PDA

View Full Version : *** OFFICIAL Eli Manning Worship Thread ***



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

JCane
02-05-2012, 10:54 PM
I don't even need to tell you.

You watched the game. You seen it. You hung on to every single second and watched Eli win his SECOND Super Bowl.

This dude is absolutely 100% ELITE.

No denying it.

rob19
02-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Junc's a sad panda right now

CalDolFan1014
02-05-2012, 10:59 PM
Of course Eli is elite...was before this game. There's no doubt now. He'll be considered for the HOF now.

J. David Wannyheimer
02-05-2012, 10:59 PM
There's only room in my heart for one football team, but if there's ever room for two, that spot's reserved for the New York Giants.

sinPHIN
02-05-2012, 11:11 PM
he legit

CA Dolfan
02-05-2012, 11:12 PM
Man if he would come to Miami

JCane
02-05-2012, 11:13 PM
There's only room in my heart for one football team, but if there's ever room for two, that spot's reserved for the New York Giants.

Same here, my man.

The Buffalo Bills terrorized me as a young Miami Dolphins fans. Hated them more than anything. Watching the Giants beat them years ago in that Super Bowl made my childhood.

Then they knocked off the Patriots undefeated season and now this again.

Love that life as a Jets fans sucks beyond anything that has ever sucked before. The Patriots lose and Buffalo is still in Buffalo.

Love me some Eli Manning. But I can't wait for tomorrow morning when people try to say the only reason Eli has won two Super Bowls is because of miracle catches by his receivers.

Eli did it in Peyton's backyard. He has beaten Brady twice now. This kid is a stone cold killer in the fourth quarter. And yet he still gets no respect for some reason.

Eli Manning...now with TWO Super Bowl MVP trophies. How about that.

PhinsPhan11
02-05-2012, 11:20 PM
You can't spell elite without ELI.

DisturbedShifty
02-05-2012, 11:21 PM
Can't wait to see if the spin miester will be able to put a negative spin on this one.

Namor
02-05-2012, 11:23 PM
Same here, my man.

The Buffalo Bills terrorized me as a young Miami Dolphins fans. Hated them more than anything. Watching the Giants beat them years ago in that Super Bowl made my childhood.

Then they knocked off the Patriots undefeated season and now this again.

Love that life as a Jets fans sucks beyond anything that has ever sucked before. The Patriots lose and Buffalo is still in Buffalo.

Love me some Eli Manning. But I can't wait for tomorrow morning when people try to say the only reason Eli has won two Super Bowls is because of miracle catches by his receivers.

Eli did it in Peyton's backyard. He has beaten Brady twice now. This kid is a stone cold killer in the fourth quarter. And yet he still gets no respect for some reason.

Eli Manning...now with TWO Super Bowl MVP trophies. How about that.

JC...Think about the pressure,Eli has played under...Son of a great QB...younger brother to Peyton."supposely" better.
Eli plays in the biggest media market....He has cut Brady's throat not once but twice.
When it is all said and done...Eli might go down as more elite than Peyton.

CalDolFan1014
02-05-2012, 11:26 PM
Can't wait to see if the spin miester will be able to put a negative spin on this one.

Somehow he'll find a way.

JCane
02-05-2012, 11:29 PM
Somehow he'll find a way.

And he won't struggle to find a way either.

PhinsPhan11
02-05-2012, 11:29 PM
Can't wait to see if the spin miester will be able to put a negative spin on this one.
He always does.

TedSlimmJr
02-05-2012, 11:43 PM
I've always had nothing but respect for the entire Manning family, and it goes beyond football. I've listened to Archie speak before at a little function in Columbus, Mississippi several years back. I grew up around Saints fans for the most part, and was around to watch Archie have to run for his life during his days with the Saints.

I've always said the most impressive thing about Eli was the added pressure he had to live up to. Not of being the #1 overall pick and the face of an NFL franchise in the largest media market, but living up to a last name. Always being compared to his brother, and his father. Of course, he had to do that even at Ole Miss where his dad played.

Eli Manning became an elite quarterback in the playoffs in '07, and has been ever since. Eli is a silent assassin. Don't ever let his golly-shucks outward demeanor fool you, that's to appease Mrs. Manning.

