History Main / ThatOneRule

27th Feb '17 2:32:13 PM Laevatein
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:


[[folder:Politics: Australia]]
* The voting system for the Australian senate. For each state, six senators are elected at each election (or twelve, in the case of a Double Dissolution), under a preferential voting system, where if a candidate makes the quota needed to secure a seat, their excess votes are redistributed to other candidates. To make things worse, the number of candidates standing often means the physical ballot paper is ''huge''. No wonder many Australians' brains bleed at election time.
[[/folder]]
27th Feb '17 11:47:26 AM Gosicrystal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The infield fly rule. Much as with the offside rule above, the infield fly rule is simpler than its reputation -- [[ObviousRulePatch an infielder can't deliberately let a fly ball drop in order to get an easy double play by picking off runners who would otherwise be forced to advance.]][[note]]A "double play" is two outs from one hit ball.[[/note]] If there are runners on first and second base (third base is irrelevant), there are less than two outs, and the umpire feels the ball would be caught with "ordinary" effort, the batter-runner is automatically out and the force is negated[[note]]nobody has to run[[/note]].
** While a double play situation only requires a runner on first, the rule itself requires a runner on both first and second to be invoked. If there were just a runner on first, because the batter is running to first as soon as he puts the ball in play (assuming he didn't just give up in disgust) it is assumed that he would beat out any double play attempt if an unscrupulous fielder tried to get them both[[note]]Be in position, let the ball drop, pick up, throw to second, throw to first[[/note]]. Whether or not the fielder catches the fly ball, the net result is the same: one more out and a runner on first. It ''is'' possible that the team on defense would prefer to have one over the other be called out (i.e., one of them is a better base-stealer), but such strategic use of outs is outside the umpire's concern.
** It should be noted that this particular rule does ''not'' apply to line drives[[note]]Batted fly balls that are hit so hard horizontally they barely arc[[/note]], bunts, or other cases where the fielder touches the batted ball and intentionally doesn't catch it in order to "turn two" (outs) -- a separate rule (Intentional Drop Rule) exists that protects runners in these situations. (There can be situations where both rules apply; the Infield Fly rule takes precedence for scorekeeping purposes but the result is the same.)

to:

* The infield fly rule. Much as with the offside rule above, the infield fly This rule is simpler than its reputation -- [[ObviousRulePatch an infielder can't deliberately let a fly ball drop in order to get an easy double play by picking off runners who would otherwise be forced to advance.]][[note]]A "double play" is two outs from one hit ball.[[/note]] If there are runners on first and second base (third base is irrelevant), or the bases are loaded, there are less than two outs, and the umpire feels the ball would be caught with "ordinary" effort, effort by an infielder, the batter-runner is automatically out and the all force is outs are negated[[note]]nobody has to run[[/note]].
** While a double play situation only requires a runner on first,
run[[/note]]. The reason why the rule itself requires a runner on both first and second to be invoked. If (or bases loaded) is that, if there were just a runner on first, because the batter is running to first as soon as he puts the ball in play (assuming he didn't just give up in disgust) disgust), it is assumed that he would beat out any double play attempt if an unscrupulous fielder tried to get them both[[note]]Be in position, let the ball drop, pick up, throw to second, throw to first[[/note]]. Whether or not the fielder catches the fly ball, the net result is the same: one more out and a runner on first. It ''is'' possible that the team on defense would prefer to have one over the other be called out (i.e., one of them is a better base-stealer), but such strategic use of outs is outside the umpire's concern.
** It should be noted that this particular rule does ''not'' apply to line drives[[note]]Batted fly balls that are hit so hard horizontally they barely arc[[/note]], bunts, or other cases where the fielder touches the batted ball and intentionally doesn't catch it in order to "turn two" (outs) -- a separate rule (Intentional Drop Rule) exists that protects runners in these situations. (There can be situations where both rules apply; the Infield Fly rule takes precedence for scorekeeping purposes but the result is the same.)
concern.



* The Posting System. Basically if a Japanese player wants to play in America, teams must first commit millions of dollars in collateral in a sealed-envelope silent auction. In addition only the winner of the auction is allowed to negotiate with the player. They get 30 days to negotiate a contract (at which point, the auction fee is delivered) or the player must return to Japan (in which case the posting fee is refunded). The system actually would allow a team to promise a higher fee than a rival who could really use the player, with no intention of signing him, just to delay said team from getting him -- and pay nothing (as was claimed when Daisuke Matsuzaka entered negotiations with the Red Sox, when the Yankees seemed much more interested, though Matsuzaka was indeed signed by Boston.)
** Thankfully, this one's been [[ObviousRulePatch patched]]. The silent auction aspect has been replaced with a flat fee for posting (set by the Japanese team, but capped at $20 million), and every MLB team gets a chance to negotiate with the player, with the fee only paid if a team signs the player.
*** Of course, this only applies to Japan. If a Korean or Chinese team wants to post a player, it still falls under the old system.

to:

