Chambers lost control of the ball. It's extremely clear in the video and pretty clear in the pictures I posted.
Let's backtrack for a moment. First, yes, the ball can move as long as the receiver has continued control. Back to Manningham's reception: 1. He had possession of the ball with two feet in bounds 2. He tucks the ball into his body as he is going to the ground - perfectly legal 3. He maintains control of the ball after he hits the ground It seems you contention with the play is number 2. Mannginham is allowed to tuck the ball into his body. The ball is allowed to move as long as it is in a controlled manner. He did everything perfectly. This pass was correctly called complete.
He is allowed to tuck and he did have possession and did get both feet down w/o a doubt BUT when he hits the ground the ball squirts a little. That is what makes it an incomplete pass. Again, I have seen much less movement overturned. I think it's a bad rule, I think it was a catch but based on the rules and how they have called it in the past it should have been ruled incomplete.
I just watched the .gif again. That's a complete pass w/o a doubt. If you notice, his whole arm is moving in the same direction as the ball.
it certainly appears that the ball moves w/o control but you can't tell for 100% and I think that's why they didn't overtrun it. if they had a better angle(it's amazing they didn't w/ all the cameras at the SB- I hope NFL films got a better shot) it would have been more conclusive.
The ball never squirts, that's his arm squirting. Anyways, that rule was changed with the Bert Emanuel non catch back in 1999.
I disagree, it sure looks like the ball squirts away from his arm a little bit. I can't wait to see what angles NFL films got on the catch. I think that will clear it up
His elbow hits the ground first, with the weight of is body on his elbow, it squirts in. His arm is totally under the ball. But anyways, even if the ball did move a bit, its still a catch because of the Bert Emanuel rule. There isnt anyone on the planet other than you arguing that it wasn't catch man. They got lucky the week before on the Bradshaw non fumble...but this wasnt luck. They beat the Pats fair and square.
It's not a catch b/c of the Bert Emanuel rule, the Emanuel play happend in the field not on the sideline. The ball moved, you just said so so it should have been incomplete. I am going based on A)the rule and B) seeing much less movement called incomplete in the past. I am NOT saying the Giants don't win w/o this play. This was not the game ender the Bradshaw fumble would have been. My guess is they would have found a way to at least kick a FG and win but I am allowed to discuss this. It's a rule not many fans know about, we had argumetns for weeks after the overturn of the Coles TD vs. NO in 2005 and no matter how many times I explained it was the right call no one believed me just like in this situation but that's ok, this type of call will come up again and it will be ruled incomplete then some folks will realize what happened.
The sideline doesnt mean anything. Where are you getting this from? And the ball never moved. Where did you think I said it did? His elbow squirts in, not the ball. What the hell are you talking about? This feels like the twilight zone.
when you said "it" I thought you were talking about the ball b/c the ball did squirt. Where am I getting this from? the official NFL rulebook: http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf
He makes complete and continuous possession of the ball. And even if it did squirt(which it didnt) it would still be ruled a catch if you read the rule prior.
the rule prior is not for sideline catches. It comes down to whether you think the ball moved or not, if it did it should have bee incomplete but if not it should be a catch. None of this really matters as they called it a catch but it is something interesting to discuss.
You are only reading the part of the rule you want to apply. You need to read the rule as a WHOLE. The Note 2 you posted of the possession rule is incomplete because you forget there is a Note 3 that talks about control/loss of possession, this from the NFL Rulebook: "Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession. Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession." Yes, Note 2 is for sideline catches but it is a FURTHER explanation of the rules, all parts must still be met, it's not listed as a separate rule but is a supplemental note to the rule. When a player is about to catch a ball on the sideline this is what the ref does by RULE: Does he catch/control/possess it, yes, did both feet or body parts excluding hands touch the ground inbounds, yes, does he maintain complete and continuous control throughout the play to the ground, yes, does he still maintain possession once he hit the ground, (by note 3 that was stated before a small movement of the ball DOES NOT mean loss of possession) yes he maintained possession. It's a catch, get over it.
the first part is for catches in the field of play, the 2nd part is for sideline catches. One doesn't have anythging to do w/ the other. http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf This is all that matters:
no, you just don't understand what you are reading even though it couldn't be clearer. Article 3 is the rule that applies to every catch. The Items that follow are not new rules they are just how the rule of article 3 is implemented per specific situations, which continue to utilize the rule of article 3. The former head of NFL officiating confirmed that which was quoted previously. clearly, the problem is your understanding of the rule.
Junc.. Firstly, the term "control" (of the ball) is a constant -- its definition is the same regardless of location on the field. Secondly, it has now become apparent that you're just incapable of understanding the definition of "control."
