The best sport to use for this type of example I believe is golf. Soccer is a very intuitive game and almost all of the rules flow from it being intuitive. Bringing it in as an example denies that Chivalry must be complex because of the interface.
Golf is a very top down rule structure and the bottom has to break the rules to make it playable. The pros play on practically different courses than the amateurs, they use massively more expensive equipment, and the rules are absurd in both directions.
For example: Card signing. A stupid old tradition that deals with each player typically being their own scorer. Serves no purpose in tournaments televised to millions with a massive scoreboard on each hole, but you can still be disqualified for writing the wrong number down.
Pros can rightly hate this rule, but it has a purpose for general public play in that it makes every player honest in keeping their own score.
Stroke and distance for out of bounds and lost balls: The penalty slows down the game incredibly and is almost uniformly ignored in friendly play because of how obnoxious it can be to enforce. Yet, because of fairness it must be kept for pros. So casual golf players must ignore it to keep their rounds from becoming annoying.
So yes, there are examples out there in pro-sports. I imagine someone in here will just respond that golf shouldn’t count or whatever. The point really is that these are all games and games must be designed in their rulesets to make them fun, popular, and competitive.
Imagine how you would go about picking the rules you would enforce if you and a buddy played a pickup game of golf with Tiger Woods and Arnold Palmer. How do you decide? In Chivalry, when you show up to a server you have the rules of the game hardcoded into the server for the most part…and it doesn’t matter if you are facing Tiger Woods or Joe from down the street.
There is an appeal to everyone everywhere having to participate in the same fashion as the highest level people, but . . . when those are your rules you only get the people who find it fun to play by those rules. That is the population question: If your built-in rules are arcane enough to require people to look them up just to enjoy playing, can you sustain a community of just those who are willing to look the rules up?