Not sure if anyone remembered this one, but when I saw that Steelers TD called, my mind immediately jumped to this...

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2015/09/27/bengals-notes-eiferts-non-touchdown-odd-plays-abound/72616190/

Either Eifert had a TD there, or the Steelers didn't have that one TD today. Much like the Bryant TD that wasn't a TD in the playoffs and the Uzomah non-TD that was a TD today, the NFL seems to just manufacture a different view on what is and isn't a TD catch every week and every team.

Crazy

I thought it was interesting that they said the called stands instead of confirming it. It tells me that nobody knows what does and doesn't constitute a catch in that scenario.

(09-18-2016, 06:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not sure if anyone remembered this one, but when I saw that Steelers TD called, my mind immediately jumped to this...

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2015/09/27/bengals-notes-eiferts-non-touchdown-odd-plays-abound/72616190/

Either Eifert had a TD there, or the Steelers didn't have that one TD today. Much like the Bryant TD that wasn't a TD in the playoffs and the Uzomah non-TD that was a TD today, the NFL seems to just manufacture a different view on what is and isn't a TD catch every week and every team.

No the NFL is very consistent. It's a TD if youre Pittsburgh and not if you're Cincinnati. Very simple and very consistent 

People wonder why the catch rule is so subjective, it's because that's the way the NFL wants it to help control the outcome of games. It would be easy to clarify the rules, but if it becomes clear what is and isn't a catch than its harder to help out the favorited teams.

Well, we got beat today and I'm ready to play Pittsburgh again. I don't like excuses, just revenge.

(09-18-2016, 06:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not sure if anyone remembered this one, but when I saw that Steelers TD called, my mind immediately jumped to this...

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2015/09/27/bengals-notes-eiferts-non-touchdown-odd-plays-abound/72616190/

Either Eifert had a TD there, or the Steelers didn't have that one TD today. Much like the Bryant TD that wasn't a TD in the playoffs and the Uzomah non-TD that was a TD today, the NFL seems to just manufacture a different view on what is and isn't a TD catch every week and every team.

Yeah that was another horrible call.  That was the 1st of two reviewable plays the refs got wrong.  The receiver was clearly going to the ground as a result of the contact from the defender.  I don't care that the defender was able to advance on his momentum he was still going to the ground regardless.  Otherwise when the defender essentially peeled off of him he would have walked into the end zone.  He didn't he fell forward and clearly lost control.  Not a catch for anybody but Pittsburgh.

Was the ball knocked out before Eifert was down? Steeler player was down then the ball came out was probably the difference, however what about Calvin Johnson rule about maintaining control?

Bro for every other team when ball crosses plane it's a TD.

You only have to establish and HOLD possession if you catch the ball in the end zone. If you come from out the end zone you don't have to maintain to the ground.


If Eifert's catch last year wasn't a TD then explain how in goal line formations Running backs who are in a pile and reach it over the plane THEN are pushed back are still given the TD.

BECAUSE AS SOON AS YOU CROSS THE PLANE WITH POSSESSION ITS A TD.


The only arguable thing about the play was if Eifert had possession before he crossed and I'm pretty sure turning your hips AND diving for the goal line constitutes possession. Unless your the Bengals of course. Because if turning your hips and diving for the TD ISNT a "football move" then Boyd turning and going to the ground isn't a football move either.

So it seems refs don't know the league rules or somebody is keeping definitions of certain rules vague so that games can be decided if they come down to questionable plays like this. Backhanded way to give refs and Goddell power over games

(09-18-2016, 07:04 PM)leonardfan40 Wrote: No the NFL is very consistent. It's a TD if youre Pittsburgh and not if you're Cincinnati. Very simple and very consistent 

People wonder why the catch rule is so subjective, it's because that's the way the NFL wants it to help control the outcome of games. It would be easy to clarify the rules, but if it becomes clear what is and isn't a catch than its harder to help out the favorited teams.

This makes so much sense it's disgusting!

