I will try to get video links, the rule has been applied many times over the past decade that's why I KNOW I am right unless they changed the rule.
the fact that the actual rule contradicts you, you inherently cannot be right unless you are taking the position that you can dictate and override the NFL's actual rules. what you will find are plays that differ completely from this catch, because clearly you don't understand the rule since there is no rule that states movement of the ball results in an incompletion. the rule states possession of the ball, which can be had and maintained as the ball moves as a result of the movement of the body or hands that possess it. any video you find will likely show movement of the ball which is a result of a lack of possession of the ball, in which the movement isn't the issue, it is simply the indicator of a lack of possession. if the rule had been changed, you would be able to find such with a simple google search of "nfl reception rule change" or something similar. why haven't you done so? the reason being because it does not exist.
you mean other than the fact that it was a completion? why do you continue to ignore the actual rule?
I can only go by the way they interpret it and call it, I have seen that play called incomplete many times. I don't know the exact wording in the rulebook, we don't have the rule book. Looking up a page on the site doesn't take into account the entire rulebook,m I am 90% sure there is a different interpretation for a catch on a sideline or OOB play although it doesn't note it in thatlink you posted.
nyjunc, I think the reason you may see the ref rule it incomplete sometimes is because alot of times it is a judgement call and there isn't a clear definitive answer. If you think that wasn't a catch thats fine, but you should base that on whether you thought he lost possession or not, not whether the ball moved. I've already said I think it was a catch, but it is open to some debate because the ball did move a little when he hit the ground. The reason I think it was still a catch, and I'm guessing the ref as well, is because he still maintained complete possession and control of the ball. I guess my question to you would be, when he hit the ground and the ball moved a little, do you think he lost possession? If you do, than I have no problem with you standing by your opinion. But I don't think you should base that off of whether the ball moved a little or not, it's whether the ball moving qualifies as a lack of possession. I personally don't think it did. Just my 2 cents.
To me it's a ctach but the problem is based ont he way they have continually ruled similar plays it isn't a catch. from the offical NFL rulebook at nfl.com: http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf so I guess they do have rules for OOB plays and EZ plays?
no, that isn't a rule for OOB or EZ plays, those are the exact same rules for a completion anywhere on the field but then simply explained in detail how they are called in those situations. but they are the exact same requirements for a catch regardless of where on the field.
The second rule you posted is for better interpretation of the Lee Evans play. If his second foot hits the ground while maintaining possession of the ball then it's a catch and a Touchdown. Moore knocking the ball away would not have changed the result of the play. However, in the middle of the field that would either be an incomplete pass or a fumble. I don't think that was in reference to a player going out of bounds in the end zone. In that case the receiver must maintain possession of the ball as they hit the ground to complete the pass reception. I think the two rules you posted weren't of the same type of reception. Manningham never lost possession of the ball which is why it was correctly called a completion.
Now you are arguing the exact rule copied from the rulebook? It sure looks like that ball moves when his elbow hits the ground, maybe it didn't and they needed more evidence but it definitely looks like it moved.
nyjunc, based on the first rule you posted regarding the sideline catches, it sounds like a catch to me. I haven't seen it anywhere but I'm just about positive the ball can move a little without it being considered losing possession or control of the ball. If that is the case, than it was a catch and a good call. The only way it couldn't have been a catch is A. The ball isn't aloud to move at all, or B. The ball movement that we saw qualifies as a loss of possession. I personally don't think it did on that play in perticular. But that is up for debate I suppose. In my opinion the ball clearly stayed in his hands and chest, and only shifted slightly when he hit the ground, but he never lost control or his grasp on the ball. Sometimes when they hit the ground the ball will kind of slip out and will bobble a bit more. On that play it didn't. Again, alot of times the ref might call it an incompletion because it is based on the individual refs judgement on what is considered loss of possession. So it is open to interpretation. I just think on this play in perticular, he had complete control and possession the whole way through.
So I guess the next question is, is the ball aloud to move at all, as long as the player maintains possession. I'm just about positive the answer is yes, but I can't be sure without seeing it in the rules, and I can't find that online so I guess we're SOL for now.
"he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" this comes down to whether you think it moved or not, if it moved at all it's incomplete- if not it's a catch. It certainly appears to me like it moved but maybe I am seeing things. The rule says complete and continuous control so it can't move at all. I have seen less movement ruled incomplete.
Control is not defined by "no movement". The ball can move as long as the player has control or possession of the ball. Otherwise Holmes' 3 endzone TD receptions wouldn't have counted (SB XLIII, vs. Texans, vs. Patriots) or Gronk's catch wouldn't have counted vs. the Broncos. The ball can move. No where in the rules does it say the ball cannot move.
Junc is one of three people in the US (along with Obama and Galactus) with special dispensation to override the NFL Rulebook. Please be aware you are ridiculing a person of power.
did you read the actual rule I posted? from the OFFICIAL NFL rule book? It's pretty clear I am correct on the rule.
I'm not arguing the rule at all. you are confusing a description of how the rule is utilized during a specific situation with the rule itself. this is the rule for a completed pass. it applies to every completed pass, and where on the field that occurs is irrelevant: all the other items are just further explanations of how the rule above would be utilized based on the different situations. those aren't separate rules, just explanations, and none modify the rule set forth above. clearly the NFL does not agree with this assessment, and for the sake of rational debate we must defer to the body that gets to define what that means, not what you would like it to mean. you are now contradicting the very bolded description you linked to to validate your point when it actually disputes it.