COphinphan89
02-05-2012, 11:50 PM
I wore a Giants shirt today. Still am. Damn proud of it too.

Vaark
02-05-2012, 11:54 PM
2 conference titles (not "near misses"), 2 actual SB appearances and 2 SB wins in 4 years and 3 days = the only legitimate elite team (and elite QB) in the New York Metro area. Oh, did I mention, the only legitimate elite HC also?

No teams taking knees to gift backdoor entry into the playoffs; no dead teams walking. The Giants did it the old fashioned way: they earned it!

Them's the facts: anything else is just deflection, spin and denial :idk:

(My dad was a lifelong fanatical Giants fan who idolized YA Tittle, Kyle Rote, Frank Gifford, Alex Webster, Sam Huff, Andy Robustelli, etc. From years and galaxies removed, I can feel his smile warming me up as I type this) :up:

Blake the great
02-06-2012, 12:00 AM
Eli is a winner.

MP-Omnis
02-06-2012, 12:05 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/carl_giants_jersey-1.jpg

DphinBillkiller
02-06-2012, 12:13 AM
Props to Eli for coming through when it counted!

COphinphan89
02-06-2012, 12:13 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/carl_giants_jersey-1.jpg

Dats friggin awesome!!

Dolfan3773
02-06-2012, 12:25 AM
Eli is money...so ****ing happy he beat the Pats

JCane
02-06-2012, 01:30 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

ChrisHanson
02-06-2012, 01:39 AM
Eli>Brady

DisturbedShifty
02-06-2012, 02:55 AM
Eli>Brady
In this game and recent memory, maybe. But all time. No way.

ChrisHanson
02-06-2012, 10:50 AM
In this game and recent memory, maybe. But all time. No way.

Yes, in recent memory Eli is better. No one seems to realize that Eli has now won 2 Super Bowls with sub-par teams. Both of the times he's led the Giants to a Championship their defense was ranked 17th and 25th. Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked less than 5th.

On top of that Brady has choked in his last 10-12 post season games.

GoonBoss
02-06-2012, 10:56 AM
Yes, in recent memory Eli is better. No one seems to realize that Eli has now won 2 Super Bowls with sub-par teams. Both of the times he's led the Giants to a Championship their defense was ranked 17th and 25th. Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked less than 5th.

On top of that Brady has choked in his last 10-12 post season games.

Eh, when you are popping your recievers dead in the chest and in the hands and they drop balls it's hard to say the QB choked.

ChrisHanson
02-06-2012, 11:00 AM
Eh, when you are popping your recievers dead in the chest and in the hands and they drop balls it's hard to say the QB choked.

Hernandez dropped a gimme, but other than that what passes are you talking about? Maybe the high and outside pass thrown to a Welker who was wide open? Or how about the pass thrown to Branch who was wide open coming across the middle that was about 5 feet behind him?

Brady did not play like an all-time great last night as he has sucked in nearly all of his last 10-12 post season games. He's a choke artist who can't win the big one if his defense doesn't bail him out.

DisturbedShifty
02-06-2012, 11:35 AM
Hernandez dropped a gimme, but other than that what passes are you talking about? Maybe the high and outside pass thrown to a Welker who was wide open? Or how about the pass thrown to Branch who was wide open coming across the middle that was about 5 feet behind him?

Brady did not play like an all-time great last night as he has sucked in nearly all of his last 10-12 post season games. He's a choke artist who can't win the big one if his defense doesn't bail him out.

Actually the Welker throw was worse.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

tylerdolphin
02-06-2012, 11:41 AM
He's a choke artist who can't win the big one if his defense doesn't bail him out.

I hate Brady and was tickled pink when the Pats lost, but this is just ridiculous. By your same logic, was Marino a choke artist because he never won a SB without a good defense (or, you know, at all)? Brady had played in 5 SBs and won 3 of them. Most successful choke artist in history I suppose.

nyjunc
02-06-2012, 11:50 AM
I don't even need to tell you.

You watched the game. You seen it. You hung on to every single second and watched Eli win his SECOND Super Bowl.

This dude is absolutely 100% ELITE.

No denying it.

He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch) was the play of the game on O(though it was a great pass). The D again won that game holding down Brady(after they hurt him) or the Manning led FGs would have meant nothing.

