The movie and our understanding of the spacial relationships of the people in them are not two complimentary concepts.
There are no obligatory physical and or mechanical restrictions for artists to follow in any form of art.
Are you insulted by black and white films that restrict the film-maker to only depicting contrast and shade.
Then again colour is pretty insulting the way it tells the audience what colours things are and how some things are different colours from other things. I notice that many of the greatest film-makers have disregarded colour.
Or how about when something like and explosion is accompanied with a loud sound effect? Like the audience needs to be told what it sounds like. How insulting to be restricted to the artist's choice of depicting a scene?
I'm just following their logic of it "insulting" the audience and seeing if it stands up.
You go ahead and humour anyone who is insulted by a couple of camera angles though.
If you break the 180-degree rule, on a cut, cutting from one character, who is facing left-to-right, speaking to another character who is presumably out of the right side of the frame, to the other character reacting, and the other character reacting is also facing left-to-right, both characters will appear to be, instead of interacting with each other, interacting with some imaginary third character that does not exist, thus confusing the audience. Can you explain exactly how that would work?
Has anyone ever stated that they cannot conceive an exception to that rule?
A football game is still generally shown from one angle and for a sustained period of time.
It's not just a rule. It's a fact.
If you do not observe it, which you are perfectly entitled to do, then you run the risk of confusing the stage directionIf you don't care about that then fine.
If you cross the line then the shot taken from the angle runs the risk of misleading the audience and making it appear that the two actors are facing in the same direction or looking into space instead of facing each other.