rules were changed to lower the height of the nose of the cars, to prevent it from striking a driver in the result of a t-bone collision. They didn't change any of the rules about the bodywork in that area apart from the nose height though, which resulted in most teams simply adding an obvious and inelegant step down to nose. |
** In 2012, the rules were changed to lower the height of the nose of the cars, to prevent it from striking a driver in the result of a t-bone collision. They didn't change any of the rules about the bodywork in that area apart from the nose height though, which resulted in most teams simply adding an obvious and inelegant step down to nose. |
||
* The NFL. Ye gods, the NFL. A committee meets every year to implement new Obvious Rule Patches to react to the previous year. Over the years, the game has accreted a whole section [ |
* The NFL. Ye gods, the NFL. A committee meets every year to implement new Obvious Rule Patches to react to the previous year. Over the years, the game has accreted a whole section [[wikipedia:National Football League lore#Rules named after NFL figures|to patch specific actions of individual players]]. |
||
** Similarly, the IOC's ''[ |
** Similarly, the IOC's ''[[wikipedia:Eddie the eagle#The Eddie .22The Eagle.22 Rule|Eddie "The Eagle" rule]]''. |
||
** The infamous "Snowplow Game", a scoreless defensive battle between the Miami Dolphins and the New England Patriots on a frozen field in 1982. A few minutes before the end of the game, Patriots coach Ron Meyer called a timeout so that a snowplow could clear a patch on the field for the field goal kicker, resulting in a 3-0 victory. Dolphins coach Don Shula was a longtime member of the NFL rules committee, and there was a new rule in place for the next season banning the use of snowplows during games. |
** The infamous "Snowplow Game", a scoreless defensive battle between the Miami Dolphins and the New England Patriots on a frozen field in 1982. A few minutes before the end of the game, Patriots coach Ron Meyer called a timeout so that a snowplow could clear a patch on the field for the field goal kicker, resulting in a 3-0 victory. Dolphins coach Don Shula was a longtime member of the NFL rules committee, and there was a new rule in place for the next season banning the use of snowplows during games. |
||
* Roller derby's WFTDA rules, being less than ten years old, are constantly coming out with new rule sets featuring these. One recent example: roller derby is played in a racing-style ring, and it's a penalty to cut the track then re-enter play in front of other players. A common strategy used to be hitting opponents at the curve, forcing them to cut the corner before they could stop. A patched rule made it so you could avoid the penalty by simply falling over before skidding back into the track. |
* Roller derby's WFTDA rules, being less than ten years old, are constantly coming out with new rule sets featuring these. One recent example: roller derby is played in a racing-style ring, and it's a penalty to cut the track then re-enter play in front of other players. A common strategy used to be hitting opponents at the curve, forcing them to cut the corner before they could stop. A patched rule made it so you could avoid the penalty by simply falling over before skidding back into the track. |
||
| Line 317: | Line 317: | ||
[[Category:Collectible Card Game]] |
[[Category:Collectible Card Game]] |
||
[[Category:Game Tropes]] |
[[Category:Game Tropes]] |
||
[[Category:Obvious Rule Patch]] |
[[Category:Obvious Rule Patch]][[Category:Pages with comment tags]] |
||
[[Category:Trope]][[Category:Pages with comment tags]] |
|||