>>even though the player never set foot in the endzone<<
“Setting foot” in the end zone has never been part of the rule in any rules code. Not sure what you are arguing. Do you not like tennis being played with nets? Basketball with a round ball? Car racing with cars with tires? About as silly.
>>These rule changes are BS<<
You never referred to any actual changes.
>>the player was plainly in possession, steps into the endzone, then drops the ball after he’s knocked to the ground<<
Then by definition, he wasn’t in possession. And even if he was, it didn’t meet the definition of a catch. I’m not sure why that’s irritating. What would your proposed definition of a catch be?
>>How come, if the runner dives into the corner of the end zone and reaches with the ball to get it inside the pylon while the player himself never lands in the end zone, it’s a TD?<<
Because the ball crossed the plane of the line in player possession. TD. The goal line actually runs out of bounds as well. However, if the ball crosses the extended goal line, the player must at least touch in bounds or the ball is placed where it went out of bounds.
>>But if the receiver is also inside the end zone and leaps up to catch the ball, and does catch it inside the plane of the endzone but lands outside the plane, it’s not a TD?<<
It isn’t in player possession nor is it a catch until he lands. Makes perfect sense.
>>I saw two plays last weekend where the offense runs out of bounds right before the pylon and holds the ball at extended length and THEY CALLED IT A TD!!!<<
What is surprising? It is a correct call!
>>I just think a good effot should get it’s due, not some deal where if you have longer arms than somebody else you can score more TD’s because you can reach farther!<<
You probably won’t be invited on the rules committee!
There are some quirky rules, but none listed here are.