Tyler Eifert got Dez Bryant'ed

[nathanlt]

I'm starting to think maybe if enough of these calls occur then the league will have no choice but to change the rule. And that's what the leagues wants....Instead of being proactive and taking responsibility they want to make such a mess of the situation...then make the rule change as if they are saving the day..giving the league more credibility. Which couldn't be further from the truth. If the league had any balls...they would have made the change after last years Dez debacle.

But they won't make the change, it's another PR nightmare for them. The drip, drip, drip every week during the season when referees take away catches. They didn't have a written rule to support taking away Dez's catch, they just took it. This year the wrote rules to retroactively support taking away catches, they are doing it, and they look like idiots. Blandino is a clown, an actual comedian turned VP of officiating without ever refereeing a game. Pure amateur league right now.

The worst thing Dallas fans can say is "See, now you know how we felt during a playoff game" No, we all need to campaign against the NFL to get Blandino out of there and the stupid rule that no one can apply correctly. Conveniently, the NFL comment line is broken today. use officeofcommissioner@nfl.com That will get your message to the commissioner.

 

[Thatkidbob]

Conveniently, the NFL comment line is broken today. use officeofcommissioner@nfl.com That will get your message to the commissioner team of poor saps that answer the commissioner's email.

FIFY

 

[SportsGuru80]

The NFL is becoming a joke...

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

Except It is. Eifert did not fulfill the requirements of a completed pass prior to going to the ground. He gets one foot down and is hit just prior to his second foot touching, which is presumably when the process of going to the ground started. He didn't complete the process with the ball so it's an incomplete.

The time element doesn't necessarily matter in this case if the deemed that he started the process of going to the ground prior to his 2nd foot hitting because the time element must take place after securing possession and getting 2 feet down.

Even if the ruling was that his 2nd foot was down prior to the process of going to the ground starting, there's so little time between the second foot hitting and when he starts going to the ground (no matter when you want to say it began up until the point where he hits the ground) that I'm not even sure anyone could argue that call.

The rule just sucks, but they called it correctly.

 

[unionjack8]

thats a TD. end of story. Screw Dean Blandino and his pathetic crew of referees. Was it Hochuli? cos he is a turd

 

[nathanlt]

FIFY

Thanks! maybe they might notice a trend after a while. maybe it will be worth reporting to him and the next fan metrics meeting.

 

[Floatyworm]

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.

Common core Football......

 

[ohiocowboysfan25]

thats a TD. end of story. Screw Dean Blandino and his pathetic crew of referees. Was it Hochuli? cos he is a turd

I think it was Triplette. Hochuli did the carolina game and told Cam Newton he wasn't old enough to get a roughing call. These refs are absolutely terrible anymore.

 

[Nightman]

Except It is. Eifert did not fulfill the requirements of a completed pass prior to going to the ground. He gets one foot down and is hit just prior to his second foot touching, which is presumably when the process of going to the ground started. He didn't complete the process with the ball so it's an incomplete.

The time element doesn't necessarily matter in this case if the deemed that he started the process of going to the ground prior to his 2nd foot hitting because the time element must take place after securing possession and getting 2 feet down.

Even if the ruling was that his 2nd foot was down prior to the process of going to the ground starting, there's so little time between the second foot hitting and when he starts going to the ground (no matter when you want to say it began up until the point where he hits the ground) that I'm not even sure anyone could argue that call.

The rule just sucks, but they called it correctly.

Eifert didn't start the process of going to the ground, he was being knocked to the ground. He didn't dive for the ball. He came straight down with both feet and only stretched the ball out to cross the goal line, which is a touchdown. Players only stick the ball out because it can't be a fumble if it breaks the plane. That is a football move.

How can you extend the ball out if haven't made the catch??????

What you are saying is that a WR can go straight up in the end zone, catch the ball, land with 2 feet squarely on the ground AND THEN a SS can come over and knock him to ground and if the ball then comes out at anytime before he stands back up then it is not a catch. That is a bad rule and directly collides with about 3 other rules.

