Or of course this could become the new meta, which from a viewer perspective might be even better

It’s not likely that will make you immortal. Being forbidden, your technique will not be used, so your name won’t be mentioned, and it will be forgotten (You might get famous if your technique keeps getting used by accident)

For example, there’s “Félix Erausquín”, who invented a javelin throwing technique you probably never heard of.

http://rethinkingathletics.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-javelin-...:

However the true revolution of javelin throw came in 1956 when a 49 year old spaniard, Félix Erausquín, invented what came to be called the “spanish style”. Erausquín was a specialist of shot put and discus throw (with several national titles and records) but also of the “barra vasca” which consists in throwing a heavy rod using a rotational technique. Erausquín adapted the style of the barra to javelin throw with a greased hand and managed a throw of 83.40 m at a few centimetres of the world record.

[…]

Could the spaniards have won the 1956 Olympic javelin title? Yes and no. Had they kept the style secret till Melbourne they would certainly have taken the javelin world by surprise. However at the beginning of October, a month and a half before the Games, Salcedo used the new style during a competition in Paris. This opened the way for experimentation with the new technique to non-spanish athletes but also alerted the instances of the international federation who by the end of the month had modified the rules so as to ban the rotational technique. However, even if they had kept the secret, the athletes from Spain would not have had the occasion to throw at Melbourne since Franco’s government had, at the last moment, decided to boycott the Games.

>For example, there’s “Félix Erausquín”, who invented a javelin throwing technique you probably never heard of.

But who's infinitely more known than his contemporaries who didn't do some interesting footnote-worthy thing like that and therefore get mentioned far less.

Exactly. I have, as of a moment ago, read exact one article about javelin throwing in my life, and it was about that guy and the throwing technique he invented.

I bet a lot of javelin people heard this legend and then spent time looking it up and messing about with the move for fun.

Talk about disproving your point with an example made to support your point!

I bet most do not know any of the javelin winners from this last Olympics or any historical greats but now we know the awesome Félix Erausquín!

Have you watched a sports broadcast before? They frequently include references to illegal techniques and the people they’re named after.

Roy “Horsecollar” Williams really missed out. He broke quite a tidy sum of bones with that move. Dirty? Hell yeah.

This is the first one that came to mind for me (even if it's unofficial). Same as the "Tuck Rule" means Brady rule.

Yeah the Brady rule (made an angry face at Brady, 5 yards) is such a wonky thing that can be misused. Horsecollar in the other hand…I think I’ve seen a couple guys thrown down by jersey alone so yeah no need to grab pads in that battle. At the time though when I saw it live, I would say “you test Roy downfield…”

It is always fun to see a strange rule, though, and ask yourself why something so daft was actually written down.

Reminds me of https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tonxd_9_lY

I'm sorry, I really did try to read your link. But I laughed too much at this:

"came with the work of Dick Held (brother of the world recordman Bud Held) who introduced first the hollow-wood javelins"

Really, it doesn't matter how you throw your dagger as long as you hit the target.

"For example, there’s “Félix Erausquín”"

And yet you know his name.

The immortality comes from the fact that anyone who is reading the rulebook, and gets curious about the origin of the rule created to forbid your actions, will research that†, and learn your story.

Sometimes, the rule itself is even named after the person — so your name is right there in the rulebook forevermore. They might not know who you were or what you did, but they know you did something stupid enough to require a change to the sport.

† Which is apparently something sports nerds do a lot. Here's a YouTube channel sub-series just about the origins of weird sports rules! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJiNU9JCLpM&list=PLUXSZMIiUf...

Thanks! just yesterday I tried to find https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8tonxd_9_lY&list=PLUXSZMIiUfFS... and spent several minutes in vain before I gave up. Now you're posting the playlist hours later!

On the flip side, the common maneuver for the pole vault is relatively new, and few realize someone basically invented it.

I'm surprised they don't just DQ him under an intentionally vague rule on reckless maneuvers.

Sports don’t generally work that way, especially in the US. If it’s not specifically against the rules but clearly should be, you get the old “great job! Never do it again!”

I recall “if you ain’t cheating’ you ain’t tryin’” has been a part of NASCAR since getting more money than running shine.

