Dumb rule. Foitball move needs to be put back in. Two steps and a reach should equate to a catch. Because ball crossed plane is his possession TD. Now if that was in field of play it should be a fumble. Another example of over thinking the process by the NFL.

What's hard to follow? 2 steps is 2 steps. Basically getting 2 feet down. Sorry for your confusion.

 

If you're so confused maybe you should read the rule book on that then. I understand the rule when they say you must control the ball when going to the ground after a catch. It's not hard to understand.

 

 

Here you go.

 

N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: Going to the ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

I do find it funny that you say the rule is so clear to you YET you still think the rule says "football move" which it doesn't.

 

You can't pick out one section of the rulebook. It doesn't work that way. If it was that simple we wouldn't have Mike Pereira, former head of NFL officials, saying he doesn't think it is being interpreted correctly.

 

So in the rule you cited at what point is the receiver no longer "in the act of catching a pass?" That would seem to be a key thing to know .

I do find it funny that you say the rule is so clear to you YET you still think the rule says "football move" which it doesn't.

 

You can't pick out one section of the rulebook. It doesn't work that way. If it was that simple we wouldn't have Mike Pereira, former head of NFL officials, saying he doesn't think it is being interpreted correctly.

 

So in the rule you cited at what point is the receiver no longer "in the act of catching a pass?" That would seem to be a key thing to know .

 

Never been a fan of Mike Pereira, he wasn't that good of a ref when he was still calling games.

 

So I posted the rule for you, are you just being obtuse or are you serious when you say you don't understand the rule?

 

The rule is actually pretty clear. I knew as soon as it happened it wasn't going to be considered a catch even before they reviewed it or even the announcers said anything because I know the interpretation of what a catch is. So I guess I do know what a catch is while others still don't. Eifert caught the ball and taking two steps went to dive for the endzone in which he didn't maintain control of the ball as he went down and the ball touched the ground. Incomplete pass. Not too difficult if you know the rules.

Never been a fan of Mike Pereira, he wasn't that good of a ref when he was still calling games.

 

So I posted the rule for you, are you just being obtuse or are you serious when you say you don't understand the rule?

 

The rule is actually pretty clear. I knew as soon as it happened it wasn't going to be considered a catch even before they reviewed it or even the announcers said anything because I know the interpretation of what a catch is. So I guess I do know what a catch is while others still don't. Eifert caught the ball and taking two steps went to dive for the endzone in which he didn't maintain control of the ball as he went down and the ball touched the ground. Incomplete pass. Not too difficult if you know the rules.

 

You still didn't answer the key question. At what point is a receiver no longer "in the act of making a catch?" Since Mike Pereira is confused maybe you can enlighten all of us.

 

Hint: "Football move" is no longer in the wording of the rule.

You still didn't answer the key question. At what point is a receiver no longer "in the act of making a catch?" Since Mike Pereira is confused maybe you can enlighten all of us.

 

Hint: "Football move" is no longer in the wording of the rule.

 

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

 

I don't know the exact wording the NFL uses to tell you when a receiver is no longer in the act of a catch as you asked. I just know it wasn't a catch and I was right. You don't like my answer so again are you being obtuse or are you actually not knowledgeable enough to know what a catch is in today's NFL rule book? I ask you if you never knew this before, didn't you watch Dez Bryant last year in the playoffs? If you had watched that play and all the talk about it afterwards you would have known the Eifert would have been ruled an incomplete pass as I did as soon as it happened.

 

I'm not being smart with you so don't take it that way. I'm just wondering how you couldn't have heard about this rule before this year when it was brought up on several occasions over the past several years.

A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies to the field of play and in the end zone."

 

I don't know the exact wording the NFL uses to tell you when a receiver is no longer in the act of a catch as you asked. I just know it wasn't a catch and I was right. You don't like my answer so again are you being obtuse or are you actually not knowledgeable enough to know what a catch is in today's NFL rule book? I ask you if you never knew this before, didn't you watch Dez Bryant last year in the playoffs? If you had watched that play and all the talk about it afterwards you would have known the Eifert would have been ruled an incomplete pass as I did as soon as it happened.

 

I'm not being smart with you so don't take it that way. I'm just wondering how you couldn't have heard about this rule before this year when it was brought up on several occasions over the past several years.

 

So let's be clear.

 

You got it right but you don't know why. My wife did as well and doesn't know anything about football.

 

You can't say you do not know the wording used BUT still hang your hat on the fact that you guessed correctly.

 

If you can't answer when a receiver is no longer "in the act of making a catch" then you are purely guessing as to why it was deemed to be an incomplete pass. That's fine but don't get on here saying WHY it was incomplete when you have ZERO clue.

 

I've stated clearly for you that wording/question is the KEY factor. The ball coming loose AFTER that is 1000% irrelevant. An official has to answer that key question. Once he does THEN the ball coming loose matters.

 

 

Just admit that you don't know the rule and that you guessed. No harm in that.

I saw a Giants receiver catch a ball this season, take two steps, then get tackled. As he hit the ground, the ball came out...they called it incomplete because he didn't maintain possession throughout, even though he wasn't falling initially...

So let's be clear.

 

You got it right but you don't know why. My wife did as well and doesn't know anything about football.

 

You can't say you do not know the wording used BUT still hang your hat on the fact that you guessed correctly.

 

If you can't answer when a receiver is no longer "in the act of making a catch" then you are purely guessing as to why it was deemed to be an incomplete pass. That's fine but don't get on here saying WHY it was incomplete when you have ZERO clue.

 

I've stated clearly for you that wording/question is the KEY factor. The ball coming loose AFTER that is 1000% irrelevant. An official has to answer that key question. Once he does THEN the ball coming loose matters.

