I'm sure you guys have gotten this one before...

[TXMike]

I would say that is a veryy accurate description.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by TXMike

I would say that is a veryy accurate description.

Of course it is very accurate. It also makes me smile.

[jaybird]

2) I registered and posed the exact Clint Stoerner question on officiating.com's football message board. This is where officials spend time discussing often times very boring and arcane rules/interpretations, etc. Because that's what they do.

I like. You're right, it does make you smile.

[waltjp]

2) I registered and posed the exact Clint Stoerner question on officiating.com's football message board. This is where officials spend time discussing often times very boring and arcane rules/interpretations, etc. Because that's what they do.

Originally Posted by jaybird

I like. You're right, it does make you smile.

It's nice to see that someone is noticing.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Think we are all in agreement that football rules are complicated

They're complicated in toto, but not every single part of them is complicated. This part is simple.

and the average fan gets a good deal of their simplistic rule "knowledge" from the talking heads.

But the talking heads unnecessarily complicate this simple pair of rules (the one determining when a runner is down and the one determining when a ball is in player possession). There's nothing about causation in there, so why do they have to go putting that in?

Robert

[svm1010]

Ok, please don't flame but to be fair (what we're suposed to do right I have noticed that more of the "talking heads" appear to have been studying the rulebooks. I have heared some very acurate explanations to some wild A** plays over the past year or two. an improvement over the 'simplified rules' that they have been spoon feeding the average spectator. Still a long ways to go but at least some of them are making an attempt.