I think we all have options on the rule that took back the Eifert TD. To me it's a rule that has no basis to provide the officials rationale to make a proper judgement.

If you think about possession, how many times have we seen a receiver catch a pass only to have it scrutinized by the officials of whether or not it was considered a catch - meaning 2 feet down and the player making a football play? In the Eifter TD scenario there was no question about the feet being down or it being a football play (as Marvin indicated afterwards), otherwise it would have been ruled an incomplete pass. If that's the case then him stretching the ball across the goal line has nothing to do with completing the catch because he is essentially a runner at that point - otherwise the pass would have been ruled incomplete (ironically netting the same result but still nonetheless ridiculous).

Problem is the NFL doesn't know how to define the rule and thus leave it up to the ref's judgement, of which they did and called it a TD. To reverse that call was complete and utter BS, regardless of what Marvin and all of those other competition committee guys say!

To me in the very least, it was a catch and a fumble. I do not see how they come up with incomplete ESPECIALLY when the ruling on the field was a TD.

It's just the precedent that has been set by the NFL. It's how that play is going to be called every time until someone convinces the NFL to change it.

The refs were right. They followed the rule book. It's a stupid rule. But it's still there.

Best way to avoid it is to actually ***** catch the ball like you're paid millions to do.

(09-28-2015, 02:52 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Best way to avoid it is to actually ***** catch the ball like you're paid millions to do.

4 steps of possession with a football move at the 50 yard line is a catch.

Why is not at the goal line?

(09-28-2015, 02:55 PM)Stormborn Wrote: 4 steps of possession with a football move at the 50 yard line is a catch.

Why is not at the goal line?

Has this rule ever been enforced when a player has caught the ball before entering the endzone? I thought he had possession, made a football move, then he was considered a runner. Runners only have to break the plain right? Ive seen rbs dive and have the ball knocked out abd its a TD.

(09-28-2015, 03:00 PM)Bengal Jells Wrote: Has this rule ever been enforced when a player has caught the ball before entering the endzone? I thought he had possession, made a football move, then he was considered a runner. Runners only have to break the plain right? Ive seen rbs dive and have the ball knocked out abd its a TD.

Correct. 

(09-28-2015, 03:00 PM)Bengal Jells Wrote: Has this rule ever been enforced when a player has caught the ball before entering the endzone? I thought he had possession, made a football move, then he was considered a runner. Runners only have to break the plain right? Ive seen rbs dive and have the ball knocked out abd its a TD.

That is what makes the rule even more ridiculous

I think the rule is ridiculous but i can understand it more if you catch it in the endzone and throw it down.

My grey area on the call was the number of steps Eifert took. When does it become possession based on the number of steps you take.

(09-28-2015, 03:00 PM)Bengal Jells Wrote: Has this rule ever been enforced when a player has caught the ball before entering the endzone? I thought he had possession, made a football move, then he was considered a runner. Runners only have to break the plain right? Ive seen rbs dive and have the ball knocked out abd its a TD.

Gresham vs the Ravens...

Dez Bryant vs Green bAy

(09-28-2015, 03:14 PM)Goalpost Wrote: My grey area on the call was the number of steps Eifert took. When does it become possession based on the number of steps you take.

Exactly.  Everywhere else on the field but the goal line it's a catch and a fumble.  I don't even think the refs know how to interpret.  

I don't blame the refs.  They made a judgement call on the field.  No way was it "conclusive" that it "wasn't" a football move (to overturn).  Pathetic!

(09-28-2015, 03:14 PM)Goalpost Wrote: My grey area on the call was the number of steps Eifert took. When does it become possession based on the number of steps you take.

also while those feet were moving was he still securing the ball? and he was hit almost immediately and the tackle process started so he has to maintain.

At this point im more mad he didnt know he had enough for the first down and just go down. which lets us keep the ball and kill more clock.

(09-28-2015, 02:49 PM)M.W. Wrote: To me in the very least, it was a catch and a fumble. I do not see how they come up with incomplete ESPECIALLY when the ruling on the field was a TD.

This is pretty much the only outcome that could not have happened. It was either a catch and TD or an incomplete catch. There is literally zero way it could be a fumble.

(09-28-2015, 02:55 PM)Stormborn Wrote: 4 steps of possession with a football move at the 50 yard line is a catch.

Why is not at the goal line?

It would not have been a catch at the 50 yard line either. The four steps are irrelevant because the ref determined that Eifert was on his way down when he caught the ball. I don't necessarily agree, but if the ref interpreted it that way, then the steps don't matter. Eifert has keep possession of the ball all the way through the ground. 

