Stupid Rule

[Bengalstripes9]

(09-28-2015, 08:14 PM)Fresno B Wrote: Nope. Rule is perfect as it is. You either catch it, which entails maintaining full possession until the whistle blows or its a drop. We don't need all that grey area 2 step crap. You either catch it or drop it.

That's your opinion, which is fine.

I just don't remember there being this much controversy before the rule change. Every time one of these plays that is a catch by the 'eye test', but reversed because of the rule, people start arguing. They could certainly clear it up. I think if you catch the ball and take more than 2 steps, or two steps and a football move (both of which Eifert did) the rule should not apply.

[Fresno B]

(09-28-2015, 10:05 PM)Bengalstripes18 Wrote: That's your opinion, which is fine.

I just don't remember there being this much controversy before the rule change. Every time one of these plays that is a catch by the 'eye test', but reversed because of the rule, people start arguing. They could certainly clear it up. I think if you catch the ball and take more than 2 steps, or two steps and a football move (both of which Eifert did) the rule should not apply.

Keeping it grey huh?
I think maintaining thru whistle is as clear as it gets. Otherwise we leave it up to the discretion of a person.

[Stormborn]

(09-28-2015, 08:14 PM)Fresno B Wrote: Nope. Rule is perfect as it is. You either catch it, which entails maintaining full possession until the whistle blows or its a drop. We don't need all that grey area 2 step crap. You either catch it or drop it.

Only he didn't drop it, he fumbled it, after the ball crossed the plane.

Which is considered a touchdown in every other goalline scenario except this one because he appearantly didn't convert himself from receiver to ball carrier even though at least 2 steps and a football move were made.

This almost seems to sensical.

[MrRager]

(09-29-2015, 01:24 AM)Stormborn Wrote: Only he didn't drop it, he fumbled it, after the ball crossed the plane.

Which is considered a touchdown in every other goalline scenario except this one because he appearantly didn't convert himself from receiver to ball carrier even though at least 2 steps and a football move were made.

This almost seems to sensical.

I agree the rule shouldn't have been applied, but the ref apparently felt Eifert was falling to the ground as he caught it so the rule was actually called correctly under those circumstances. 

The steps do not matter if the ref thinks he was falling as he made the catch. He still has to fall and stand up with the ball. 

We shouldn't really be arguing about the rule, but whether or not Eifert was falling as he was catching or not.

[Daddy-O]

(09-28-2015, 08:14 PM)Fresno B Wrote: Nope. Rule is perfect as it is. You either catch it, which entails maintaining full possession until the whistle blows or its a drop. We don't need all that grey area 2 step crap. You either catch it or drop it.

What are you talking about?  The NFL is full of that grey area 2 step crap.  Again, anywhere else on the field that is considered a catch (2-step crap) and a fumble.  Pure and simple, catch and fumble.  And if you don't think it crossed the goal line first Whit recovered for the TD.  Either way touchdown.  Stupid rule and needs to be fixed.  It's anything but perfect as you state in your response.

[XenoMorph]

(09-29-2015, 01:24 AM)Stormborn Wrote: Only he didn't drop it, he fumbled it, after the ball crossed the plane.

Which is considered a touchdown in every other goalline scenario except this one because he appearantly didn't convert himself from receiver to ball carrier even though at least 2 steps and a football move were made.

This almost seems to sensical.

some said he never had complete control of the football.

[Stormborn]

(09-29-2015, 02:04 AM)MrRager Wrote: I agree the rule shouldn't have been applied, but the ref apparently felt Eifert was falling to the ground as he caught it so the rule was actually called correctly under those circumstances. 

The steps do not matter if the ref thinks he was falling as he made the catch. He still has to fall and stand up with the ball. 

We shouldn't really be arguing about the rule, but whether or not Eifert was falling as he was catching or not.

Looks to me like he clearly caught it initially, then got hit low after possession was gained. I don't see how the refs come to the conclusion that he was still in the process of catching as he was being tackled when he had clear control of putting the ball in the end zone.

[XenoMorph]

(09-29-2015, 10:14 AM)Stormborn Wrote: Looks to me like he clearly caught it initially, then got hit low after possession was gained. I don't see how the refs come to the conclusion that he was still in the process of catching as he was being tackled when he had clear control of putting the ball in the end zone.

he has to maintain possession to the ground he was going to the ground before he reached out he must maintain possession.

Its the exact same call when gresham had his TD turnover vs the Ravens and Dez vs the Packers. As long as they are consistant its on the players to know the rules.

He had the first down. he should have made sure he had 2 hands on the ball.