He's a good QB, no reason to go overboard.

nyjunc
02-06-2012, 11:51 AM
Yes, in recent memory Eli is better. No one seems to realize that Eli has now won 2 Super Bowls with sub-par teams. Both of the times he's led the Giants to a Championship their defense was ranked 17th and 25th. Brady has never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked less than 5th.

On top of that Brady has choked in his last 10-12 post season games.

Eli has won w/ D twice and last I checked if the "great" Welker holds onto that pass NE wins. Brady did what he could even after getting hurt.

rob19
02-06-2012, 12:19 PM
He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch) was the play of the game on O(though it was a great pass). The D again won that game holding down Brady(after they hurt him) or the Manning led FGs would have meant nothing.

He's a good QB, no reason to go overboard.

That was so totally a catch. Clearly had both feet in and maintained possession to the ground.

nyjunc
02-06-2012, 12:22 PM
That was so totally a catch. Clearly had both feet in and maintained possession to the ground.

Had both feet in, had possession but when he hit the ground the ball moved and that makes it incomplete. Think back to Chris Chambers vs. us on that 2002 Sunday Night game. Same type of play.

tylerdolphin
02-06-2012, 12:22 PM
He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch) was the play of the game on O(though it was a great pass). The D again won that game holding down Brady(after they hurt him) or the Manning led FGs would have meant nothing.

He's a good QB, no reason to go overboard.

Junc, thats a hell of a spin, even for you. I was in a room with about 20 other people with mixed rooting interests and I literally didnt hear a single person say it wasnt a catch.

tylerdolphin
02-06-2012, 12:23 PM
Had both feet in, had possession but when he hit the ground the ball moved and that makes it incomplete. Think back to Chris Chambers vs. us on that 2002 Sunday Night game. Same type of play.

It wiggled a bit, but he didnt lose possessions. It still stayed in his hands and never touched the ground.

Gonzo
02-06-2012, 12:27 PM
He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch) was the play of the game on O(though it was a great pass). The D again won that game holding down Brady(after they hurt him) or the Manning led FGs would have meant nothing.

He's a good QB, no reason to go overboard.Actually, it very clearly was.

Gonzo
02-06-2012, 12:28 PM
It wiggled a bit, but he didnt lose possessions. It still stayed in his hands and never touched the ground.But on a molecular level, it was moving all over the place, particularly the gaseous interior of the ball.

rob19
02-06-2012, 12:30 PM
N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: Going to the ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkP8qeJZzDE

Ball never even hits the ground

Wildbill3
02-06-2012, 12:34 PM
lol. "it wasn't a catch." lol

Myles Fynch
02-06-2012, 12:38 PM
If the refs knew what pass interference was, that catch wouldn't have even mattered--would have been rout for the Giants.

As blatant WR muggings go, think Revis INT for a TD against us this year. Same kind of ridiculous.

SpurzN703
02-06-2012, 12:46 PM
He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch)

There's the spin

SpurzN703
02-06-2012, 12:48 PM
Junc, thats a hell of a spin, even for you. I was in a room with about 20 other people with mixed rooting interests and I literally didnt hear a single person say it wasnt a catch.

It was a catch. Period.

Vaark
02-06-2012, 01:10 PM
It was more of a legitimate catch than the 09 jests were a legitimate PO wildcard :idk:

The New Guy
02-06-2012, 01:14 PM
He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch)

It must be tough to be the only guy that know the rules better than the officials. It is crazy that NFL officials on the biggest stage of the year (looking at the play from more angles than from any other game over and over) can't see what you saw sitting at home watching it on your T.V.

ChrisHanson
02-06-2012, 01:31 PM
I hate Brady and was tickled pink when the Pats lost, but this is just ridiculous. By your same logic, was Marino a choke artist because he never won a SB without a good defense (or, you know, at all)? Brady had played in 5 SBs and won 3 of them. Most successful choke artist in history I suppose.