 

[Hoofbite]

Eifert didn't start the process of going to the ground, he was being knocked to the ground. He didn't dive for the ball. He came straight down with both feet and only stretched the ball out to cross the goal line, which is a touchdown. Players only stick the ball out because it can't be a fumble if it breaks the plane. That is a football move.

How can you extend the ball out if haven't made the catch??????

What you are saying is that a WR can go straight up in the end zone, catch the ball, land with 2 feet squarely on the ground AND THEN a SS can come over and knock him to ground and if the ball then comes out at anytime before he stands back up then it is not a catch. That is a bad rule and directly collides with about 3 other rules.

This has actually happened before. I'm almost positive it was Todd Heap who had a TD taken off the board after he caught the pass, landed, got hit and fell onto his back with the ball popping out.

Here's the rulebook.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

What you're saying is that you clearly do not know what the rule says. It clearly does not apply only to situations in which a player dives for a ball. Look at the rule. You're arguing it was a bad call when it was not. It was the right call according to a horrible rule that shouldn't exist.

As for this question above:

How can you extend the ball out if haven't made the catch??????

Again, the answer is simple. Look at the rule. Catching the pass is not the only requirement for a completed pass. You must secure possession, get 2 feet down, and then satisfy the time requirement. The time requirement is not new, and if anything, it's more ambiguous now than it was before.

Eifert secured possession and then got hit before his 2nd foot touched, and it was the hit that started his process of going to the ground.

 

[DTown214]

If this was the exact play with Dez instead of Eifert in the playoff game I would still be whining about it to this day. Don't get me wrong, Dez's catch WAS a catch. But I could see how an idiot like Blandino could mistaken it for a drop. But this play is absolutely 100% a TD. He catches it, has full possession and reaches it across the goal line. It doesn't matter what happens to the ball after the moment it goes across the line. The ball could've vanished into oblivion at the end but it still should've been a TD because he had possession and the ball was in the end zone.

 

[jobberone]

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.

Correct. And the ball is then dead. But the rule for a completion includes maintaining control of the football thru the process of catching the ball including maintaining control of the ball on contact with the ground and a player(s).

It's a butchered rule which should have been left alone as the ball is dead once the plane is pierced by the football. The rub is in does the player have possession of the football when it does that.

They need to go back to the drawing board over this IMO.

 

[nathanlt]

This has actually happened before. I'm almost positive it was Todd Heap who had a TD taken off the board after he caught the pass, landed, got hit and fell onto his back with the ball popping out.

Here's the rulebook.


What you're saying is that you clearly do not know what the rule says. It clearly does not apply only to situations in which a player dives for a ball. Look at the rule. You're arguing it was a bad call when it was not. It was the right call according to a horrible rule that shouldn't exist.

As for this question above:



Again, the answer is simple. Look at the rule. Catching the pass is not the only requirement for a completed pass. You must secure possession, get 2 feet down, and then satisfy the time requirement. The time requirement is not new, and if anything, it's more ambiguous now than it was before.

Eifert secured possession and then got hit before his 2nd foot touched, and it was the hit that started his process of going to the ground.

The only thing worse than the rule, is the people who try to defend this thing. What does initial contact mean? It means the first contact with the ground, which was his foot after he caught the ball. So, he had possession after initial contact with the ground.

The words, as written conflict with the concept Blandino is pushing, and those who help him push this idiotic concept seriously have so much time, they would devote personal time to defending stupidity.

 

[sideon]

The NFL rules are needlessly complicated, it's like fumbling crossing the goal line is still a TD but you have to maintain possession and come to a complete stop if you catch it in the end zone.

 

[Kevinicus]

Eifert didn't start the process of going to the ground, he was being knocked to the ground. He didn't dive for the ball. He came straight down with both feet and only stretched the ball out to cross the goal line, which is a touchdown. Players only stick the ball out because it can't be a fumble if it breaks the plane. That is a football move.