The top competitors of any sport tend to inherently filter for those who are willing to go to extreme lengths to win.

Something something Lance Armstrong…good point I think you made.

Motorsports generally have a rule like, "safety violation deemed at official's discretion". The wikipage on NASCAR rules looks like it has just such a rule.

One for the history books alongside Zanardi's "The Pass" (banned right after it happened).

Famous, or sometimes infamous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1...

In the same sport there's also the Mankad.

But that's not an illegal move - interestingly, ICC (the body which regulates Cricket) has always recognized the move as official - specifically confirming it as such after the recent incident involving the women's teams of India & England.

David Berkoff's underwater dolphin kick is such an example.

Even better is the Fosbury flop, which was just accepted as a superior technique and no rules were adjusted.

However modern foam pads were a prerequisite. If you Fosbury flop into sawdust and sand your career won’t last long.

A counterexample to the Fosbury Flop was Tuariki Delamere's Front Flip in the long jump, which was immediately banned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0zi_fkyts

Agree! Reminds me of swimmers going underwater for most of the backstroke event in the Seoul Olympics [0]

[0] https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/when-the-backstro...

My favourite of these is probably Graeme Obree[1] who managed to get not one, but two very different bike positions banned in the ’90s after setting the hour record using one of them and winning the world championship using the other.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Obree

A bit like Michael Guerra? I haven't checked, but if his trick didn't get banned...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Iz7ZMALaCY

Heh, I'd never seen the full clip of that and the scooter driver's reaction just about had me spit on my keyboard over here.

Same here. Your comment convinced me to click, no regrets. :D

1. The scooter guy reaction

2. The scooter guy decides "can't beat 'em might as well join him"

3. The poor mobility scooter being passed by all this

Saw this recently. Amazing and frightening!

while this is of course very cool, I was always convinced that it also included a motor. The acceleration seems too abrupt for just a Cd advantage, and that was right around the time of the big motor in chassis scandals

He's riding a fixie (presumably it's a fixie race). On a downhill, your legs are slowing you down; presumably he would have gained some advantage just by taking his feet off the pedals, but this would give a bit more advantage.

Planking is how the kids here race 70cc Honda cub motorcycles. They shift with their hands and have specially modified seats to support the prone riding position.

And it's interesting how long some of these GameCube moves/bike positions can leave a mark on a sport. Just three weeks ago Filippo Ganna broke the Boardman's superman position record (from 1996), finally topping the last of the hour record tricks [1].

[1] https://www.velonews.com/news/road/filippo-ganna-smashes-uci...

Graeme Obree tested in a wind tunnel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9H0INZ2_s

Interesting video with Obree where his positions are tested in a wind tunnel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9H0INZ2_s

1930s: going fast by leaning backward, banned

1990s: going fast by leaning forward, banned

I look forward to 2100 when they will simply ban going faster than a specific speed.

going fast by leaning forward has definitely not been banned.

If he wins the NASCAR cup maybe it can be asterisked as the “Deviousness Trophy”

My favorite is Eddie the Eagle. Watch the movie or read the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_the_Eagle

Unbelievable!

> He received confirmation of his qualification for the games while working as a plasterer and temporarily residing in a Finnish mental hospital, due to lack of funds for alternative accommodation rather than as a patient.

There was a rule added to baseball about making a "mockery of the game" for sending a midget in to pinch-hit, and having nearly no strike zone, he walked on four balls.

> American League president Will Harridge, saying Veeck was making a mockery of the game, voided Gaedel's contract the next day. In response, Veeck threatened to request an official ruling on whether Yankees shortstop and reigning American League MVP Phil Rizzuto, who stood 5 feet 6 inches (1.68 m), was a short ballplayer or a tall dwarf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel

> Of all the forms of immortality, my favorite is participating in a competition in such a brilliant, incorrect way that a rule is permanently added just for you.

That's precisely why car races are boring these days. Everything is forbidden and over-regulated so there's no space for innovation anymore. Look at F1 and its bloat of regulations.

But in F1 it's exciting because you never know what rules they are gonna enforce this time and for whom. /s

Edit: on a more serious note: The regulations are so tight to keep it exciting. Frustratingly, if the regulations are more open, one of the better funded teams will just run away with the best car. That already happened in some seasons, but would be even worse without tight regulations.

