What (or who) are you tired of?

[ColdCat]

Very true.

Likewise, canker sores.

I just got over one of those
evil, evil little things.

 

[da man]

Right, the biting of the inside of your mouth thing. And:

-- Karl Rove
-- Our Liar-In-Chief
-- Popovich quarter-break interviews.
-- Pre-flight instructions. We know how to buckle and unbuckle a freaking seat belt. Give me some knee room.
-- Hashtag campaigns.
-- Trailers that give away the whole movie or, worse, show most of what wind up being the only good scene or two.
-- Kids who call adults by their first names (instead of "Mr." or "Mrs.") and the jackass grown-ups who encourage it.
-- Folks whose first reaction to just about anything is to whine, blame or complain instead of kicking their own butts into gear.
-- "I-877-Kars-4-Kids..."
-- Kathy Griffin -- wait, this is leftover from my 2003 list.
-- Show biz awards shows.
-- "Breaking the plane of the end zone" being good enough for runners but full possession + one foot not being good enough for receivers.

ANY awards shows.

 

[Buck]

Right, the biting of the inside of your mouth thing. And:

-- "Breaking the plane of the end zone" being good enough for runners but full possession + one foot not being good enough for receivers.

Because the runner has already established possession. For a receiver, one foot does not equal possession.

 

[Joe Williams]

Because the runner has already established possession. For a receiver, one foot does not equal possession.

Yeah, I understand the difference, but they're called "touchdowns." RB can leap onto a pile, hold the ball out and if the nose breaks some pretend glass wall, hooray, SIX POINTS! But WR in stride can catch ball in the end zone, plant foot with ball in grasp and either miss with second foot due to momentum or nowadays even be pushed out before 2nd foot touches, and it's incomplete pass. I know what the rules say but, like the Dez Bryant deal, it imposes a much higher threshold on the receiver than the running back. Hate touchdowns scored as I described above, where no part of the offensive player ever gets into the end zone. Makes me feel like they're playing on a 99-yard field.

 

[Vombatus]

Dallas Cowboys

 

[Buck]

Yeah, I understand the difference, but they're called "touchdowns." RB can leap onto a pile, hold the ball out and if the nose breaks some pretend glass wall, hooray, SIX POINTS! But WR in stride can catch ball in the end zone, plant foot with ball in grasp and either miss with second foot due to momentum or nowadays even be pushed out before 2nd foot touches, and it's incomplete pass. I know what the rules say but, like the Dez Bryant deal, it imposes a much higher threshold on the receiver than the running back. Hate touchdowns scored as I described above, where no part of the offensive player ever gets into the end zone. Makes me feel like they're playing on a 99-yard field.

Nobody hates the ridiculous NFL rules more than me. I barely watch the NFL anymore because it is terrible.
This particular rule, however, has always been completely logical.
If you have possession, you only have to break the plane of the goal line. That is the 1o0th yard.
If I catch the ball at the 5 and get hit at the goal line, I can reach out the ball, break the plane and score a TD.
That is perfectly logical.

Now if you want to talk about what constitutes possession - moving ball, under control, making a football move, etc. - I agree with you. The NFL has become absurd.

And that really is what has become intolerable to me. I used to love the NFL, and now I can't stand it.
Get rid of replay calls. They have ruined the game.
And replay officiating has not decreased complaints about officiating. There is more whining about officiating than ever, and it just keeps getting worse.

I have grown to loathe the NFL.

 

[Joe Williams]

Nobody hates the ridiculous NFL rules more than me. I barely watch the NFL anymore because it is terrible.
This particular rule, however, has always been completely logical.
If you have possession, you only have to break the plane of the goal line. That is the 1o0th yard.
If I catch the ball at the 5 and get hit at the goal line, I can reach out the ball, break the plane and score a TD.
That is perfectly logical.

I'm more partial to basketball, I guess. Where, if you palm the ball near the sideline or baseline and hold it beyond those lines, it doesn't kill the play because "you're" out of bounds. Your feet determine whether you're out of bounds (actually, that's how the NFL does it on the sidelines, too). I apply that logic to touchdowns. Holding the ball in the air space over the end zone IMO isn't as legit as stepping or landing in the end zone with possession.

 

[JackReacher]

This conversation.

 

[Buck]

I'm more partial to basketball, I guess. Where, if you palm the ball near the sideline or baseline and hold it beyond those lines, it doesn't kill the play because "you're" out of bounds. Your feet determine whether you're out of bounds (actually, that's how the NFL does it on the sidelines, too). I apply that logic to touchdowns. Holding the ball in the air space over the end zone IMO isn't as legit as stepping or landing in the end zone with possession.

But yardage is always determined by the ball. If the player extends the ball to cross a given yardage mark - 10-yeard line, 27-yard line, goal line, etc. - then that yardage has been achieved. In the case of the 0-/100-yard line that is the goal line.
If I hold the ball forward to the 6, the ball is at the 6. That is the spot of possession for the next play. If I hold the ball forward to the 0/100, that is goal line and the ball has reached the goal while in possession of a player. That's a touchdown because there is no place to start the next play.

Inbound/out of bounds is determined by the player's feet. That applies to the sidelines and endlines only. Within the field of play, the spot of possession for the next play is determined by the spot of the ball.

 

[spikechiquet]

ESPN porn links.

 

[old_tony]

I'm more partial to basketball, I guess. Where, if you palm the ball near the sideline or baseline and hold it beyond those lines, it doesn't kill the play because "you're" out of bounds. Your feet determine whether you're out of bounds (actually, that's how the NFL does it on the sidelines, too). I apply that logic to touchdowns. Holding the ball in the air space over the end zone IMO isn't as legit as stepping or landing in the end zone with possession.

And then the league contradicts itself in the case of a punt that bounces, breaks the plane of the goal line and then is batted back into the field of play by a coverage player.

 

[JC]

How is that contradicting themsleves? There is no possesion.