How can you extend the ball out if haven't made the catch??????

What you are saying is that a WR can go straight up in the end zone, catch the ball, land with 2 feet squarely on the ground AND THEN a SS can come over and knock him to ground and if the ball then comes out at anytime before he stands back up then it is not a catch. That is a bad rule and directly collides with about 3 other rules.

Your order is wrong. He did not have 2 feet down before the defender hit him.

But a football move is not the rule anymore. The reach is now irrelevant. They butchered that and added the whole "upright long enough" to "clearly become a runner" nonsense.

But it is easy to extend the ball if you haven't made the catch. You can be standing on one foot and extend the ball. And we all know a catch requires two feet.

The rule is ridiculous and goes against all logic and reason, but they called it how they said they were going to call it this year.

 

[Kevinicus]

If this was the exact play with Dez instead of Eifert in the playoff game I would still be whining about it to this day. Don't get me wrong, Dez's catch WAS a catch. But I could see how an idiot like Blandino could mistaken it for a drop. But this play is absolutely 100% a TD. He catches it, has full possession and reaches it across the goal line. It doesn't matter what happens to the ball after the moment it goes across the line. The ball could've vanished into oblivion at the end but it still should've been a TD because he had possession and the ball was in the end zone.

You can only score a TD if the ball crosses the goal line in a player's POSSESSION. The ball crossing the plane when not in someone's possession is just a loose ball. Possession, according to the new explanation (I would argue the wording does not jive with their explanations), was not established because he was going to the ground, and wasn't "upright long enough" to establish himself "clearly as a runner." The reach no longer means anything like it would have in previous years. The NFL in all it's glorious wisdom has made a mockery of catching a football. At least they are being consistent with their mockery though (at least as far as what I've seen thus far).

 

[Hoofbite]

The only thing worse than the rule, is the people who try to defend this thing. What does initial contact mean? It means the first contact with the ground, which was his foot after he caught the ball. So, he had possession after initial contact with the ground.

The words, as written conflict with the concept Blandino is pushing, and those who help him push this idiotic concept seriously have so much time, they would devote personal time to defending stupidity.

Look, the rule sucks and has no place in the game. I've said that over and over.

That said, they called it correctly.

Feel free to define initial contact however you like. They're never going to apply the rule in the manner you stated so there's no point in even discussing it.

 

[nathanlt]

Look, the rule sucks and has no place in the game. I've said that over and over.

That said, they called it correctly.

Feel free to define initial contact however you like. They're never going to apply the rule in the manner you stated so there's no point in even discussing it.

What you should have said, is "they're never going to apply the rule in the manner THEY stated" My point is, what they wrote in the rulebook has little to do with how they enforce it. Total clownshow up there.

 

[Hoofbite]

What you should have said, is "they're never going to apply the rule in the manner THEY stated" My point is, what they wrote in the rulebook has little to do with how they enforce it. Total clownshow up there.

No, because nobody - outside of you anyway - actually believes that a guy's foot touching the ground would ever be considered "initial contact" in a rule about a player going to the ground.

They never intended for anyone to treat the rulebook as though it was divine word that should be taken to its literal extreme so maybe it's not a good idea to nitpick the rule based on whether or not you feel their wording is sufficient enough to meet your standards.

 

[nathanlt]

No, because nobody - outside of you anyway - actually believes that a guy's foot touching the ground would ever be considered "initial contact" in a rule about a player going to the ground.

They never intended for anyone to treat the rulebook as though it was divine word that should be taken to its literal extreme so maybe it's not a good idea to nitpick the rule based on whether or not you feel their wording is sufficient enough to meet your standards.

Initial contact means initial contact. That's just obvious. Am I the only one who thinks initial contact means initial contact?? I hardly think so. There were no qualifiers stating something other than the feet. The written rule, is the written rule, regardless of what the writer meant.

If he can't write it down, how in the world will it be applied consistently? It won't, and that's what we see in the NFL, week after week.