You're not understanding. Brady, even though he's had some really good defenses, defenses that gave up a total of 38 points in 2 Super Bowls, wasn't able to play well enough to win those games. Hell, the Giants had the 17th and 25th ranked defenses in their last 2 Super Bowls, and the Patriots, a team that put up over 30 PPG in each of those regular seasons, couldn't do squat and put up half that average. If not for the Patriots defense coming up with a few big time end of the game plays, the Pats would have been one and done again with Brady's stellar 57 QBR. haha

Marino had a couple of good defenses (1984, ranked 7th, and 1990, ranked 4th, come to mind), but those defenses FOLDED in the playoffs. The 1984 defense gave up over 200 yards rusing to the 49ers, and the 1990 defense gave up nearly 50 points, 160 yds rushing and nearly 400 yards passing. Those are not playoff caliber defenses.

On the other hand, Brady has had nothing but top notch defenses since he started playing. Even this year his defense played really well in the post season and contrary to what some may think, they weren't half bad in the regular season. They started off shaky, but they ended up ranked 15th or 14th in the league...that's above average. However, Brady still played like crap in the post season. Brady's MO is, when it's all on him he plays badly. Look at his first 3 playoff runs. Very mediocre play overall and not one drive during that time which lead to a game winning TD. All FG's. Hell, out of all the post season games Brady has played in, he's lead the offense on ONE game winning TD drive.

Brady is a HoF QB. However, he's at the level of Bradshaw and Aikman...not Unitas, Graham, Marino etc.

dolphindebby
02-06-2012, 01:32 PM
They out played, they've were out coached, and out QB.
brady is not the wonder boy anymore...

ChrisHanson
02-06-2012, 01:33 PM
Eli has won w/ D twice and last I checked if the "great" Welker holds onto that pass NE wins. Brady did what he could even after getting hurt.

Not many WR's in the league not named "Megatron" make that catch. The pass was horrible in typical Choke style for Brady when it's all on him to win the game.

And not a catch? WHAT!?! Are you serious with that ****?

Mods...Junc should be banned just for that comment alone. hahaa

NY8123
02-06-2012, 02:15 PM
He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch) was the play of the game on O(though it was a great pass). The D again won that game holding down Brady(after they hurt him) or the Manning led FGs would have meant nothing.

He's a good QB, no reason to go overboard.

It was absolutely 100% a catch with a great throw to make it happen. Two feet down inbounds with established possession equals a catch, it was a catch and there is no denying the fact that it was a catch, so stop the nonsense "no catch" spiel. If you want to argue a bad call argue the safety on Brady (even though it won me the first two quarters in reverse on the board) it shouldn't have been intentional grounding and a safety.

As for the elite argument, Eli is better than any QB that the Jets and Miami have had since Marino and in the case of the Jets ever. I would take the kid hands down 100% of the time every time. Kids a baller and plays with poise when it counts, you're just pissed he took your beloved record from Sanchez for most playoff wins on the road, Sanchez was a franchise QB for winning on the road in the playoffs and now Manning is meh..good for doing the same.

Stop it. This is ridiculous.

ChrisHanson
02-06-2012, 02:21 PM
It was absolutely 100% a catch with a great throw to make it happen. Two feet down inbounds with established possession equals a catch, it was a catch and there is no denying the fact that it was a catch, so stop the nonsense "no catch" spiel. If you want to argue a bad call argue the safety on Brady (even though it won me the first two quarters in reverse on the board) it shouldn't have been intentional grounding and a safety.

As for the elite argument, Eli is better than any QB that the Jets and Miami have had since Marino and in the case of the Jets ever. I would take the kid hands down 100% of the time every time. Kids a baller and plays with poise when it counts, you're just pissed he took your beloved record from Sanchez for most playoff wins on the road, Sanchez was a franchise QB for winning on the road in the playoffs and now Manning is meh..good for doing the same.

Stop it. This is ridiculous.

Great post!

Except, it was intentional grounding.

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.
Did Brady have pressure? Check

Imminent loss of yardage? Check

No realistic chance for any WR to catch it? Check

The New Guy
02-06-2012, 02:36 PM
Had both feet in, had possession but when he hit the ground the ball moved and that makes it incomplete.

That is not true. The ball can move, as long as he maintains possession, which he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc&feature=player_embedded#!
Go to the 3:22 mark for an example.

nyjunc
02-06-2012, 03:14 PM
Junc, thats a hell of a spin, even for you. I was in a room with about 20 other people with mixed rooting interests and I literally didnt hear a single person say it wasnt a catch.

I would say 90% of average fans don't know the actual rule. Do you recall the Sun Night game btw our teams in '02? the Chambers would be TD catch? Same thing.


