Tyler Eifert got Dez Bryant'ed

[Derinyar]

The problem is that the NFL has over complicated things. Now the problem is that we have over lapping terms. Catch is both a common word with a meaning and a rule set specific word. Its obvious that Eifert caught the ball in the general term. With the way its being called in the NFL currently its, unfortunately, pretty obvious that its not a catch in the rule set specific Catch. I think this one is called this way because he never got his feet under him in an attempt to advance the ball, which is why its not a rule book Catch. I think this one is less grey area then the Dez catch because Dez did advance the ball in the course of his play by a decent amount.

The toe tap that people are mentioning is what the exception to the rule was created to allow for. On the toe tap you have to maintain control of the ball until you either hit the ground are maintain your feet.

I'm not defending the way the rule is called, just saying right now its semi consistent when you go to the replay crew.

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

Like I said, nobody else would interpret the rule in the manner you are so it's not a problem. Making things all wordy and typing out in great detail what initial contact means when a player is going to the ground is unnecessary and it doesn't do a single thing to fix the real problem with the rule.

 

[nathanlt]

Like I said, nobody else would interpret the rule in the manner you are so it's not a problem. Making things all wordy and typing out in great detail what initial contact means when a player is going to the ground is unnecessary and it doesn't do a single thing to fix the real problem with the rule.

So they are in a tough spot.
They won't enforce the meaning of what they wrote. They can't write what they mean because it's too confusing and wordy.

However, if they are going to take away a catch, and ruin a team's season because they can't wordsmith, they ought to get out of the referee business altogether. Sounds like they need to go back to what is simple. Two feet inbounds with possession is enough for a catch. Don't overthink that.

 

[Floatyworm]

What is so hard in defining what a catch is????? Two feet + controlling the football = catch. There.....Fixed

 

[BlindFaith]

What is so hard in defining what a catch is????? Two feet + controlling the football = catch. There.....Fixed

Yeah, that way we could have these same people complaining that the rule sucks because there are so many more fumbles.

You know what's even easier...hold on to the ball.

 

[SultanOfSix]

There's a deviousness in the vagueness, complication, verbosity, etc. of language in certain rules. They allow interpretation in contrario to common sense or a post facto fitting of an explanation in the mess of them. That way the outcome of a game can be made to change when deemed necessary - see last year's playoff game between the Cowboys and Packers.

 

[BlindFaith]

There's a deviousness in the vagueness, complication, verbosity, etc. of language in certain rules. They allow interpretation in contrario to common sense or a post facto fitting of an explanation in the mess of them. That way the outcome of a game can be made to change when deemed necessary - see last year's playoff game between the Cowboys and Packers.

Yes, exactly. Because having the Cowboys in the Super Bowl is bad for the NFL. Come on man. It's fine to not like the rules, or not understand them. But this conspiracy nonsense has got to stop.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Yes, exactly. Because having the Cowboys in the Super Bowl is bad for the NFL. Come on man. It's fine to not like the rules, or not understand them. But this conspiracy nonsense has got to stop.

I never said that these type of rules specifically targeted the Cowboys. I just gave an example that would be considered most relevant to the members of this forum. These type of interpretations to the rules can be applied to any team at any time as it was done to the player that this thread is about. There was no need for this rule change which was only done to cover the stupidity of interpretation of the old rule that occurred in the example that I gave.

 

[BlindFaith]

I never said that these type of rules specifically targeted the Cowboys. I just gave an example that would be considered most relevant to the members of this forum. These type of interpretations to the rules can be applied to any team at any time as it was done to the player that this thread is about. There was no need for this rule change which was only done to cover the stupidity of interpretation of the old rule that occurred in the example that I gave.

Yes you did.

"That way the outcome of a game can be made to change when deemed necessary - see last year's playoff game between the Cowboys and Packers."

 

[DogFace]

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.

What's even worse is I don't think they count that third step as initial contact. They mean after the fall. So if a receiver takes X number of steps then falls and loses control its not a catch.

Only an idiot like Blandino could come up with a rule that defies all logic.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Yes you did.

"That way the outcome of a game can be made to change when deemed necessary - see last year's playoff game between the Cowboys and Packers."

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote even after I explained it. I stated something generally, and gave a specific example which happens to be relevant to the team of this forum.

 

[DogFace]

Yes you did.

"That way the outcome of a game can be made to change when deemed necessary - see last year's playoff game between the Cowboys and Packers."

No one, I think, is saying there's a conspiracy. That's your "buzzword" to discredit evidence to the contrary of your position.
I say there is a clear bias either for or against some teams and players. Defend the no call and worse the no flag on the late hit on Romo in the final drive. You will literally never see a late hit so blatantly missed. Possibly the Mathews hit on Romo to his legs last year was close. There's plenty of other examples. Of course all teams get bad calls but none so obvious.

There's a bias. It's something to do with not looking like they're showing favoritism to the most popular team or along those lines.

 

[Floatyworm]

Yeah, that way we could have these same people complaining that the rule sucks because there are so many more fumbles.

You know what's even easier...hold on to the ball.

I can live w/ a guy fumbling a catch. Hang on to the football!!!! that's part of the game.....but as far as I'm concerned...the league has destroyed the definition of what a catch is. And it's killing the game.

 

[BlindFaith]

I can live w/ a guy fumbling a catch. Hang on to the football!!!! that's part of the game.....but as far as I'm concerned...the league has destroyed the definition of what a catch is. And it's killing the game.

Honestly, there are much bigger fish to fry in my opinion.

Pass interference.
Getting rid of these stupid automatic first downs for defensive penalties.
Calling personal foul penalties on big hits where the defensive player clearly doesn't use his head.

Those plays come up far, far more often than the very few isolated cases where some fans don't understand what a catch is.

 

[Kevinicus]

Honestly, there are much bigger fish to fry in my opinion.

Pass interference.
Getting rid of these stupid automatic first downs for defensive penalties.
Calling personal foul penalties on big hits where the defensive player clearly doesn't use his head.

Those plays come up far, far more often than the very few isolated cases where some fans the league doesn't understand what a catch is.

Fixed it for you.

Those other things are big issues, but I don't think they are any bigger than the absurdity of the catch rules.

 

[percyhoward]

How do you extend the ball if didn't catch it yet?

Same way Dez did, apparently.

 

[percyhoward]

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!

Yep, that was the criticism of the new rule when it was announced. It went from observation (does he have control with both feet, then a football move) to estimation (has he had it long enough to be considered a runner).

 

[percyhoward]

“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.

Uh... that wasn't the rule at the time, Dean. That also wasn't your explanation of why you reversed the call. You said the reach wasn't "obvious enough," and that he either had to extend the ball or use two hands.

Now the guy is rewriting his own history.

 

[nathanlt]

What's even worse is I don't think they count that third step as initial contact. They mean after the fall. So if a receiver takes X number of steps then falls and loses control its not a catch.

Only an idiot like Blandino could come up with a rule that defies all logic.

What they mean is irrelevant. What they wrote is all that matters.

I understand what you are saying, but their intent is not described by their rule. You have to imagine things that were not written.