(09-28-2015, 03:14 PM)Goalpost Wrote: My grey area on the call was the number of steps Eifert took. When does it become possession based on the number of steps you take.

The number of steps are irrelevant if you are falling to the ground.

(09-28-2015, 03:33 PM)Daddy-O Wrote: Exactly.  Everywhere else on the field but the goal line it's a catch and a fumble.  I don't even think the refs know how to interpret.  

I don't blame the refs.  They made a judgement call on the field.  No way was it "conclusive" that it "wasn't" a football move (to overturn).  Pathetic!

It would not be a catch anywhere as he did not control the ball throughout the entire catch. I DO think they should have just kept the call on the field no matter which way it was called because it was so close, but I understand how the ref may have felt that Eifert was falling so he made the correct call on what he saw.

(09-28-2015, 03:33 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: also while those feet were moving was he still securing the ball?  and he was hit almost immediately and the tackle process started so he has to maintain.  

At this point im more mad he didnt know he had enough for the first down and just go down.  which lets us keep the ball and kill more clock.

This. With everything that has been in the new with these catch rules, players don't need to be diving and lunging, but ensuring they catch the ball.

I think the rule is completely stupid, as everyone and their brother thinks plays like this are catches, but according to the dumb rules, they aren't. It sucks, but it is what it is and it wasn't some horrendous call that screwed the Bengals and just the Bengals. It's a stupid rule that has screwed a few teams and is actually being called somewhat consistently.

The rule obviously needs to be changed. Eifert caught the ball, took 4 steps, did a 180 degree turn around, and reached for the end zone. Both the 180 degree turn and reach for the pile on are football moves. I also think the rule shouldn't come into play if the receiver gets more than 2 feet down. They need to change the rule. It was better when it was just 2 feet down and control. Way more straightforward.

I can understand the rule and I guess it makes sense on sideline/back of the endzone plays. Plays where the receiver makes a tiptoe catch while going out of bounds and then the ball is bobbled or the ground separates the ball from the receiver.

However when the receiver catches the ball and out of bounds isn't an issue, he clearly shows possession, takes a step under control he should become a runner period right then and there and the rules for a RB apply immediately.

I forget whether it was Sanu, Jones, whoever. But in the Oakland game I believe it was the receiver caught the ball in the middle of the field, took at least 3 steps then lost the ball and they called it incomplete. I can't remember if we recovered it or not but I remember being shocked we didn't challenge.

This is very much an area they have to clean up the definitions in !

(09-28-2015, 07:34 PM)Bengalstripes18 Wrote: The rule obviously needs to be changed. Eifert caught the ball, took 4 steps, did a 180 degree turn around, and reached for the end zone. Both the 180 degree turn and reach for the pile on are football moves. I also think the rule shouldn't come into play if the receiver gets more than 2 feet down. They need to change the rule. It was better when it was just 2 feet down and control. Way more straightforward.

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.

(09-28-2015, 02:49 PM)M.W. Wrote: To me in the very least, it was a catch and a fumble. I do not see how they come up with incomplete ESPECIALLY when the ruling on the field was a TD.

No way it could be a fumble cause he broke the plane before the ball came loose. It was a td and a bs reversal plain and simple.

(09-28-2015, 02:52 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's just the precedent that has been set by the NFL. It's how that play is going to be called every time until someone convinces the NFL to change it.

The refs were right. They followed the rule book. It's a stupid rule. But it's still there.

Best way to avoid it is to actually ***** catch the ball like you're paid millions to do.

So, we just need it to happen to the Pats or Giants and the NFL will fall all over themselves to change it.  Us?  Yawn.

I don't have a problem with the rule. I just disagree that the rule applied to this situation. It's meant to apply to someone who is going to the ground as they're making a catch and lose the ball as they hit the ground or roll over, like the way Calvin Johnson did.

Eifert caught the ball standing up - Not going to the ground, took a couple steps, then was hit reaching the ball over the goal line as he was being tackled to the ground. Ball comes out after crossing the goal line. Should have been a TD at that point.

It's totally different that the Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant situation.

(09-28-2015, 09:12 PM)Joe Pong Wrote: I don't have a problem with the rule. I just disagree that the rule applied to this situation. It's meant to apply to someone who is going to the ground as they're making a catch and lose the ball as they hit the ground or roll over, like the way Calvin Johnson did.

Eifert caught the ball standing up - Not going to the ground, took a couple steps, then was hit reaching the ball over the goal line as he was being tackled to the ground. Ball comes out after crossing the goal line. Should have been a TD at that point.

It's totally different that the Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant situation.

Right, but under the current rules the two get mixed together.