To me, it seems the easiest position to play in the National Football League is wide receiver.

I'm sure the specialist positions like kicker and punter are not exactly rigorous. You just line up and kick. The physicality is just not there.

At receiver, however, if you can master even the basic of routes and get a handle on the jargon, you should be in good shape.

When Michael Crabtree ended his holdout recently and signed as the San Francisco 49ers first-round pick, there was talk he wouldn't be of use for at least a few weeks. That's nonsense.

A receiver should be able to know when the ball is coming and where to be. I'm not saying he should understand the entire playbook, but he can be put in situations early enough that he should be productive.

That being said, perhaps that's the reason why the NFL tries to make things more difficult for its receivers.

Sure, receivers have benefited over the years from touch fouls, defensive bumps and impeding the path to the ball, but why must receivers work even harder than running backs?

In Sunday's game between the Steelers and Cleveland Browns, Hines Ward had an apparent touchdown pass overruled by instant replay because he didn't maintain control of the football all the way through the play.

Who are we kidding here?

Ward pulled down the pass, had both feet clearly in bounds, then he rolled out of bounds. In the process of rolling back up, again out of bounds, the ball slipped out of Ward's hands and hit the ground.

The concept of both feet in and maintaining control until he was out of bounds should be enough. Does he have to roll up back to his feet and hand the ball back? At what point is the play completed?

Now, on the other hand, what about the running back?

All you have to do is break the end zone plane for a touchdown, even if the ball is swatted out of your hand or the ball bounces out of your hand as you extend across the line.

Who thought of this as a football rule? And, more importantly, why can't a wide receiver catch a break like that?

Running backs are saved by that rule — granted, a quarterback or receiver benefits from the same rule, but it works primarily for the running back — as well as the all-important the-ground-cannot-cause-the-fumble idea.

Why can't it?

The rule worked for decades before someone decided that you didn't need to maintain control if the ball met the ground. Shouldn't a ball carrier come out of the pile or off the turf with the ball?

The example of Ward just shows that more is expected of a receiver. The bottom line is Ward more than broke the plane — by several feet — and rolled out of bounds with possession. His only fault was he didn't maintain control once he was clearly out of bounds and was already on the ground.

Running backs don't need to finish the play with the ball in their hands. The same should go for a receiver, especially when he's safely out of bounds.

Sam Tallarico is a staff writer for the Butler Eagle.