Clyde, this may help. Here is a video of the play in question. It takes place at the 1:09 mark of the video. Eifert gets 1 foot down and as his 2nd foot is coming down (or second step) he is hit and falls forward and on his way down loses control of the ball and it hits the ground. Clearly an incomplete pass by todays Rules. There wasn't even 3 steps taken before he was hit, he was actually hit after the first step Clyde, when the 2nd step came he was already going down.

 

Not sure what you're argument is on this play. Only 2 steps and the ball clearly comes out as he's going down (it gets kicked out of his hands by the defenders foot) So where in the world are the 5 steps you talk about and where in the world would I be guessing about this play?

 

Tyler Eifert TD called incomplete pass because ... why again? | NFL | Sporting News

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.

 

So we've established that the ball hitting the ground is NOT the deciding factor.

 

So let's quit using that in the debate here. Your response tells us CORRECTLY that it's the "what happens between" that is THE determining factor.

 

You've also stated that you don't know when "the act of catching" is completed.

 

Yet you want to continue saying you KNOW the rule?

So we've established that the ball hitting the ground is NOT the deciding factor.

 

So let's quit using that in the debate here. Your response tells us CORRECTLY that it's the "what happens between" that is THE determining factor.

 

You've also stated that you don't know when "the act of catching" is completed.

 

Yet you want to continue saying you KNOW the rule?

 

Agreed! I don't think anyone can completely say they know the rule, but people can take a very educated guess on how a ref will call it based off of past calls by refs.

Agreed! I don't think anyone can completely say they know the rule, but people can take a very educated guess on how a ref will call it based off of past calls by refs.

 

Correct. Educated guess. That's my point.

So we've established that the ball hitting the ground is NOT the deciding factor.

 

So let's quit using that in the debate here. Your response tells us CORRECTLY that it's the "what happens between" that is THE determining factor.

 

You've also stated that you don't know when "the act of catching" is completed.

 

Yet you want to continue saying you KNOW the rule?

 

No we haven't. You are very good at putting words in my mouth that aren't even close to being true. The ball hitting the ground IS the reason it was an incomplete pass. How many times do I need to state that? That is exactly why it is an incomplete pass. Show me where I even said anything to the contrary?

 

Here, I hope this helps Clyde, I will make it perfectly clear for you

 

 

THE REASON EIFERTS PLAY WAS CALLED AN INCOMPLETE PASS IS BECAUSE THE BALL HIT THE GROUND DUE TO THE FACT HE COULD NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OF IT AS HE WAS GOING TO THE GROUND

 

Hope that helps. Now please quit making things up. I never guessed and I never said that the ball hitting the ground is not the reason it was an incomplete pass. Just the opposite on both accounts.

 

now please quit being so Obtuse. It's very annoying

No we haven't. You are very good at putting words in my mouth that aren't even close to being true. The ball hitting the ground IS the reason it was an incomplete pass. How many times do I need to state that? That is exactly why it is an incomplete pass. Show me where I even said anything to the contrary?

 

Here, I hope this helps Clyde, I will make it perfectly clear for you

 

 

THE REASON EIFERETS PLAY WAS CALLED AN INCOMPLETE PASS IS BECAUSE THE BALL HIT THE GROUND DUE TO THE FACT HE COULD NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OF IT AS HE WAS GOING TO THE GROUND

 

Hope that helps. Now please quit making things up. I never guessed and I never said that the ball hitting the ground is not the reason it was an incomplete pass. Just the opposite on both accounts.

 

now please quit being so Obtuse. It's very annoying

 

You guessed. Educated guess but you guessed and your repeated responses prove it.

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm quoting YOU. Even your ALL CAPS response is incomplete BECAUSE you left out the part talking about "in the act of catching the ball." You've already stated (not me - YOU) that you don't know what that means.

 

So if you're mad at the words being put in your mouth quit putting them in your mouth.

 

I think most can follow the logic here. I can't help you any more if you can't follow the logic.

You guessed. Educated guess but you guessed and your repeated responses prove it.

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm quoting YOU. Even your ALL CAPS response is incomplete BECAUSE you left out the part talking about "in the act of catching the ball." You've already stated (not me - YOU) that you don't know what that means.

