[nolemmings]

Bill,

I still remain somewhat uncertain about your complaint. You state "I have seen where the runner is at the corner, never sets foot in the end zone, but as he about to go out of bounds, reaches hi arm out, and it crosses the plain of the goal line. At no time did the runner or the ball ever really get in to the end zone." That is not true--if any part of the ball crosses the plane--measured at the front end of the goal line-then the player possessing the ball has scored and is considered in the end zone. Would you agree that an offensive player who lands the ball on the front of the goal line is in "the end zone"? If so then a player hovering the ball over that same point is in the end zone.

I gather that your beef is with the fact that a player is not yet "down" and could thereafter fumble. But once the goal has been achieved, literally, why should the play not be dead? He has reached the promised land. If a receiver catches the ball in the end zone, lands there untouched, should the defense be allowed to cream him in hopes of a fumble because he's not yet "down"? A QB lunging over a pile of players extends the ball a good foot over the line while never hitting the ground. Should the defense be allowed to knock him backward and tackle him to the ground, or knock the ball loose for a fumble? I suppose the rules could be re-written for this, but I do not see what is to be gained. In fact, it is my understanding that at the beginning of football, the ball itself had to be actually "touched down" in the end zone for there to be a scoring play, and that rugby still requires it. Obviously that requirement died a long time ago.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.