Tyler Eifert got Dez Bryant'ed

[speedkilz88]

It's official, the suits have ruined the game.

 

[Kevinicus]

Per the rule, I can see why they called this incomplete. They deemed him to be going to the ground in the process of making the catch. In which case he has to maintain control through the process of contacting the ground.

The problem with the rule is the judgement piece of determining him going to the ground. An argument can be made, and should be made, that in this case he wasn't really going to the ground until contact was made. You can argue that he was forced to the ground because of the contact. This is different than the Dez call where, in my opinion, Dez would have went to the ground regardless of the contact being made.

As long as they are consistent with it. Receivers need to understand this rule. They need to secure the ball. I understand they are trying to make a play, score a touchdown, whatever. But is reaching out with the ball and risking this type of call worth it? No. Catch it, secure it and move on to the next play.

That has always been irrelevant unless the contact occurs after they have control with 2 feet down.

 

[Kevinicus]

So a player can catch a sideline pass, tap two toes in bounds, and fall out of bounds or be pushed out. And that toe tapping is considered a football move. But a catch, 2 feet down, ball breaks the plane for a TD, but not be a football move.
How is that different, ball breaking the goal line plane, or going out of bounds.
Regardless of holding onto the ball or not.

Toe tapping is not considered a football move. Football moves don't really exist anymore for catches...it's just "clearly becoming a runner" however one wants to define that.

Of course the rule also says they only have to maintain control beyond the "initial contact" with the ground. By that definition, Eifert's 3rd toe tap would be his initial contact. The NFL has completely lost it and screwed things up.

 

[benson]

Exact same situation happened in the Den-Det game last night except the ball carrier was a RB. He crossed the plane then lost the ball, TD.

Looks like there is a huge distinction between running it in and passing it in nowadays.

 

[Everson24]

What in the h*** are they doing to football?

They are ruining it. That is what they are doing.The wearher is too nice this time of year up here to waste my day watching the crap that is today's NFL. I need to find alternative activities for Sunday afternoons.

 

[Everson24]

So a player can catch a sideline pass, tap two toes in bounds, and fall out of bounds or be pushed out. And that toe tapping is considered a football move. But a catch, 2 feet down, ball breaks the plane for a TD, but not be a football move.
How is that different, ball breaking the goal line plane, or going out of bounds.
Regardless of holding onto the ball or not.

They are trying to justify the blown Dez call in the playoffs. That is the only logical explanation. If they call Eifort's catch a TD then Blandino will hear about the Dez catch all over again.

 

[sideon]

So we all see him break the plane with the ball right? I swear this league is like a person who says 1+1+1+1+1 = 5.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I thought once the ball broke the plane, its a TD regardless of what else happens.

Once the ball breaks the plane IN SOMEONE'S POSSESSION, this is true. But possession must first be established.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Once the ball breaks the plane IN SOMEONE'S POSSESSION, this is true. But possession must first be established.

And its not established there? That's insane. This might be worse than Dez's call.

 

[BlindFaith]

That has always been irrelevant unless the contact occurs after they have control with 2 feet down.

It is irrelevant as the rule is written today. It doesn't matter if there is contact or not if the player goes to the ground. And that's what happened here and with Dez.

That is one part of the rule that needs adjusting. Eifert didn't look like he would have went to the ground on his own. It could be argued that he was in a position to defend himself but that the contact/tackle caused him to go to the ground. All of this happening as he was trying to make the catch.

The NFL has decided that if you go to the ground, no matter what, while catching a pass that you must maintain possession throughout contacting the ground. By those rules, they made the right call.

 

[texbumthelife]

That's a touchdown. Don't even tell me if that happened at the 50 yard line that isn't a fumble. That's atrocious. No one knows what a catch is anymore.

 

[KJJ]

I thought once the ball broke the plane, its a TD regardless of what else happens.

That should be a TD, what a horrible call.

He was in the process of "going to the ground" therefore he must maintain possession all the way through the contact of the ground regardless that the ball broke the plane of the goal line. I don't agree with the rule but that's the rule. Calvin Johnson was in the end zone and clearly caught the ball but he was going to the ground and didn't hold onto it through the contact of the ground.

 

[speedkilz88]

That's a touchdown. Don't even tell me if that happened at the 50 yard line that isn't a fumble. That's atrocious. No one knows what a catch is anymore.

More importantly, Dean Blandino doesn't.

 

[Kevinicus]

It is irrelevant as the rule is written today. It doesn't matter if there is contact or not if the player goes to the ground. And that's what happened here and with Dez.

That is one part of the rule that needs adjusting. Eifert didn't look like he would have went to the ground on his own. It could be argued that he was in a position to defend himself but that the contact/tackle caused him to go to the ground. All of this happening as he was trying to make the catch.

The NFL has decided that if you go to the ground, no matter what, while catching a pass that you must maintain possession throughout contacting the ground. By those rules, they made the right call.

But did they? The rule says they must maintain possession through "initial contact". His "initial contact" after having 2 feet down and control of the ball, was his foot hitting a 3rd time. He maintained possession beyond that. The rules and their interpretations defy reason.

 

[Kevinicus]

So we all see him break the plane with the ball right? I swear this league is like a person who says 1+1+1+1+1 = 5.

That does equal 5...

 

[Direwolf63]

I said last week that I had no idea what a catch is anymore. And this play is of no help.

 

[Hoofbite]

Per the rule, I can see why they called this incomplete. They deemed him to be going to the ground in the process of making the catch. In which case he has to maintain control through the process of contacting the ground.

I think you're right. The rule is being applied correctly.

The problem is the rule is broken.

 

[Nightman]

Whats the difference between this and a RB jumping over the line, the ball cross, him losing the ball, and it's still a TD?

I guess because the RB always had control?

That was Randle's 3rd TD and it was reviewed and upheld.

 

[Nightman]

Once the ball breaks the plane IN SOMEONE'S POSSESSION, this is true. But possession must first be established.

How do you extend the ball if didn't catch it yet? It's absurd.

 

[Nightman]

I think you're right. The rule is being applied correctly.

The problem is the rule is broken.

Except that it isn't.

Blandino now said there is an "unspecified time element" that has to be met and Eifert didn't have it long enough. He didn't say how long the element was, just that it wasn't met.