5

Personally, I think they're both OK if not brilliant questions. They are both reasonably scoped, and do so some evidence of research, particularly the rugby one: I understand that there needs to be minimum distance between the 2 lines and that there needs to be a minimum distance between the lines and the side line. Even looking at the appropriate Law of ...


3

Questions that are "low effort" should not be closed as "too broad", nor as any other particular close reason, unless that reason applies. "Too broad" is not a standin for "low effort". Low effort questions should be downvoted, and commented as to what would improve them. This question qualifies for that, I think. I've cast a reopen vote and a downvote. ...


3

You were not "forced" to delete anything. You chose to do so. "Protected by Community" doesn't actually mean very much - it's an automatic response by the SE system after two spam answers were posted on the question on Tuesday. Yeah, that's not a great question. It should probably have been closed - but it's not worth getting stressed about.


3

In general, we should leave questions of this type open. As an American, I know a fair amount about American football, basketball, and baseball. I know less about soccer football, and almost nothing about cricket. If I were to watch a cricket match, I would have a lot of questions, many of which would be instantly answerable by many of the people on ...


2

It's not illegal though. It just can't score a goal. This is an important distinction in sports officiating that many people struggle with, including perhaps yourself (given the title used and the third bullet point). For football at least, laws of the game are relevant and this question is about the rules applying, to the specific situation of a throw-in ...


2

I had hoped that closing autograph identification questions as they arrived on the site would stop the flow of questions. However, that obviously hasn't happened so I agree this would be a good idea. The only slight flaw is that a site can have only three custom close reasons, and ours are already taken up with: Questions on outdoor activities unrelated to ...


2

It's obviously been opened again, and I'm certainly not capable of casting close votes, but I would suggest one reason that's been left out of the discussion: Too broad includes the reason "Good answers would be too long for this format". When I read that question, it certainly sounds interesting to me, but it seems to me that it's more of a master's ...


1

I just can't help but mention that this is fantastic meta question! Well formulated, and very beneficial for the site. So kudos on that! :) Otherwise about the actual question, I agree that at its current state it is a bit too narrow, but I believe that can be salvaged with better phrasing by the OP. As for localization in general, it's pretty hard to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible