google NFL rulebook and read it. the rules aren't written to create different rules depending on where on the field the play occurs. the requirement for a catch is the same in the middle of the field as it is on the sideline. why do you keep insisting there must be a rule for the sidelines that doesn't exist?
because the ref has the leeway to determine slight movement and whether enough movement occurred to determine a momentarily loss of possession of the ball.
Lol choose the best answer: NYJUNC : GIANTS a) CARPET : FLOOR b) FRANCESA : JETS c) CORK : WINE d) PHONE : EAR ------------------------ Btw, thanks to the guys who posted the rules from the rulebook, along with explanation of the rules. I've been wondering the official rule states for a catch and possession.
of course it is different falling OOB vs. falling in bounds. I insist upon it b/c it is true, I have seen that play called a million times. The first time I saw it I thought the refs made a bad call then I found out the rule and realized it was the right call.
no, the rules are the same, it is just there are different elements in play. there is nothing true about anything you have said, unless you are creating a rule that doesn't actually exist in the NFL. the rules dictating a catch, according to the NFL rulebook, are the same regardless of where on the field you are -- you must have possession and two feet in bounds. every catch that occurs on the sideline or falling out of bounds must meet that criteria.
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete. Manningham maintained complete and continuous control of the ball, therefore it is a catch and was the correct call.
Both calls were correct. Amazing some of these responses. If our team would get the same string of luck or breaks we wouldn't be talking about it. Romo interception to Revis Caldwell calling timeout last year. Kaeding missing 3 FGs (2 were in good FG range) Peyton being pulled out of the game week 15 Come on... Things like this happen. Every team that gets to the super bowl gets breaks or luck.
you really cant pick one play in there last 4 games that they didnt get the right bounce or got "unlucky". even yesterday 2 fumbles bounced right back to them. Are they the worst superbowl champion ever? you can also make that argument
I just watched the Chambers play. As he is coming down the ball hits the ground and he loses control of the ball thus the pass was correctly called incomplete.
I have seen the rule applied a million times, again unless they quietly changed that rule in recent years then the paky should have been ruled incomplete. No he didn't, the ball moved. it never hit the ground but it moved and therefore should have been incomplete. You are comparing officals calls to the Jets confusing Romo? or to a TO we didn't need against Indy? That's not debateable, worst record for a SB champ ever- they are thre worst SB cahmp ever but who cares? they are SB champs. I don't think the ball ever hit the ground, it just moved much like the Coles play and Chrebet at NE '03. If you can look up in the archives the days after the Saints game in '05 you'll see 99% of the nboard was going carzy over the overturned TD- 1 person wasn't- the guy that knows the rule. This was the same type of situation.
The ball hit the ground on the Chambers play and he lost control of the ball. it was an incomplete pass. I just watched it last night. The ball did hit the ground. Manningham never lost possession of the ball. It was a completed pass. There is no stipulation that the ball cannot move one inch. In fact it says that slight movement of the ball does not mean that there was a loss of possession.
Find the Coles play, find the Chrebet '03 play, find any # of plays from the past decade where the same situation happened. can you post the Chambers play? I don't recall it hitting the ground.
I don't remember either of those plays. I have the 05 Saints game, so I'll look thru it. Which 03 game? I have the Suzy game, but not sure if I have the game that was IN NE. I can post the Chambers play tonight. I have to convert the game to DVD first, then I will do some screen prints.
The '03 game was at NE, it wasn't a TD play but a sideline play where Chrebet appeared to have caught the ball and the ball moved when he hit the ground but he never lost possession and they ruled it incomplete on replay.
They got one of the worst calls I've ever seen against Green Bay with that fumble bring reversed. I'm pretty sure I also recall a horrible spot that should've been a first down, forcing them to punt. Also, what about that holding call when they were moving down the field against new england. That was a horrible call and if they had lost the game most people would look back to that call as a turning point. And if you wanna argue it, then fine it might've been a slight hold, but it's a play you could call every single snap. Hardly getting every call And as far as them being the worst Superbowl winner, look at who they beat to get to the superbowl. Bottom line is, they got hot at the right time. Same thing you guys did in 09. If you had won the superbowl in 09 I doubt anybody would be saying that. The giants beat everybody they had to. And it doesn't matter if they were a "weaker" Super Bowl team. They were the best team in the NFL this year, like it or not, they proved it.
no, the rule hasn't been changed. you have been shown the actual rule, it is the same rule that has been in place for years. the problem appears to be you just don't understand the rule, and thus don't understand why different calls are made for different plays, as evidenced by your constant insistence of a non-existing rule that if a ball moves it means an incompletion: that rule just doesn't exist. the ball has moved during every catch in the history of the NFL as the body that possesses it moves. there is no rule that deems ball movement an incompletion and you have been shown such. as long as the receiver has possession of the ball, he can shake that ball like a polaroid picture as long as he has full possession of it. your insistence that the movement of his body, and thus subsequent motion of the ball based on that, makes a pass incomplete has no basis in the rules or reality.