 

So if you're mad at the words being put in your mouth quit putting them in your mouth.

 

I think most can follow the logic here. I can't help you any more if you can't follow the logic.

 

I know what the act of catching the ball is, what I said is I don't know how the NFL's exact wording of that is. I explained already my definition of act of catching a ball is, it is to catch the ball and maintain control of it and to complete the process one must complete two steps while maintaining control. If the player is going to the ground in the act of catching the ball then he must maintain control of the ball at all times as he goes to the ground. If at any time he loses control of the ball and it hits the ground then it is determined an incomplete pass.

 

There Clyde, that should take away any doubt you have of the rule. That is the rule according to me. That also explains catching the ball for you. or as you like to say the act of catching the ball.

 

You said I put the words in my mouth. Show me where I said I guessed, go ahead.

 

What I did say however was "I knew it was an incomplete pass when it happened" No where in that sentence was the word guess.

I know what the act of catching the ball is, what I said is I don't know how the NFL's exact wording of that is. I explained already my definition of act of catching a ball is, it is to catch the ball and maintain control of it and to complete the process one must complete two steps while maintaining control. If the player is going to the ground in the act of catching the ball then he must maintain control of the ball at all times as he goes to the ground. If at any time he loses control of the ball and it hits the ground then it is determined an incomplete pass.

 

There Clyde, that should take away any doubt you have of the rule. That is the rule according to me. That also explains catching the ball for you. or as you like to say the act of catching the ball.

 

YOUR defintion? We're now using GreyFox definition of "act of catching the ball" and not the NFL's?

 

Why didn't you tell me we were using the GreyFox rulebook. I would have bowed out.

So Clyde, did you even watch the video I supplied the link to?

YOUR defintion? We're now using GreyFox definition of "act of catching the ball" and not the NFL's?

 

Why didn't you tell me we were using the GreyFox rulebook. I would have bowed out.

 

Clyde, I told you I don't know what the exact wording of the NFL is for "in the process of a catch" or whatever you asked about. I told you what I know it to be and it probably isn't the exact wording of the NFL but it is what a completed pass is.

 

You are too lazy to look it up yourself. You asked the questions and I answered them and simply because I know the rule and you don't you claim I guessed. Still waiting for you to show me where I said I guessed on that call.

....

 

Why does every debate on this site lately have to turn into the Bataan Death March?

Clyde, I told you I don't know what the exact wording of the NFL is for "in the process of a catch" or whatever you asked about. I told you what I know it to be and it probably isn't the exact wording of the NFL but it is what a completed pass is.

 

You are too lazy to look it up yourself. You asked the questions and I answered them and simply because I know the rule and you don't you claim I guessed. Still waiting for you to show me where I said I guessed on that call.

 

No one reading this thinks you KNOW the rule. No one.

No one reading this thinks you KNOW the rule. No one.

 

 

I'm bowing out of this debate politely. No need to throw out insults.

Clyde, I told you I don't know what the exact wording of the NFL is for "in the process of a catch" or whatever you asked about. I told you what I know it to be and it probably isn't the exact wording of the NFL but it is what a completed pass is.

 

You are too lazy to look it up yourself. You asked the questions and I answered them and simply because I know the rule and you don't you claim I guessed. Still waiting for you to show me where I said I guessed on that call.

 

If you don't know the wording of the rule, which describes what a catch is, how do you know what a catch is? Isn't the NFL wording of the rule the most important part of knowing if it is a catch?

 

I agree, I thought it was going to be overturned but mine was a guess also. And you keep saying they are inconsistent in calling it, maybe the nfl refs are confused on the rule too. I guess they could call you instead of New York.

I will leave it with this last comment. Seeing how more people than I thought weren't familiar with the rule even after last years Dez Bryant controversy and all.

 

You all do understand the difference between going to the ground and losing the ball and losing the ball while still standing correct?

 

If Eifert would of stayed upright and simply stretched his arms out so the ball broke the plain of the goal line and then got knocked out of his hands AFTER taking two steps, it would have been a TD. It was only because he was going to the ground in the act of the catch (he was hit before his second foot came down which led hiim to go to the ground and his second step came after being hit so he was already enroute to the ground that made it an incomplete catch.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Again, no guessing required from me to know the difference between those two different situations either.