the problem that isn't for sideline plays. For sideline plays: from the offical NFL rulebook at nfl.com: http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf
that isn't a separate rule just a further explanation that doesn't eliminate the elements of the actual rule for a catch already described. a sideline catch is no different than any other catch -- the rule for a catch, which states specifically about movement, applies to every catch. are you really that confused by the NFL rulebook? or how bullet points are utilized? or are you trolling?
it does eliminate what you posted b/c this is specific to a sideline catch which the play the other night was. I posted the OFFICIAL rulebook, clikc the link and read. You got me, I didn't realize you were goofing around. Good job.
holy shit, you really aren't very bright if you are that confused by the NFL rulebook. everything mentioned after the rule still must meet the elements of the rule itself.
Which he does, are you just acting retarded or something? Face it it's a catch, not sure why you're so hung up on disproving something that can't be disproved.
The ball is allowed to move as long as the receiver maintains control of the ball. If the receiver loses control or possession of the ball the pass is incomplete. Manningham never lost control / possession of the ball.
Frame 1: Possession w/ 2 feet down Frame 2: Chambers falling to the ground Frame 3: Chambers lands on the ground and ball moves and hits ground Frame 4: Chambers loses possession and control of the ball. The ball is on the ground Frame 5: Chambers has lost possession and did not complete the reception
Chambers did lose control of the ball when it came out at the end. Even though it looked like he had possession with both feet in bounds, he needed to maintain complete control of the ball when he hit the ground which he did not. It is the same thing for sideline catches. Manningham maintained complete and continuous control of the ball since the ball never came out. Here is a quote from Mike Pereira talking about why the Chambers catch was not a catch. Note what is in bold: NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira said, "When you are going to the ground, even though two feet hit and an elbow hits, when you hit the ground, you have to maintain control of the ball. It's the same at the 50-yard line as it is in the end zone. It's the same in bounds as it is out of bounds. Even though the feet come down first, if the ball comes loose, which it did here, if you don't maintain control of the ball, it's an incomplete pass."
I just want to expand on the part I bolded. Manningham also never bobbled the ball which he also must not do. If he bobbled the ball or lost control of it in any way then it would have been incomplete. But he never lost control of the ball which is why it wasn't overturned.
Exactly! If I am remembering correctly the Coles catch versus the Saints in 05 is a good example of bobbling the ball which is why that play was ruled incomplete. I found a video on Youtube of Mike Pereira talking more about this. It mainly focuses on a Raider TD that was incomplete (because the receiver lost the ball at the end) but at the 2:40 mark he talks about a sideline catch with the same rule applied. The examples don't show any bobbling, but we all know what that is. This video show incompletions since the receiver lost control of the ball while going to the ground. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc&feature=player_embedded#
Junc knows more than Mike Pereira and the NFL rulebook. me and Mike Pereira, we just don't understand the rule when we say the exact same thing.
I think the Jets had tons of luck to reach the AFC Championship Game two years in a row, especially the first one when everything broke just right for them to make the playoffs. Luck is an intangible factor in every championship.
Why would anyone call you crazy for believing an imaginary man in the sky favors a particular football team to another? One of the great TGG mysteries.
Thank you for posting, he never lost control of the ball, it just moved slightly much like the Manningham play. There was a better, clearer angle on the Chambers play which may have been the difference but it's pretty clear the ball moves when manningham's elbow hits. I can only go by the RULEBOOK and what the officals call. In the rulebook it has a rule for sideline and OOB plays which is DIFFERENT than those on the field of play.
The real part that should be bolded is: "if the ball comes loose" the ball did come loose b/c it MOVED!
