Tyler Eifert got Dez Bryant'ed

[sideon]

That does equal 5...

I know, i'm saying they make things more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[Nightman]

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.

He wasn't in the process of going to the ground to make the catch. He made the catch, turned, was tackled to the ground as he extended the ball to break the plane. Big difference. IF there was no defender there he walks into the endzone UPRIGHT.

 

[speedkilz88]

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.

And that is a "judgement" call which instant replay should not be looking at.

 

[JoeKing]

I'm glad the league's dumb rule didn't cost a deserving team a win this time... but at some point in the future it will, until it is fixed.

 

[aikemirv]

Just watched that GIF 40 times....3 steps...sticks the ball out and breaks plain of goaline. TD

I can't believe that was even a questionable call. League needs to change this BS rule

Yep, that is just plain stupidity!

 

[Kevinicus]

He wasn't in the process of going to the ground to make the catch. He made the catch, turned, was tackled to the ground as he extended the ball to break the plane. Big difference. IF there was no defender there he walks into the endzone UPRIGHT.

The tackle/hit was initiated before he had both feet down.

 

[KJJ]

He wasn't in the process of going to the ground to make the catch. He made the catch, turned, was tackled to the ground as he extended the ball to break the plane. Big difference. IF there was no defender there he walks into the endzone UPRIGHT.

That's your interpretation but according to the NFL he was therefore he has to maintain possession through the contact of the ground. As he was coming down he never had a real chance to establish himself as a runner and by the time he clearly had control of the ball he was going to the ground. I've argued this rule enough and am not going to discuss this any further. Argue it with Dean Blandino.

 

[TimHortons]

The rule is that if you have control of the ball when breaking the plane, it's a TD. Doesn't matter what else happens. So this should be a TD

 

[Nightman]

That's your interpretation but according to the NFL he was therefore he has to maintain possession through the contact of the ground. As he was coming down he never had a real chance to establish himself as a runner and by the time he clearly had control of the ball he was going to the ground. I've argued this rule enough and am not going to discuss this any further. Argue it with Dean Blandino.

I saw you argue the Dez catch for weeks by using the 'rule' as your hammer.

But a bad rule is a bad rule. It is too open to interpretations and judgements. You can't say the rule is being applied correctly when they keep changing the wording and making it more confusing. Blandino said just today that there is "time" element to a catch and Eifert didn't meet that unspecified requirement.

 

[TimHortons]

I'm thinking after the Dez controversy, no. If you think about the fact that 7 games last Sunday had 20, or more, flags thrown, it's pretty obvious the refs are over zealous. Now, they second-guess obvious TD's. Eifert and Escobar are indisputable touchdowns.

Well the Escobar one wasn't even an issue with rules, that was just plain stupidity of not being able to see the ball clearly crossing the goal line, which makes it even worse

 

[aikemirv]

I saw you argue the Dez catch for weeks by using the 'rule' as your hammer.

But a bad rule is a bad rule. It is too open to interpretations and judgements. You can't say the rule is being applied correctly when they keep changing the wording and making it more confusing. Blandino said just today that there is "time" element to a catch and Eifert didn't meet that unspecified requirement.

That is the biggest problem with this rule. Their is no time element to a catch. You either have control or you do not. The amount of "time" you have control does not make possession. They just need to go back to 2 feet and control. That took judgement out of the equation. If their is a time element then there is too much judgement being used!

 

[KJJ]

I saw you argue the Dez catch for weeks by using the 'rule' as your hammer.

But a bad rule is a bad rule. It is too open to interpretations and judgements. You can't say the rule is being applied correctly when they keep changing the wording and making it more confusing. Blandino said just today that there is "time" element to a catch and Eifert didn't meet that unspecified requirement.

I used the rule as a hammer because it's the RULE! Every call is open to interpretation and judgment and not everyone sees things the same way. I'm not happy with the rule but it's the RULE and I can live with it because these calls are reviewed by two sets of eyes and that's good enough for me.

 

[Nightman]

That is the biggest problem with this rule. Their is no time element to a catch. You either have control or you do not. The amount of "time" you have control does not make possession. They just need to go back to 2 feet and control. That took judgement out of the equation. If their is a time element then there is too much judgement being used!