I have a historic car that ended up banned at Le Mans over rules and caused Lotus to stop competing while at the same Ferrari did not get banned from the same race despite also falling afoul of some different rules. at least according to legend, anyway.

According to Adrian Newey's book it came out in 2015 that Ferrari had a secret deal with the FIA that allowed Ferrari to veto any regulation changes. It also is interesting how cars in the early 90s started to have more advanced electronics like active suspension which Ferrari never got to work and then those things got banned.

There is definitely precedent. In ‘62 Ferrari threatened to pull all their cars from Le Mans over some ruling they disagreed with. Lotus went home and didn’t go back to LM for many, many years.

(Reading the Wikipedia article, looks like they only mention two Lotus 23s going but I think there were more)

I think many of the regulations in F1 are because people generally don’t like to watch other people die. F1 drivers killing themselves all over the track is bad for business.

That's definitely another source of regulations. Many of the very specific regulations that dictate minute details are about more competitive races though. For example the current regulation changes that called in effect in 2022 were all about aero that allows for better following and thus wheel-to-wheel racing. Mercedes' wing that flexed a few microns too much had nothing to do with safety

With the cost cap these days, I wish they would let up on so many of the 'this is to expensive to develop for everyone' regulations.

Give us back mass dampers, active suspension, flexi-wings, dual-axis steering, and similar things. None of these are driver aids, and they aren't inherently unsafe (flexi wings might be more fragile). They were banned because it would be too expensive for everyone to have to develop it.

But the cost cap solves the problem of 'too expensive for everyone to develop it'. Everyone gets the same choice, and if a properly tuned mass-damper takes 30 million to get right, and 10 million to sort-of-work. Then people get to pick where the best cost-benefit trade-off lies.

> one of the better funded teams will just run away with the best car

There's one way to quickly solve this. Just mass-produce the cars and give everyone the exact same car. Then we will know who is the best racer.

You just invented Indy racing. And it's excellent.

> because you never know what rules they are gonna enforce this time and for whom.

Narrator: "It was Gasly."

Probably don’t paint the entire sport with one brush. Lots of racing is very exciting, especially to the people who are doing it (the vast majority of racing is amateur/club/etc.) Bergmeister vs Magnussen wasn’t that long ago…

have you tried watching BTCC/British Touring Car Championship? it's a lot of inches-apart racing with a lot of actual contact and some incredibly skilled drivers. can be quite thrilling!

Motorsports are different than other sports because the drivers' lives are under very real risk. A lot of the regulation is to keep the drivers alive. It comes at the expense of excitement but we would all agree it's necessary.

So the next step is to remove the drivers and have a more exciting race. I feel like there's a missing league of F1 autonomous driving cars.

I don’t disagree that the racing itself could be more exciting in that scenario, but without the human element, I just don’t think people would stay interested

People like expensive crashes. Just look at Facebook:p

> I just don’t think people would stay interested

Make fake AI drivers with a backstory and AI-generated faces and stories and people won't see the difference

I think we could already run them from simulators cockpits. So just throw in a few cameras and network and let the rules to be lose.

There was an attempt that failed.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32183567

Motorsports are not unique in this regard. John Delamere pioneered the forward somersault long jump technique [0], which was then banned for fear that athletes might break their necks.

[0] https://vault.si.com/vault/1974/07/29/the-flip-that-led-to-a...

Besides the Can-Am series lenient regulations, what auto race series didn't have regulations?

And yet here we are!

> That's precisely why car races are boring these days. Everything is forbidden and over-regulated so there's no space for innovation anymore. Look at F1 and its bloat of regulations.

Does rally (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDGJoPmR_8U) count as car racing?

Here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2F7EaeDbHY&t=158s

Got to wonder what the spectator body count is at an event like this.

Well, Group B was peak rally popularity, but as drivers (and public) started dying, it had to be regulated to oblivion.

Rally is just going to be another example. As of this year, all the cars are econobox facades over space frames. No trickle-down innovation or 'win on Sunday sell on Monday'.