 

 

Just admit that you don't know the rule and that you guessed. No harm in that.

 

Big difference. First off I didn't guess at all. I knew.

No guessing was needed. I've seen that rule play out several times over the last 3 seasons.

 

Sorry Clyde, just because apparently I know more, and apparently your wife does also, when it comes to the rule doesn't mean we "guessed"

 

I told you before what I KNEW was a catch and when it's made, after taking two steps as long as after those steps the reciever isn't going to the ground. In Eiferts case AFTER HE MAINTAINED CONTROL OF THE BALL he then took the two steps and proceded to dive toward the endzone and that is when the going to the ground part of the rule is in effect. If Eifert would have taken more steps AFTER maintaining control of the ball and then dove to the ground it would have been a fumble.

 

No guessing Clyde. Simply because someone knows the rule better than you does not mean they had to guess it.

 

Your wife is a very wise woman I might add

I saw a Giants receiver catch a ball this season, take two steps, then get tackled. As he hit the ground, the ball came out...they called it incomplete because he didn't maintain possession throughout, even though he wasn't falling initially...

 

Here is why I hate the rule. Sunday Night Game with Broncos and Lions, Johnson made a catch and was falling to the ground he stretched the ball out to get the first down. when the ball hit the ground it popped out of his hand and bounced about 5 feet high and out of bounds. They just went on and gave him a first down and it wasn't even questioned. The inconsistency of enforcing the rule drives me crazy. It's as if it isn't a TD type of play then they will choose to ignore the rule. Crazy

Here is why I hate the rule. Sunday Night Game with Broncos and Lions, Johnson made a catch and was falling to the ground he stretched the ball out to get the first down. when the ball hit the ground it popped out of his hand and bounced about 5 feet high and out of bounds. They just went on and gave him a first down and it wasn't even questioned. The inconsistency of enforcing the rule drives me crazy. It's as if it isn't a TD type of play then they will choose to ignore the rule. Crazy

 

Maybe it was ruled correctly then because "the receiver finished the act of completing a catch.", which you admitted you didn't know what that means.

Big difference. First off I didn't guess at all. I knew.

No guessing was needed. I've seen that rule play out several times over the last 3 seasons.

 

Sorry Clyde, just because apparently I know more, and apparently your wife does also, when it comes to the rule doesn't mean we "guessed"

 

I told you before what I KNEW was a catch and when it's made, after taking two steps as long as after those steps the reciever isn't going to the ground. In Eiferts case AFTER HE MAINTAINED CONTROL OF THE BALL he then took the two steps and proceded to dive toward the endzone and that is when the going to the ground part of the rule is in effect. If Eifert would have taken more steps AFTER maintaining control of the ball and then dove to the ground it would have been a fumble.

 

No guessing Clyde. Simply because someone knows the rule better than you does not mean they had to guess it.

 

Your wife is a very wise woman I might add

 

And once again you have failed to say WHY it was incomplete. It wasn't incomplete because the ball hit the ground. We've already agreed to that. It's what happened prior to the ball hitting the ground.

 

So you guessed. That's my point. You've already stated that you do not know what "in the act of catching the ball" looks like. If you can't tell us EXACTLY why it was incomplete then you guessed.

Here is my thinking on it and that it is a very stupid rule and common sense needs to prevail sometimes. With that said I don't know the word by word lettering of the rules, however I do know how the refs have been calling it the last few years. Which based off of how the refs have been calling it, even though I thought it should be a catch. I knew based off of how the refs call it, they were going to overturn it. Its stupid and I think this rule does need to allow common sense to come into play some.

And once again you have failed to say WHY it was incomplete. It wasn't incomplete because the ball hit the ground. We've already agreed to that. It's what happened prior to the ball hitting the ground.

 

So you guessed. That's my point. You've already stated that you do not know what "in the act of catching the ball" looks like. If you can't tell us EXACTLY why it was incomplete then you guessed.

 

We didn't agree to that at all. It was incomplete because the ball hit the ground.

 

I also never said I do not know what "In the act of catching the ball" looks like, I said I don't know the exact workding the NFL uses to describe it. I know what catching the ball looks like and I explained that in my own words. You are the one who said you don't know what the rule is and I have explained it to you.

 

I never guessed, I never claimed I guessed, I never even used the word guess when determining if it was an incompletion by todays NFL rules or not. You simply do not like the fact that I know the rule and you don't. I knew the rule and you simply did not. It's ok Clyde, you can actually be wrong on some things, it's ok.

That oversimplifies the rule a tad. What if caught the ball, took 5 steps, dove, and THEN lost control?

 

then it would have been a fumble.

 

The fact he only took two steps and was going down makes it all "part of the catch"

 

It is simple because the rule makes it simple. I think it's a stupid rule but as long as the rule is a rule the it's an incomplete pass.

 

We didn't agree to that at all. It was incomplete because the ball hit the ground.

 

We did agree.

 

The ball hit the ground in the example I gave. You said it would be a fumble. So it can't be the ball hitting the ground that is the determining factor. That's my point.

We did agree.

 

The ball hit the ground in the example I gave. You said it would be a fumble. So it can't be the ball hitting the ground that is the determining factor. That's my point.

 

I said if he took 5 steps AFTER Maintaining Control of the ball, then it would be a fumble. The fact that he didn't take 5 steps AFTER MAINTINING CONTROL of the ball is why it wasn't a fumble. You said he took 5 steps, I didn't.

 

I told you then by using your scenerio of IF he took 5 steps after the catch I said it would be a fumble. The problem is that isn't what happened and also you seem to forget that you said "If" he took 5 steps then what would it be considered? I answered that. The problem is that isn't what happened so you can't say your made up scenerio is what took place because it didn't.