N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: Going to the ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Ball never even hits the ground

That's nice but that's not the rule on sideline plays or OOB plays in the back of the EZ.


There's the spin

The spin or actually knowing the rules?


It must be tough to be the only guy that know the rules better than the officials. It is crazy that NFL officials on the biggest stage of the year (looking at the play from more angles than from any other game over and over) can't see what you saw sitting at home watching it on your T.V.
That type of play is called very inconsistently by the officials and my guess is b/c they didn't have a great angle they didn't overturn it but it was clear the ball moved and that makes it incomplete. It's a dumb rule but it is the rule.


Not many WR's in the league not named "Megatron" make that catch. The pass was horrible in typical Choke style for Brady when it's all on him to win the game.

And not a catch? WHAT!?! Are you serious with that ****?

Mods...Junc should be banned just for that comment alone. hahaa

The pass was more than good enough, most WRs could make that catch and then on the first play after the Giants scored Branch dropped a pass that likely gets them across midfield if he catches it.


It was absolutely 100% a catch with a great throw to make it happen. Two feet down inbounds with established possession equals a catch, it was a catch and there is no denying the fact that it was a catch, so stop the nonsense "no catch" spiel. If you want to argue a bad call argue the safety on Brady (even though it won me the first two quarters in reverse on the board) it shouldn't have been intentional grounding and a safety.

As for the elite argument, Eli is better than any QB that the Jets and Miami have had since Marino and in the case of the Jets ever. I would take the kid hands down 100% of the time every time. Kids a baller and plays with poise when it counts, you're just pissed he took your beloved record from Sanchez for most playoff wins on the road, Sanchez was a franchise QB for winning on the road in the playoffs and now Manning is meh..good for doing the same.

Stop it. This is ridiculous.

Do you recall the '02 SN game where they overturned the Chambers TD catch? Unless they have changed the rules which I do not think they have then it was definitely not a catch.


Great post!

Except, it was intentional grounding.

[I]Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.
Did Brady have pressure? Check

Imminent loss of yardage? Check

No realistic chance for any WR to catch it? Check

Except he wasn't in danger when he began to throw.


That is not true. The ball can move, as long as he maintains possession, which he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc&feature=player_embedded#!
Go to the 3:22 mark for an example.

I can't see the video but I will try to find the chambers play or one that went afainst us in 2005 w/ Coles.

ChrisHanson
02-06-2012, 03:19 PM
That is not true. The ball can move, as long as he maintains possession, which he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc&feature=player_embedded#!
Go to the 3:22 mark for an example.

If out of bounds the ball can't move. The ball didn't move. Junc is thinking that it moved because of the way he was holding it when he held it up.

tylerdolphin
02-06-2012, 03:46 PM
The ball didnt jar loose. He never did not have possession. And no, I dont remember the '02 game. I was 12 at the time so Im not sure what exactly happened. All I know is that room I was in last night was comprised of a number of casual fans, but also a fair amount of die hards. Nobody disagreed with the call on the field after the replay.

SpurzN703
02-06-2012, 04:09 PM
The spin or actually knowing the rules?

What does it say when you're the only one saying it isn't a catch? You're telling me that the referees, who looking at the replay 4,500 times got it wrong and you, after seeing it 5 times, are more in the know than they are?

I get that you hate the Giants but Jesus Christ, you have to make sense to be taken seriously.

Gonzo
02-06-2012, 04:35 PM
The ball didnt jar loose. He never did not have possession. And no, I dont remember the '02 game. I was 12 at the time so Im not sure what exactly happened. All I know is that room I was in last night was comprised of a number of casual fans, but also a fair amount of die hards. Nobody disagreed with the call on the field after the replay.Neither did the refs or anybody but junc really, who is busy comparing something from 2002 that he has no video or even pictures of.

He maintained complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, something the ball itself never did. That's the same inbounds and out of bounds as noted in N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 AND Item 2 (which DOES pertain to OOB). He's dead wrong. Arguing with him is pointless.

The New Guy
02-06-2012, 04:43 PM
If out of bounds the ball can't move. The ball didn't move. Junc is thinking that it moved because of the way he was holding it when he held it up.

That is not true.

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.

