In light of Sunday's Super Bowl and all the controversy that came with it, it's time to unleash my proposed rule that will alleviate said controversies. Call it the "Screw it, It's a Great Play" Rule. The rule, basically stipulates that all those technical, nit picky rules that so often infect a football game, are thrown out if the play also involves some measure of greatness. Take the Santanio Holmes catch. People are still debating whether or not Holmes was in but if my rule was in place, whether or not he was in wouldn't matter because it was such an incredibly great play Holmes should be given the benefit of the doubt. He made one of the greatest catches in football history, who cares if he might not have gotten one toe on the field? Shouldn't he be rewarded for making such an incredible catch?

The problem of great plays being nullified over small little things like details is a huge problem with the NFL because they're so anal about the rules. We've all watched some incredible play made only to see it reversed because the player's feet wasn't technically in bounds or there was a ticky tack holding call or somebody held somebody's jersey for a few seconds. Sports fans want to see great plays, they don't want to see referees in viewing booths or yellow flags thrown.

And while you might think this is ridiculous and goes against the whole point of rules, the rule is already in effect in other sports. The NBA in particular does this. Or just look at how refs treats stars. They can do whatever they want because who wants to see LeBron called for travelling or Kobe for ticky-tack fouling? Just look at how they treated Michael Jordan-- they basically let him do whatever he wants (cough last shot in Game 6 of the '98 NBA finals. And how many times have we heard it said that refs should just let people play in the final minutes of an important game and not call anything? The same goes with hockey in which players can basically mug somebody else in a playoff game or in the last two minutes of a close game because the refs realize nobody wants them to affect the game.

It's true in baseball too. Certain players get the benefit of a call more than others, especially when it comes to balls and strikes. If Barry Bonds didn't swing at a pitch that was an obvious strikes, a lot of umps would call a ball because they figured Bonds' was so good if he didn't swing at it, there must have been a good reason. And I'm pretty sure that if Derek Jeter made a shoe-string catch that technically bounced before he caught it, the umps would let it slide.

See, wouldn't this make football even better?