As you can tell I'm still pissed about the Eifert bullshit against Baltimore. Here are the rules straight from NFL.com

A touchdown is scored when:
a.the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents’ goal line (extended) and is in possession of a runner who has advanced from the field of play into the end zone
b.a ball in possession of an airborne runner is on, above, or behind the plane of the goal line, and some part of the ball passed over or inside the pylon
c.a ball in player possession touches the pylon, provided that, after contact by an opponent, no part of the player’s body, except his hands or feet, struck the ground before the ball touched the pylon
d.any player who is legally inbounds catches or recovers a loose ball (3-2-4) that is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line
e.the Referee awards a touchdown to a team that has been denied one by a palpably unfair act

Note 1: The ball is automatically dead when it is in legal possession of a player and is on, above, or behind the opponent’s goal line.

Note 2: If a player attempts to catch a pass, the ball is not dead, and a touchdown is not scored, until the receiver completes the catch. See 3-2-7.






The first note applies to the Eifert play. So if Mike Carey said Eifert had to hold possession all the way to the ground he didn't know what the hell he was talking about and needs to be fired

This is the explanation of a catch and I bolded the part that really shows why it was a bad call. The rule itself is very clear and doesn't really account for any ref interpretation. The ref took it upon himself to make a call and funny enough it was a wrong ***** call.


maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).


Eiferts 2nd foot wasn't just on the ground. It was planted hard AF and he was driving forward. Tyler tucked it away then turned up field, took additional steps, warded off contact with the turn he did. He basically fulfilled every requirement of a catch and scored a TD and the ref IGNORED the rulebook and said no. Ravens ball, in an attempt to give them the game imo.

Funny how the rules are so hard to get right in Bengals game but Steelers have guys doing flips with the ball between their legs and they can get the TD in the damn playoffs. But they cant get a Bengals call right even when its clear like in the Eifert situation

Also one thing you probably wont notice and I'm sorry for multiple posts but I'm mad as hell. But if you notice the words "football move" are nowhere in the rulebook. I copied and pasted from the book and didn't see the phrase anywhere. So ask yourself why is it used so much in explanations? Because when you say "football move" nobody knows WTF it means, so you can change it to mean whatever the **** you want it to mean. Crazy part about this is that football moves are clearly defined so why instead of saying football move, are announcers and Mike Carey not using the rulebook definition instead of just saying football move?

This is making me want to ask another question I've always wondered about: Who really shot Kennedy? And why?

J/K, conspiracy theories aside, the mounting evidence certainly points that direction. What a bunch of bullshit these refs are becoming, especially in critical moments. I would lose my shit if a ref finally came out on record and admitted what we can all plainly see: they are directed by those above them to help push the outcome in favor of the Steelers.

(09-19-2016, 03:41 PM)jonesy84 Wrote: This is making me want to ask another question I've always wondered about:   Who really shot Kennedy?  And why?

https://youtu.be/qr4vgHsmNEk

James Files. He was hired to.

(09-19-2016, 03:49 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: https://youtu.be/qr4vgHsmNEk

James Files. He was hired to.

Well Thank God!   Now I can finally sleep peacefully!!   Thanks Bengalguy!!

(09-19-2016, 05:38 PM)jonesy84 Wrote: Well Thank God!   Now I can finally sleep peacefully!!   Thanks Bengalguy!!

All kidding aside if you watch the whole interview he was behind the grassy knoll and fired the fatal head shot.  He also gave evidence that was never released to the public.  Very compelling and there was way too much he revealed NOT to have done what he said he did.

(09-18-2016, 06:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not sure if anyone remembered this one, but when I saw that Steelers TD called, my mind immediately jumped to this...

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2015/09/27/bengals-notes-eiferts-non-touchdown-odd-plays-abound/72616190/

Either Eifert had a TD there, or the Steelers didn't have that one TD today. Much like the Bryant TD that wasn't a TD in the playoffs and the Uzomah non-TD that was a TD today, the NFL seems to just manufacture a different view on what is and isn't a TD catch every week and every team.

Yeah it is funny. Bengals fans always get called crybabies and whiners but there always seems to be people explaining shit and rule changes after every Steeler Game. It gets so old.

(09-19-2016, 07:55 PM)bengalguy71 Wrote: All kidding aside if you watch the whole interview he was behind the grassy knoll and fired the fatal head shot.  He also gave evidence that was never released to the public.  Very compelling and there was way too much he revealed NOT to have done what he said he did.

That's very interesting!