You need to lose possession of the ball. That's why Gronk's TD vs. the Broncos counted. Out of Bounds or in the middle of the field makes no difference.
the rule doesn't specify where it has to occur, so it isn't a narrow rule and applies to all catches. you are mistaken.
I don't believe I am and if so they changed the rules. Again, go back to Chambers '02 or Coles '05 just as 2 similar examples. We've seen this rule screwed up so often throuhg the years though.
re-read the rule. It clearly states that slight movment is not considered a loss of possession of the ball.
According to that it sounds like a catch to me. I saw the same movement junc is talking about, and I still thought it was a catch but I definately thought twice. But according to that rule, in my opinion, he still maintained possession the whole time. The ball did shift slightly but it was still well in his grasp and he never lost any control of it. Now, if the call on the field was incomplete, it may have been a little difficult to overturn. I still think they would have, but with that slight movement a ref could've made a bad judgement call and said it wasn't conclusive, which you could make the arguement for that. Bottom Line is I think the refs did a pretty darn good job officiating the game. A couple pass interference penalties could've been called on the patriots, but I like that they held there flags. Let the guys play a bit. I hate when they call a Pass Interference because the defender had his arm on the guys back as he's reaching to defend a pass. If he's going for the ball and he's not turning the reciever don't call it. No harm no foul. And obviously I thought and still think the sideline catch was a very good call by the refs and a beautiful play by Eli and Manningham. Also, I'm a dolphins fan, and along with alot of jets fans was really hoping the Patriots would lose. So I was pretty excited when they did. It's good for both our teams. We can't keep having our division rival winning the Superbowl. I know you guys pretty much had your worst nightmare come true with the Giants also being in it, but in my opinion the Giants winning was best for both ball clubs. So here's a salute to the Jets, Dolphins and Bills who don't have to deal with as much Pats smack talk this offseason and next year.
Also Junc, I think they did change the rule allowing some movement as long as possession isn't lost. I'm not positive about that, I would have to do some research which I really can't right now because I'm at work. But I feel like I remember that being changed maybe 4 or 5 or 6 years ago. Could easily be wrong tho.
The only difference is if the player loses possession of the ball and the ball doesn't hit the ground as he lands out of bounds. At that point the pass would be incomplete. However, the rule states that a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. Manningham did not lose possession of the ball. There is no stipulation that says the ball cannot move one inch.
the rule that he posted doesn't discuss sideline and OOB plays, again unless they have changed the rule(which I do not believe they have) if the ball moves an inch it's incomplete. I don't know if you can look it up on youtube but look for the highlights of Chambers and Coles for an example.
If they did then I'm wrong. Either way it doesn't matter, it was a great effort from the QB and WR but I'd like to get clarification if they changed it.
Dude, you're reaching here. There is no stipulation that says a ball cannot move one inch on the sideline or in the end zone. The receiver has to maintain control of the ball -- which Manningham did -- and get both feet in bounds in order for it to be a catch.
then why have they ruled apparent catches not catches when balls have barely moved and the receiver not losing possession? http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=221110020
Only thing worse for me is if somehow the Phins and Pats played in the SB. You guys are lucky in the aspect that your kind of on an island. Most teams are with exception of the a few who share media markets with an NFC Team like say the Ravens, I would imagine worst case for them would be Redskins/Steelers or the Raiders who had to deal with 49ers/Chargers. Most teams don't have that type of situation, obviously everybody has a rival but very few have the type of situation the Jets had twice in the last 4 years.
Yea I understand what your saying. Obviously there are 2 other florida teams in Tampa Bay and Jacksonville, but they are far from rivals and I could really care less about them. Two teams from the same city is a bit different. Also, your nightmare season happened this year, mine has almost happened the last few years. The Patriots undefeated season and the dolphins looking like they were going to go winless would've been the worst thing ever possible. It ended up working out perfectly with us winning a game, and them losing the superbowl but it was killing me for a few weeks. Then there was the Vikings with Brett Favre and you guys in the championship games. I can't stand brett favre and obvioulsy I dont like the Jets so that was going to be horrible for me, and luckily, again, it ended up working perfectly with both the Jets and Vikings being eliminated. Point is, I've had some close calls recently that would've put me in hiding for months. Thank god they didn't happen. So I can only imagine what it must be like. But man I'm tellin ya, the dolphins 1-15 year was soooo sweet in the end with us getting a win (not becoming part of history) and the Patriots losing the superbowl. By far my favorite superbowl ever (I'm only 21).
the rule doesn't have to state those things -- it is written to apply to all catches regardless of location.
It depends on the situations of the movement. if the ball touches the ground and moves then that is an incomplete. If possession in any way lost due to the movement then the pass is incomplete.
the last couple years, it's been the Patriots that have gotten break after break after break. They shouldn't have even got past the Ravens. It was nice to see things not go their way for once.
