OT-How Is This Not A Catch & TD?

[NJCardFan]

How can this not be ruled a catch?

You must be registered for see images

 

[GatorAZ]

Eifert "not old enough" to get that call?

 

[moklerman]

The officiating has been terrible this year and it sounds like it has a lot to do with the league grading these guys. There must be a new emphasis on officials being graded because the penalty count is higher than it's ever been and a LOT of ticky-tack stuff is being called because these guys don't want to get docked for missing a call.

 

[gamebird98]

My guess would be..." he did not complete the process"

 

[cardsfanmd]

Simple. He's on my fantasy team.

 

[Harry]

Game is correct. Like it or not the reciever must maintain possession until he is down or makes a recognized football move Oddly "reaching out" has not yet been classified as such a move.

 

[Buckybird]

The jack wads at the NFL office supposedly tweaked the rule this offseason & still have no clue what a football move is or even a catch!!! This rule is almost as bad as the tuck rule.

The NFL should should do what the NCAA does & review every that's questionable upstairs because they've got it right IMO because It doesn't really slow their game down that much. But the NFL will never admit they are wrong on this & the college game has it right. Why should a team & its HC have to burn a challenge when it's obvious the refs messed up? And each team gets 2? Lol Three bad calls & then your team is at the mercy of the refs each game lol

And penalties seem to be at an all time high! But let's not slow the game down

 

[Cardsfanstl]

He had possession when the ball crossed the goal line so in my mind it is a TD. Seen it call this way many times.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

Game is correct. Like it or not the reciever must maintain possession until he is down or makes a recognized football move Oddly "reaching out" has not yet been classified as such a move.

Correct. They clarified this like two years ago because it was getting called so diversely

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Correct. They clarified this like two years ago because it was getting called so diversely

..and I think that it is an incorrect call. It makes no sense that receivers have a different definition of possession. At some point, the definition changes from a catch, to the ball carrier being a runner. It was clear that he had possession of the ball, and he crossed the goal line. That should be a catch and a touchdown in any rational sense of the game. He even made a 'football move' which is the term that they used to use in how to determine if he switched from a receiver to ball carrier.

I like a lot of the rule changes that the league has implemented. The definition of a catch and its ambiguity is not one of them.

 

[Buckybird]

He had possession when the ball crossed the goal line so in my mind it is a TD. Seen it call this way many times.

Absolutely John!!!

How is it that a RB can simply stick the ball out touch the line then a defender swipe it out of his hands & its not a fumble? Very contradicting IMO. Lol It's a ridiculous rule.

Each ref sees & calls things different ways & its stupid.

 

[Buckybird]

Correct. They clarified this like two years ago because it was getting called so diversely

And it still is

 

[TigToad]

Ridiculous that it wouldn't be a touchdown. He caught it cleanly, turned his hip and dove for the end zone.

 

[JCSunsfan]

It was a football move. It was a touchdown. Stupid call.

He had it possessed and tucked for 4 steps, he turned toward the goal line, he reached out to get the ball over the goal line, the ball only popped loose after across the goal line when kicked by the opponent.

The end effect of this ruling will be efforts to strip, kick, hit, etc long after a play is over in the end zone, leading to more injuries.

 

[Mainstreet]

It was a clearly a touchdown. The receiver had possession of the ball when he reached the ball across the goal line. The defenders foot knocked it out of his hands in the end zone. There was no bobbling of the ball or such. The receiver had possession of the ball when the ball crossed the goal line. Therefore touchdown.

 

[JCSunsfan]

It was a clearly a touchdown. The receiver had possession of the ball when he reached the ball across the goal line. The defenders foot knocked it out of his hands in the end zone. There was no bobbling of the ball or such. The receiver had possession of the ball when the ball crossed the goal line. Therefore touchdown.

It may have been hard to see it in real time, but it should have been called a touchdown after review.

 

[Iceman]

I agree. Should have been a TD. Luckily for the Bengals, it didn't play in the outcome of the game because they won anyways.

 

[Austin Zonie]

The jack wads at the NFL office supposedly tweaked the rule this offseason & still have no clue what a football move is or even a catch!!! [emoji35] This rule is almost as bad as the tuck rule.



The NFL should should do what the NCAA does & review every that's questionable upstairs because they've got it right IMO because It doesn't really slow their game down that much. But the NFL will never admit they are wrong on this & the college game has it right. Why should a team & its HC have to burn a challenge when it's obvious the refs messed up? And each team gets 2? Lol Three bad calls & then your team is at the mercy of the refs each game lol



And penalties seem to be at an all time high! But let's not slow the game down

This 100%.

 

[conraddobler]

Yeah this is a result of the rule in terms of maintain control throughout the process.

Same as bobbling the ball when you hit the ground on a catch. Under the old rules it would of fallen under break the plane and it's a TD.

Interestingly there is a legendary catch by Mel Grey that occurred against Washington in the end zone to decide a division title.

The refs huddled forever on that one and ruled it a catch, "he was hit almost as soon as he caught the ball and it popped lose in the endzone."

So I'm guessing that would not now have been ruled a catch?

 

[Buckybird]

What's more concerning was if Scam Newtons accusations of Hoculili saying he hasn't played in the league long enough to get that roughing call.

We all know as Cards fans many times it seemed we were on the bad end of bogus calls numerous times. Either way (truth or Lie) Ed or Newton should be suspended whomever is telling the truth. Stay tuned

 

[NJCardFan]

Game is correct. Like it or not the reciever must maintain possession until he is down or makes a recognized football move Oddly "reaching out" has not yet been classified as such a move.

999,999 times out of 1,000,000 this is called a TD. For example, how many times have we seen a running back take the ball on the 1 yard line, lunge forward, get stopped, but stretch the ball over the goal line and a split second after the ball breaks the plane, it's smacked out of his hand but it's still called a TD. Absolutely no difference. But you're right to a degree that there are certain calls that aren't consistent with similar calls. Take the tuck rule. Remember our game against Dallas in 2008 when Dockett went to sack Romo in the endzone while Romo was in the process of passing but he brought the ball back in as he was getting hit, the ball popped out, Dockett recovered but it was called the tuck rule even though Romo had his back to the playing field and was facing the back of the endzone when the ball came out meaning it should have been called a backwards pass. There's just no consistency.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

It's a TD to me...and not just because Eifert is my fantasy TE.

 

[jbeecham]

I'm in agreement on the TD. He makes the catch, turns & stretches the ball over the goal line... the play should be over right when the ball breaks the plane.

He does jump in the air to make the catch, but he gets 2 feet down, turns & lunges forward.... That's a football move.

If he had still been in the air when the defender hits him & the ball popped out on the way down then I'd say incomplete pass.

 

[CardLogic]

How can this not be ruled a catch?

Because. . .

In today's NFL nobody, including the officials, knows what the hell is or isn't a catch!

 

[Chaz]

It is because he went to the ground. If he stays on his feet it is a TD even if the guy kicks it out of his hands. I understand those that say it should be a TD but under the current rules it isn't.