The ball can move as long as the receiver is in control of the ball (which he was)

DisturbedShifty
02-06-2012, 05:22 PM
He's a good QB, the Manningham catch(which actually wasn't a catch) was the play of the game on O(though it was a great pass). The D again won that game holding down Brady(after they hurt him) or the Manning led FGs would have meant nothing.
K
He's a good QB, no reason to go overboard.
Man the Mayans got it all wrong. The day the world ends is the day that Junc just says conratulations to a winning team WITHOUT taking a pot shot about how they SHOULD have lost the game.

But it's OK. Everyone knows that it is nothing more that jealous fueled comment. Just like most of my hatred for the Jets is jealous fueled. Yeah. I said it. I am at least man enough to admit it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyNPeLJBo7Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Blake the great
02-06-2012, 05:40 PM
Im gettin tired of people saying the recievers cost the pats the game. The drop over the middle to hernandez was the only legit drop that should have been caught. but even it was only a 15 yard gain and chances are he wouldnt have got out of bounds.

The throw to branch deep over the middle was tipped at the last second and flew behind branch.

The throw to Welker was poorly thrown by brady, yes it could have been caught but I would expect "The Great Tom Brady" to make a more catchable throw, it was well behind welker and not to mention, Welker is pretty tiny. Plus Tom had time to step up and make the throw, gotta make a better throw than that.

The other pass to Branch on the sideline is just wishful thinking that Branch or any reciever to make that catch, Tom just threw to far out of bounds, the coverage was too good.

CalDolFan1014
02-06-2012, 06:23 PM
:bobdole: I knew he would try to spin it, but to say it wasn't a catch is plain ridiculous. Com'on even YOU can't believe that. You're fooling yourself if you think it wasn't a legal catch. He caught the ball with TWO feet inbounds and secured possession all the way to the ground. The ball NEVER hit the ground in all the time. It may have shifted slightly, but he still had secured possession before he got back up.

DisturbedShifty
02-06-2012, 06:31 PM
:bobdole: I knew he would try to spin it, but to say it wasn't a catch is plain ridiculous. Com'on even YOU can't believe that. You're fooling yourself if you think it wasn't a legal catch. He caught the ball with TWO feet inbounds and secured possession all the way to the ground. The ball NEVER hit the ground in all the time. It may have shifted slightly, but he still had secured possession before he got back up.

Not to mention the play was reviewed and was still determined to be a catch.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

NY8123
02-06-2012, 06:59 PM
Great post!

Except, it was intentional grounding.

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.
Did Brady have pressure? Check

Imminent loss of yardage? Check

No realistic chance for any WR to catch it? Check

Oh I know the rule but the difference is Brady threw that ball 30 yards down field and a break or cut by the receiver could make that difference in the grounding. If it had been a 5 yard throw I could see it 100% hell I could even see given the situation in this Super Bowl, it wasn't a blown call it was interpretation of the rule and enforced based on the refs judgment. So if there is a call you can argue it would be that call but it wasn't a bad call and it wasn't a good call in my opinion and it could have gone either way.

JCane
02-06-2012, 08:34 PM
Didn't I tell you guys he'd have no trouble at all coming up with a way to discredit Eli?

Good grief at the **** I've read here.

:lol:

Vaark
02-06-2012, 08:39 PM
Didn't I tell you guys he'd have no trouble at all coming up with a way to discredit Eli?

Good grief at the **** I've read here.

:lol:

Re competition for your most prized badge: the gauntlet has been thrown down.

JCane
02-06-2012, 08:47 PM
http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

GoonBoss
02-06-2012, 09:52 PM
Hernandez dropped a gimme, but other than that what passes are you talking about? Maybe the high and outside pass thrown to a Welker who was wide open? Or how about the pass thrown to Branch who was wide open coming across the middle that was about 5 feet behind him?

Brady did not play like an all-time great last night as he has sucked in nearly all of his last 10-12 post season games. He's a choke artist who can't win the big one if his defense doesn't bail him out. Hernancez dropped one. Branch dropped on that hit him right in the hands. Welker dropped one that hit him right in the hands. Bottom line is that the QBs job is to get the ball there, and the ball was there. The recievers have to catch the ball.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 09:15 AM
If out of bounds the ball can't move. The ball didn't move. Junc is thinking that it moved because of the way he was holding it when he held it up.