Here is part of his quote. He is just making stuff up now.

Blandino invoked the Dez Bryant Rule on NFL Network, saying that Eifert didn’t possess the ball for long enough to constitute a catch.

“Very similar to the Dez play, he’s not a runner before he went to the ground, and the requirement is he has to hold onto the ball. So regardless of any reach, he’s got to hold onto the ball when he lands, and there’s an element of time the receiver has to complete in order to complete a catch. He didn’t complete that element of time and, very similar to the Dez play, it was ruled incomplete,” Blandino said.

 

[aikemirv]

I used the rule as a hammer because it's the RULE! Every call is open to interpretation and judgment and not everyone sees things the same way. I'm not happy with the rule but it's the RULE and I can live with it because these calls are reviewed by two sets of eyes and that's good enough for me.

When a rule is open to interpretation, it is not a rule!!!!! Interpretation of a football move, interpretation of a time element makes it not a rule but an opinion!!!!

 

[Nightman]

I used the rule as a hammer because it's the RULE! Every call is open to interpretation and judgment and not everyone sees things the same way. I'm not happy with the rule but it's the RULE and I can live with it because these calls are reviewed by two sets of eyes and that's good enough for me.

But it is like using a decency rule to censor musicians or artists. What might be vulgar or indecent to you is not a problem for someone else.

Just repeating the rule doesn't make it any clearer. 'But it is a rule, even it is a bad rule' is not fair way to run a league. It has been shown time and time again that there is way too much interpretation involved in a supposed black and white rule.

 

[KJJ]

When a rule is open to interpretation, it is not a rule!!!!! Interpretation of a football move, interpretation of a time element makes it not a rule but an opinion!!!!

Every rule is open to interpretation they're all judgment calls on the football field which is why they have replay. Even plays in frame by frame super slo-mo replay aren't conclusive. It takes judgment to make the final call most of the time which is why the NFL now has 2 sets of eyes looking at the play. What's been very consistent with this rule is that if a player even appears to be going to the ground in the process of making a catch they must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

 

[KJJ]

But it is like using a decency rule to censor musicians or artists. What might be vulgar or indecent to you is not a problem for someone else.

Just repeating the rule doesn't make it any clearer. 'But it is a rule, even it is a bad rule' is not fair way to run a league. It has been shown time and time again that there is way too much interpretation involved in a supposed black and white rule.

Argued this for months done with it.

 

[aikemirv]

Every rule is open to interpretation they're all judgment calls on the football field which is why they have replay. Even plays in frame by frame super slo-mo replay aren't conclusive. It takes judgment to make the final call most of the time which is why the NFL now has 2 sets of eyes looking at the play. What's been very consistent with this rule is that if a player even appears to be going to the ground in the process of making a catch they must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

Holding, pass interference have to be judgement calls by their nature and sometimes they get called and sometimes they don't. But.... a completion or a fumble, given the right camera angle is conclusive and should not be open to interpretation. That is why they should go back to the 2 feet and control for a reception. If you have ever caught a football, you know what posession is and what it is not. This is almost always confirmed by replay and a simple 2 feet and control is the easiest to confirm and be consistent on. What they have is a convoluted mess that is open to interpretation and is inconsistent.

They need to admit its stupidity and go back to where we came from!!!

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

I stopped listening to him because he's an idiot. If there is some sort of time element involved then why isn't it in the rule book. Is this him just making stuff up again?

 

[BlindFaith]

Holding, pass interference have to be judgement calls by their nature and sometimes they get called and sometimes they don't. But.... a completion or a fumble, given the right camera angle is conclusive and should not be open to interpretation. That is why they should go back to the 2 feet and control for a reception. If you have ever caught a football, you know what posession is and what it is not. This is almost always confirmed by replay and a simple 2 feet and control is the easiest to confirm and be consistent on. What they have is a convoluted mess that is open to interpretation and is inconsistent.

They need to admit its stupidity and go back to where we came from!!!

It's not just that easy. There are many shades of gray in there. They are trying to protect a receiver from getting blasted and fumbling when they cant really protect themselves. By doing so, they make it mandatory that if they are going to the ground they have to maintain possession.