When I was in high school a local science museum had an annual paper airplane contest. One of the events was duration of flight. The launch platform was a second-story landing. One year I won with a simple piece of paper the size of a dollar bill that was bent into a S-shape profile so that it would twirl as it fell. It turns out this is actually a legitimate way to produce lift, and actual human-carrying aircraft have been built with wings that use this principle, but I didn't know that at the time, and neither did the competition organizers. They thought I was cheating, and so did I. So the next year they tried to change the rules in a way that would disqualify my design but they couldn't come up with a legitimate way to phrase such a rule, so in the end they decided on a very clever solution: all entries in the duration-of-flight event had to carry a penny as a payload.

So I built a very large version of the same design out of computer punch cards taped together, and won again. I'm still proud of that.

This is sort of similar to helicopter autorotation, isn't it?

Yes, this is basically how you are supposed to crash-land a helicopter if the engine fails.

Actually in this case he’s using an airfoil spinning on a horizontal axis perpendicular to the direction of flight.

But yes, helicopters can be safely landed this way without power (not crash landed, but actually landed, though crashing is always an option lol)

Also, gyrocopters use the same principle for all phases of controlled flight, by simply using a traction engine to move the aircraft foreword, with a free spinning, unpowered, typically fixed pitch or no cyclic control rotor providing the lift.

When I was trying to get a helicopter license (pre-pandemic), I did one of these as part of training (the instructor had me actually complete the landing... he was a little crazy) and I wouldn't exactly consider it a typical landing, but the helicopter and its occupants were indeed in working order.

It depends on how you interpret the parent comment, but my guess is no. The autorotation you're speaking of happens in a plane roughly parallel to the ground. This is a very powerful and stable way for a wing to generate lift: https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/spins.html#sec-samara

There's another option, which is counter-rotation along an axis parallel to the ground, and orthogonal to the direction of travel. This mechanically induces circulation, which produces lift (by the same principle that a curveball produces sideways lift.) Here's more information on this funky phenomenon: https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-spinners

It depends on what you consider "similar", but no, the rotation of the paper has nothing to do with the rotation of helicopter blades during autorotation. In that case, the blades act like ordinary wings and they do an ordinary glide, albeit in a circular direction because the blades are fixed at one end. What happens with the paper is different. The axis of rotation is horizontal rather than vertical.

However, there is a sort of rotation about a horizontal axis in an ordinary wing because a wing produces vortices, and this is a necessary part of the process of producing lift [1]. In heavy aircraft these vortices can be surprisingly powerful and long-lasting, to the point where they can cause smaller aircraft to lose control and even crash if they get caught in one [2].

That first reference has an excellent description of what was going on in my design [3].

[1] https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-circulation-v...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence

[3] https://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-spinners

I see, thank you. Your initial description sounded more like a maple seed's wing. I did not know you could generate lift as described in your links.

Neither did I :-) I only learned about it about 20 years after the fact.

You are basically the Smokey Yunick of paper airplanes:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060323051213/http://insiderrac...

That reminds me of when I carefully built a "lightbulb drop" challenge container that looked like the moon lander in high school art. We were given two pieces of construction paper, two straws and two large rubber bands. I spent a week I think building and testing my design so that it would use the straws and rubber bands like springs and the paper like fins to ensure it landed in the right position and prevent the lightbulb from breaking.

Cue "demo day": my friend forgot about the project and took the straws and wrapped them around the bulb and then crinkled up the construction paper roughly and wrapped it around the straws and bulb and then took the rubber bands and secured the paper. I think he spent maybe a minute on it.

I think you maybe know how this ends. The teacher sneered at his design but then proceeded to drop it several times from the top of a ladder and the bulb never broke. He then took my design and dropped it upside down (springs pointing up) and the bulb shattered. I still think about that and laugh 30+ years later.

Surprised Smokey Yunick's name isn't mentioned anywhere.

Reminds me of this entertaining seminar[1] of a bunch of old school IMSA racers describing how they got "creative" racing around the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfq7-1ePW-M

It always makes me happy to see Smokey Yunick's name come up on HN. It doesn't happen very often[1], but he was clearly a "hacker" as much as any programmer or computer science guy was!

[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Often referred to as the "air bud" defense.

I'd like to see an XKCD with this statement.