The ball did move.


The ball didnt jar loose. He never did not have possession. And no, I dont remember the '02 game. I was 12 at the time so Im not sure what exactly happened. All I know is that room I was in last night was comprised of a number of casual fans, but also a fair amount of die hards. Nobody disagreed with the call on the field after the replay.

very few fans actually know the rule. Unless it has quietly been changed in recent years the play should have been ruled incomplete, the ball cannot move an inch in that situation and it clearly did.


What does it say when you're the only one saying it isn't a catch? You're telling me that the referees, who looking at the replay 4,500 times got it wrong and you, after seeing it 5 times, are more in the know than they are?

I get that you hate the Giants but Jesus Christ, you have to make sense to be taken seriously.

The refs get it wrong all the time, one ref calls it a catch and the next doesn't. what does that have to do w/ knowing the rule? I think it's a silly rule but I have seen it enforced so many times, they took away a TD from Miami against us in 2002, they took away a 1st down for us at NE in 2003, they took away a TD from us in 2005 against NO. I have seen the play a million times.


Not to mention the play was reviewed and was still determined to be a catch.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

as we know the refs NEVER screw up a replay:lol:


Didn't I tell you guys he'd have no trouble at all coming up with a way to discredit Eli?

Good grief at the **** I've read here.

:lol:

I'm not discrediting him I'm discussing reality, the better QB lost the game the other day. Eli played well but got the 2nd SB MVP he didn't deserve. Where would NYG have been if they didn't hurt Brady and hold them down to 17 pts? the D also scored. Tuck had 2 sacks(one big one) and forced a grounding for a safety- how was he not the MVP?



If Eli is elite how come he couldn't win more than 10 games w/ a SB championshiop team in 2007 and 9 games this year? shouldn't an elite QB be winning more games? especially w/ that talent?

JCane
02-07-2012, 09:28 AM
Average QBs don't beat elite QBs TWICE in Super Bowls. Average QBs don't win Super Bowls anymore.

The only way your "argument" could be any worse is if we auto-tuned it.

DisturbedShifty
02-07-2012, 09:36 AM
The ball did move.



as we know the refs NEVER screw up a replay:lol:





Dude, since when were you appointed to the NFL officiating committee? Seriously, what makes YOUR understanding of the rules better than any other NFL fan?

Vaark
02-07-2012, 09:57 AM
with a Shoutout to dShifty:

again "elite teams" don't go 7-7 (with wins against sub .400 teams) and be gifted through the backdoor into the playoffs, and go 8-8 in between a decent season where they still did not even win their division. "Elite" teams actually win 2 conference titles in 4 years instead of bragging about contending for them, make it to 2 superbowls and actually win them. There's only one "elite team" in the NY metro area and it sure ain't the baby brother. And as far as the 2 time SB MVP, there's a helluva lot more justification to label him as "elite" compared to the other team who essentially squats in his stadium :idk:

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/11r92rp-1.jpg<br><br>

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 10:04 AM
Average QBs don't beat elite QBs TWICE in Super Bowls. Average QBs don't win Super Bowls anymore.

The only way your "argument" could be any worse is if we auto-tuned it.

he wasn't facing Brady he was facing the 31st ranked defense.


with a Shoutout to dShifty:

again "elite teams" don't go 7-7 (with wins against sub .400 teams) and be gifted through the backdoor into the playoffs, and go 8-8 in between a decent season where they still did not even win their division. "Elite" teams actually win 2 conference titles in 4 years instead of bragging about contending for them, make it to 2 superbowls and actually win them. There's only one "elite team" in the NY metro area and it sure ain't the baby brother. And as far as the 2 time SB MVP, there's a helluva lot more justification to label him as "elite" compared to the other team who essentially squats in his stadium :idk:



The Giants were 7-7 and got 2 gifts playing 2 mediocre teams to end the year. It onl;y counts if the Jets were 7-7?

Congrats to the Gianyts and Eli, they earned their title. Eli was really good and the team played their best football when it mattered most. Eli had his best year by far(depsite not putting up his best #s) and if he continues to play like this I'll consider him elite rather than one good year in '08 then another good one in '11. An elite QB would not be winning 10 and 9 games w/ those 2 SB teams.

