re: Florio/PFT: IT will take a play in the SB to change fumble/touchback rule

quote:

---

No one can name one logical reason for the change of possession

---

Your requirement that a rule has to be logical in connection with other rules is dumb.

Why is touching the outside of the pylon a TD even though the pylon sits out of bounds?

Why is their a plane on the goal line but not on the side line...unless another body part touches out of bounds?

Why can there be offensive pass interference 4 yards downfield (pick) even though there is contact allowed within 5 yards?

Why is a defender allowed to grab and pull a player to disengage a blocker, but not allowed to grab and pull to allow another player to shoot a gap?

Why does the entire football have to be out of the end zone to prevent a safety when the foremost tip of the ball controls the where a ball is spotted everywhere else?

quote:

---

There is no argument needed. It's arbitrary. Your need to find n equivalence for how things work in the end zone vs other parts of the field is faulty.

For example, if you cross the plane of the goal line, it's a TD.

If you cross the plane of the 40 yard line, you aren't guaranteed the 40 yard line. OMG, OMG, why are things different. Why doesn't the player have to be tackled in the end zone, or gain forward progress in the end zone like they do all over the field.

---

Yes, there is a rational argument needed as to why a rule exists. Do I need to explain to you the rational argumentation behind why crossing the goalline with the football results in a stoppage of play totally separate than other parts of the field? Or do you think that it's some completely arbitrary, non-logical reason that takes place?

quote:

---

Your point is a stupid one.

---

Which point exactly? You are quite vague. The only argument you have made is that the endzone is different than other parts of the field, therefore rules needn't be well thought out. It's arbitrary! Therefore you can make a rule that says if you fumble it out the side of the endzone it results in 7 points for the defense. If anybody critiques the rule, your idiotic argument is that they have no point because the rules of the endzone are arbitrary! Again, to what end?

quote:

---

And, frankly, once you realize that there is no intended symmetry, the rule as it stands is the better one.

---

Qualify why it's "better." Simply because it's random and arbitrary? That's nonsensical.