* The Posting System. Basically if a Japanese player wants to play in America, teams must first commit millions of dollars in collateral in a sealed-envelope silent auction. In addition only the winner of the auction is allowed to negotiate with the player. They get 30 days to negotiate a contract (at which point, the auction fee is delivered) or the player must return to Japan (in which case the posting fee is refunded). The system actually would allow a team to promise a higher fee than a rival who could really use the player, with no intention of signing him, just to delay said team from getting him -- and pay nothing (as was claimed when Daisuke Matsuzaka entered negotiations with the Red Sox, when the Yankees seemed much more interested, though Matsuzaka was indeed signed by Boston.)
**
Boston).\\
\\
Thankfully, this one's been [[ObviousRulePatch patched]]. The silent auction aspect has been replaced with a flat fee for posting (set by the Japanese team, but capped at $20 million), and every MLB team gets a chance to negotiate with the player, with the fee only paid if a team signs the player.
*** Of course, this only applies to Japan. If a Korean or Chinese team wants to post a player, it still falls under the old system.
23rd Feb '17 7:18:01 AM AnotherStatsGuy
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** However, there is only one scenario where this is the case. Queenside Castle with a threat to B-1 or B-8 squares.
8th Feb '17 6:55:44 PM Prfnoff
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling Castling]] and ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant en passant]]'' capture are confusing to many TabletopGame/{{Chess}} players. The latter move is an ObviousRulePatch, while the former is the only way in the game to have two pieces of the same color move at once and has highly unusual restrictions on when it can be used. {{Tournament Play}}ers will certainly be familiar with both of those moves; what frustrates them instead are the long-evolving rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn.

to:

* [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling Castling]] and ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant en passant]]'' capture are confusing to many TabletopGame/{{Chess}} players. The latter move is an ObviousRulePatch, ObviousRulePatch that allows a pawn to be captured by another pawn on a square which it has ''just moved past'', while the former is the only way in the game to have two pieces of the same color move at once and has highly unusual restrictions on when it can be used. {{Tournament Play}}ers will certainly be familiar with both of those moves; what frustrates them instead are the long-evolving rules about when they are allowed to claim a position as drawn.
4th Feb '17 8:32:55 PM Bissek
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** In addition, due to the fact that some states are significantly more densely populated than others, and thus have far more representatives, as of 2016, the eleven most populated states control exactly 270 electoral college votes, which means that in theory, those states could decide the presidency even if the other 39 unanimously vote for the other candidate.
15th Jan '17 12:21:50 AM Laevatein
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->-- '''2003 Cricket World Cup highlights DVD'''

to:

-->-- '''2003 Cricket UsefulNotes/{{Cricket}} World Cup highlights DVD'''
14th Jan '17 3:42:28 PM Veloso
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Regeneration was considered this for quite some time, including by the developers themselves. While it was relatively straightforward in the early days of Magic and the concept was simple - pay a cost and have a dying creature brought back to life - increasing complexity of the rules led to plenty of confusion as to how it was supposed to work. It's been grandfathered in and clarified since, but WordOfGod has said that a rule like Regeneration never would have made it off the drawing board if it were thought up today and even now developers generally shy away from using it on new cards.

to:

** Regeneration was considered this for quite some time, including by the developers themselves. While it was relatively straightforward in the early days of Magic and the concept was simple - pay a cost and have a dying creature brought back to life - increasing complexity of the rules led to plenty of confusion as to how it was supposed to work. It's been grandfathered in and clarified since, but WordOfGod has said that a rule like Regeneration never would have made it off the drawing board if it were thought up today and even now developers generally shy away from using today. New cards no longer use it on new cards.at all - instead, cards wanting this type of effect become "indestructible until end of turn".
19th Dec '16 10:39:32 AM TheBuddy26
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. the majority of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.

to:

Simple enough, right? But of course, the states have all chosen to choose their electors by popular election--i.e., the electors are chosen as slates of individuals honor-bound (and in some states, legally-bound) to vote for the candidate of the people of that state's choosing. In most states, except Maine and Nebraska, the slates are chosen on a winner-take-all basis: whoever gets the most votes wins ''all'' of that state's electoral votes, even if it's not a majority. Even if you win a plurality in, oh I dunno...[[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWBush Florida by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast]], you come home with ''all'' of Florida's 25 (at the time) votes, and your opponent, none. Most of the time, the person who wins the "popular vote" (i.e. the majority of the nationwide total) also wins the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency, but there are rare occasions when these do not line up, as with the famous 2000 election, above.above; along with the recent 2016 election. Americans get extremely confused by this, the news has to spend hours explaining the process, an explanation that often only makes people angrier.
14th Dec '16 9:09:55 AM IlGreven
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

* The "targeting" rule recently added in college football. If a defensive player hits an offensive player in the head or neck area and is deemed to have been "targeting" a player (i.e. having intended to hit him in the head or neck area), a 15-yard penalty is assessed, and the player is ejected from the game (and suspended for the first half of his next game if the infraction occurred in the 2nd half). One problem is that this call is always reviewed, and if overturned, doesn't involve any penalty at all, even if the hit was still clearly unnecessary roughness. Then there are the borderline hits where a player was launching himself at another player's midsection, but that player ducked or dove and got hit in the head instead.
* One example by obscurity is the "Fair Catch Kick". A team receiving a kickoff can call a fair catch and immediately try a free kick-style field goal from the spot of the fair catch. To say the rule is rarely utilized is an understatement: It's only been used 24 times (that we know of) in the NFL, and was last used successfully in 1976.
13th Jul '16 9:42:11 AM Bluemargay
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Of course, this only applies to Japan. If a Korean or Chinese team wants to post a player, it still falls under the old system.
This list shows the last 10 events of 246. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ThatOneRule