Are questions about "rules of sport or games" on-topic here

Question

In this answer Dale said that questions about "rules of sport or games" are on-topic as a form of "private law" like contracts. I am not so sure.

Contracts get their force from actual laws which make them binding, and indeed enforceable by courts in many cases. That makes them pretty clearly a matter of law, in my view.

But the connection between law and the "rules of sport or games" is IMO not quite so clear and direct. Also, it can be a specialized field of its own. It might be better handled elsewhere. For example, the Board and Card Games stack (BCG.SE) gets a lot of questions about the rules of the game "Magic: The Gathering" (MTG). These are apparently quite specific and detailed, and rather legalistic. They also involve technical terms specific to the game. From time to time, although less often, BCG gets questions about the rule of such games as Bridge, Scrabble, or Monopoly. I have answered several such question there.

Do we really want such questions here on Law.SE? are they likely to get good answers here?

Related: Are rules of an organization on-topic?

Answer 1

It seems to me that questions where actual legal rights depend on whether or not some action was within the rules of a sport or game or not should be on topic because of the actual legal issue. If there is a suit (actual or hypothetical) for an injury where the rules of football or boxing are relevant, that can be in-topic because of the suit. Similar if thre is a defamation case over an accusation of cheating, the ruled of the game involved will be relevant, and a question about them in that context will be on-topic.

But questions such as:

• What is the penalty for an insufficient bid in Bridge?
• If a player puts down two words that cross at a triple word square in scrabble, is the score for both words tripled?
• In Magic the Gathering (MTG), if I play card A while another player has card B exposed, do all the effects of A apply?
• In Fizbin, what exactly is a sckronk, and can it apply if I hold two aces?
• In Monopoly, if the is a shortage of houses, can I sell houses from one property to build a hotel on another, then buy the houses back, all in one turn?

I further call attention to the quite typical questions from CBG.SE in my comments, which I repeat here in cse comments are moved to chat or delet4ed. I urge users to actually follow these links if they have not previously done so and consider if these questions would seem on-topic on Law.SE.

• https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/57974/26665
• https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/56955/does-humility-stop-my-dryad-arbor-from-being-able-to-tap-for-mana
• https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/57967/what-happens-when-gideon-the-oathsworn-mutates
• https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/57841/choices-while-resolving-missed-triggers-which-cannot-be-publicly-verified
• https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/57507/does-collecting-rent-later-than-the-turn-which-triggered-it-but-before-the-seco
• https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/54259/how-to-handle-dummys-revoke-due-to-a-hidden-card
• https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/53784/ticket-to-ride-longest-path-of-routes

I disagree with the statement in the comment by Iñaki Viggers that:

... questions that involve locating or interpreting man-made rules --let alone ones agreed upon-- are hardly off-topic here

Not all rules are laws, and rules questions that do not involve an associated legal issue, actual, potential, or hypothetical, I would incline to close as off-topic.

Answer 2

_{I agree with David Siegel's answer. I only provide an additional answer to try to express what I think is the essence. I'll delete if it seems this only adds confusion.}

The question must ultimately be about law (in a broad sense: common law, statutory, constitutional, administrative, Indigenous, customary, international, Parliamentary procedure, learning about law, etc.).

A question about law does not become off-topic merely because the rules of a sport/game are part of the background or factual context that is necessary to understand the legal question.

Likewise, a question does not become on-topic simply by being about the rules of a sport/game.

Answer 3

Are questions about "rules of sport or games" on-topic here

It depends on the type of question.

Questions that reduce to "how to play?", "what is the best strategy/move in this situation?", "why is this move/player granted n points?", and so forth, certainly would be off-topic even if an OP prefixes them with "According to the rules of the game, [...]". That is because they mostly involve game expertise rather than tenets of legal construction & rationale.

By contrast, other types of questions are within scope of LawSE. Rules of a game can be relevant to assessing whether a claim sounds in violation of due process and/or whether doctrines of consent or of assumption of risk precludes that claim. For instance, Avila v. Citrus Comm. College Dist, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 299, 312 (2006) ponders whether legal liability arises from "conduct that violates the rules of the game". There, the Concurring & Dissenting opinion even resorts to common practice as well as official commentary to the rules of the game to support a number of arguments, Id. at 316, 318.

Similarly, Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1990) states:

If the rules of a sport allow conduct intended to harm another player, as they do in boxing or football, for example, it follows that those same rules also allow behavior that would otherwise give rise to liability for recklessness. But any conduct which is characterized by the strong probability of harm that recklessness entails, and which occurs outside the normal conduct and customs of the sport, may give rise to liability.

This implies a scrutiny of the rules of a sport or game can be crucial for determining whether the conduct at issue is actionable or protected by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, which Al-Jahmi v. Ohio Athletic Comm. 2022-Ohio-2296 (June 30, 2022), describes as follows:

[A] plaintiff who voluntarily engages in a recreational activity or sporting event assumes the inherent risks of that activity and cannot recover for injuries sustained in engaging in the activity unless the defendant acted recklessly or intentionally in causing the injuries.

Lastly, the involvement of specific terminology or knowledge tends to constrain who is capable of answering a question, but an increase of requisite specialization does not in and of itself render that question off-topic.