[Fresno B]

(09-29-2015, 09:44 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: What are you talking about?  The NFL is full of that grey area 2 step crap.  Again, anywhere else on the field that is considered a catch (2-step crap) and a fumble.  Pure and simple, catch and fumble.  And if you don't think it crossed the goal line first Whit recovered for the TD.  Either way touchdown.  Stupid rule and needs to be fixed.  It's anything but perfect as you state in your response.

Responses like this is why the rule needs to be possession thru whistle. Too much grey and shoulda, woulda, coulda.

[Stormborn]

(09-29-2015, 10:17 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: he has to maintain possession to the ground he was going to the ground before he reached out he must maintain possession.

Its the exact same call when gresham had his TD turnover vs the Ravens and Dez vs the Packers.    As long as they are consistant its on the players to know the rules.

He had the first down.   he should have made sure he had 2 hands on the ball.

Just a dumb rule to me. A player in that situation should be considered a ball carrier. I'm not even mad that a lucky back kick knocked it loose at the perfect point.

Considering it didn't end up changing the outcome, I've talked too much about this.

[XenoMorph]

(09-29-2015, 10:32 AM)Stormborn Wrote: Just a dumb rule to me. A player in that situation should be considered a ball carrier. I'm not even mad that a lucky back kick knocked it loose at the perfect point.

Considering it didn't end up changing the outcome, I've talked too much about this.

dumb rules are still the rules.... players are taught the rules. they are taught to know the situation.

We can cry about it but it is what it is.

[Fresno B]

(09-29-2015, 09:44 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: What are you talking about?  The NFL is full of that grey area 2 step crap.  Again, anywhere else on the field that is considered a catch (2-step crap) and a fumble.  Pure and simple, catch and fumble.  And if you don't think it crossed the goal line first Whit recovered for the TD.  Either way touchdown.  Stupid rule and needs to be fixed.  It's anything but perfect as you state in your response.

So Whit recovering a forward fumble is a touchdown? Shows pure homerism. You not up for interpretation, you just want the touchdown one way or the other? Comical.

[Daddy-O]

(09-29-2015, 10:31 AM)Fresno B Wrote: Responses like this is why the rule needs to be possession thru whistle. Too much grey and shoulda, woulda, coulda.

So your response has gone from the rule is perfect to the rule needs to be possession through the whistle.  So which is it?  You can't say the rule is perfect and then also say it needs to be possession through the whistle.  

So in your opinion the rule needs to be changed to possession through the whistle, which obviously indicates the rule is not perfect? 

I think in a round about way you agree with my original post that it's a Stupid Rule! 

[Daddy-O]

(09-29-2015, 10:34 AM)Fresno B Wrote: So Whit recovering a forward fumble is a touchdown? Shows pure homerism. You not up for interpretation, you just want the touchdown one way or the other? Comical.

The goal line does not contain yard markers, thus is there any forward or backward?  Joking of course!

[Fresno B]

(09-29-2015, 11:12 AM)Daddy-O Wrote: So your response has gone from the rule is perfect to the rule needs to be possession through the whistle.  So which is it?  You can't say the rule is perfect and then also say it needs to be possession through the whistle.  

So in your opinion the rule needs to be changed to possession through the whistle, which obviously indicates the rule is not perfect? 

I think in a round about way you agree with my original post that it's a Stupid Rule! 

Far from perfect but eliminates mind states like yours which is it shoulda, coulda, woulda. We don't need 2 step football move crap if we change it to possession thru whistle. All you are advocating for is wanting to interpret what and what isn't a catch at the discretion of a referee, which is why were in this mess to begin with.

[Daddy-O]

(09-29-2015, 02:00 PM)Fresno B Wrote: Far from perfect but eliminates mind states like yours which is it shoulda, coulda, woulda. We don't need 2 step football move crap if we change it to possession thru whistle. All you are advocating for is wanting to interpret what and what isn't a catch at the discretion of a referee, which is why were in this mess to begin with.

Whoa there buddy with the personal attacks about my mind states, I agree with you.  Again, the subject of my original post was it's a stupid rule.  I agree with a change to make it simple. I don't give a rats ass how they do it, possession thru the whistle, etc.  

In the future it would be appreciated if you would read and understand the intent of post before going off on a rant.

[Fresno B]

(09-29-2015, 03:07 PM)Daddy-O Wrote: Whoa there buddy with the personal attacks about my mind states, I agree with you.  Again, the subject of my original post was it's a stupid rule.  I agree with a change to make it simple. I don't give a rats ass how they do it, possession thru the whistle, etc.  

In the future it would be appreciated if you would read and understand the intent of post before going off on a rant.

Sorry if you felt offended because it wasn't personal. My point is that people with that line of thinking is why the rules are so complicated now. We should simplify the rules instead of making them more difficult. Possession thru whistle and it would be no questions asked about Eifert. But since it's a discretionary call it makes people question why this? Why that?