I am not looking at video right now but from memory, he caught the ball, he had two feet on the ground and he turned/extended the ball across the goal line. If that isn't a catch I have no idea what a catch is. I know some of you will quote the rules blah blah blah but that was a catch.

 

From Mike Pereira:

 

“The most confusing part of the game right now: What is a catch and what is not a catch?” Pereira said. “Even I, in my role, I’m not even confident anymore in knowing when someone has possession long enough.”

 

Pereira’s comments come a day after Bengals tight end Tyler Eifert was denied an apparent touchdown because, according to NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino, Eifert didn’t have the ball for long enough before lunging it across the goal line and then dropping it in the end zone. There seems to be general confusion among players, coaches and fans as to what constitutes having the ball long enough to constitute a catch. That confusion even extends to those whose jobs revolve around analyzing the NFL’s rules.

 

Pereira calls catch rules the most confusing part of the game | ProFootballTalk

It seemed to me that he did, because if extending the ball across the goal line isn't a football move I don't know what is, however as soon as I saw a replay I told the people I was with they were going to take it away from him.

The explanation as I understood it was that he did not take the catch to the ground. He clearly caught the ball and had possession, but it was dislodged by the Baltimore player's legs as he was laying on the ground. I guess no different that a running back being tackled and landing on the defender without ever touching the ground and still being able to advance the ball.

 

My question is more of once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line, why is it not a score?

I was trying to come up with a simplified rule wording that would satisfy folks. No luck.

 

Anyone?

The explanation as I understood it was that he did not take the catch to the ground. He clearly caught the ball and had possession, but it was dislodged by the Baltimore player's legs as he was laying on the ground. I guess no different that a running back being tackled and landing on the defender without ever touching the ground and still being able to advance the ball.

 

My question is more of once the ball breaks the plane of the goal line, why is it not a score?

 

I think (key) is it would be a TD if he was deemed a runner. My understanding is that because the contact from the defender happened BEFORE his 2nd foot touched he was not a runner and , therefore, it had to do more than just cross the line. It had to be maintained.

If he's a running back, just "breaking the plane", it's a TD even if he drops it as he goes to the ground. I don't understand why Eifert's catch isn't handled as the same.

In short, when the league expert says he isn't confident the NFL has an issue.

 

Glad we won so everyone knows this isn't a crying over spilled milk thing, I just don't understand.

It seemed to me that he did, because if extending the ball across the goal line isn't a football move I don't know what is, however as soon as I saw a replay I told the people I was with they were going to take it away from him.

 

Same here

I think (key) is it would be a TD if he was deemed a runner. My understanding is that because the contact from the defender happened BEFORE his 2nd foot touched he was not a runner and , therefore, it had to do more than just cross the line. It had to be maintained.

 

At first blush, I thought it was a TD. Then when the showed one of the other replays (from field level behind the end zone, I think), you could clearly see the defender hit him before he had any chance to get the second foot down and establish himself as a runner. And, while I didn't like the ruling (as a Bengals fan), it at least made sense in this instance.

The rule to my understanding that they were using was the part about completing the catch to the ground. My problem with the ruling lies with he established two feet on the ground , wasn't falling but lunged toward the end zone or dove on his own free will. So the completing the catch to the ground doesn't make sense. Two feet then football move.

 

That doesn't even get into the fact of the ball crossing the goal line.

The rule to my understanding that they were using was the part about completing the catch to the ground. My problem with the ruling lies with he established two feet on the ground , wasn't falling but lunged toward the end zone or dove on his own free will. So the completing the catch to the ground doesn't make sense. Two feet then football move.

 

That doesn't even get into the fact of the ball crossing the goal line.

 

The debate centers around some of the points you mention. The main one is the new wording the NFL implemented after the Dez situation that says something like "being upright long enough to demonstrate clearly that he is a runner."

 

I'm not sure if that took this type of play into account where he doesn't have to "run" vs simply stretching.

The debate centers around some of the points you mention. The main one is the new wording the NFL implemented after the Dez situation that says something like "being upright long enough to demonstrate clearly that he is a runner."

 

I'm not sure if that took this type of play into account where he doesn't have to "run" vs simply stretching.

 

Would they of ruled it incomplete if he dove and instead of a players foot , the ground dislodged the ball? I'm still trying to understand the exact ruling.

Perhaps by rule it's not a TD. IMO it's a TD and the rules should reflect it as such.

I think for it to be a good catch you have to have control and take the ball to the ground after making a football move. He caught the ball, stuck it across the goal line in a football move but failed to complete the catch by fumbling before hitting the ground.

 

The rule should say that if you have clear possession as the ball crossed the goal line it's a TD regardless of it being a run or a pass.

Would they of ruled it incomplete if he dove and instead of a players foot , the ground dislodged the ball? I'm still trying to understand the exact ruling.

 

I think so but....