JCane
02-07-2012, 10:05 AM
Aaron Rodgers and the Packers won 10 games last season...with a lot more talent than New York has.

That same New York team that beat the defending champs a few weeks ago.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Aaron Rodgers and the Packers won 10 games last season...with a lot more talent than New York has.

That same New York team that beat the defending champs a few weeks ago.

they went 15-1 this year and in 4 years as a starter he's led his team to the postseason 3 times. In 2 of the last 3 years Eli hasn't led the Giants to postseason.

and I'd dispute the more talented team statement, the Giants WRs are every bit as good as GBs, if not better. They have equal OLs, the Giants RBs are better and their D is better.

JCane
02-07-2012, 10:31 AM
Two Super Bowl wins.

Two Super Bowl MVPs.

Dispute that.

Can't believe you were rooting for the Patriots, nepunc.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 10:36 AM
Two Super Bowl wins.

Two Super Bowl MVPs.

Dispute that.

Can't believe you were rooting for the Patriots, nepunc.

That's awesome, he's now in Jim Plunkett territory.

If I lioved in the NE area I'd have rooted for the Giants.

JCane
02-07-2012, 10:50 AM
So because you live in New York you rooted for the Patriots?

That's some Debbie Downer **** if I ever heard it. My team sucks so I'm gonna root for the hometown team to lose so that I can be surrounded by people as miserable as I am lol.

Two teams in New York and you picked the wrong one. Be happy for your big brother. Are you not attending the parade this morning?

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 11:14 AM
If Eli is elite how come he couldn't win more than 10 games w/ a SB championshiop team in 2007 and 9 games this year? shouldn't an elite QB be winning more games? especially w/ that talent?

Now THIS is the MOST asinine comment I've ever read on this site.

Eli Manning has won 2 Super Bowls and yet you're saying he isn't elite b/c the Giants won 9 games this year. What in the flying **** difference does it make if the Giants won 9, 10, 14, 16 games in the regular season? THEY WON THE SUPER BOWL!

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 11:18 AM
The refs get it wrong all the time, one ref calls it a catch and the next doesn't. what does that have to do w/ knowing the rule? I think it's a silly rule but I have seen it enforced so many times, they took away a TD from Miami against us in 2002, they took away a 1st down for us at NE in 2003, they took away a TD from us in 2005 against NO. I have seen the play a million times.

I could give a damn about something that happened 10 years ago, none of that is relevant to this discussion. They took a 1st down away from the Jets 9 years ago? Who the hell knows information like that?

It's awesome to know that the Patriots should've won the SB b/c the refs blew the call against Manningham. This clearly is some defense mechanism you have to make yourself sane. I had respect for you before these comments but now it's all gone. I get that you don't like the Giants and are envious that they've won twice in 4 years (I am too). With that being said, making excuses about reality doesn't change the fact that you're completely wrong.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 11:27 AM
So because you live in New York you rooted for the Patriots?

That's some Debbie Downer **** if I ever heard it. My team sucks so I'm gonna root for the hometown team to lose so that I can be surrounded by people as miserable as I am lol.

Two teams in New York and you picked the wrong one. Be happy for your big brother. Are you not attending the parade this morning?

I hate the giants more than any team in any sport(actually it's a tie w/ duke basketball) so why would I root for them? That doesn't make sense, just b/c the Jets stunk doesn't mean I go and root for the Giants. I could never root for the giants.


Now THIS is the MOST asinine comment I've ever read on this site.

Eli Manning has won 2 Super Bowls and yet you're saying he isn't elite b/c the Giants won 9 games this year. What in the flying **** difference does it make if the Giants won 9, 10, 14, 16 games in the regular season? THEY WON THE SUPER BOWL!

an elite QB wins 13-14 games w/ that talent in that bad division. Eli has played like an elite QB at times but he's not up there w/ Brady and Rodgers, he's a notch below.

By this logic Eli is a better QB than Dan marino or on the same level.


I could give a damn about something that happened 10 years ago, none of that is relevant to this discussion. They took a 1st down away from the Jets 9 years ago? Who the hell knows information like that?

It's awesome to know that the Patriots should've won the SB b/c the refs blew the call against Manningham. This clearly is some defense mechanism you have to make yourself sane. I had respect for you before these comments but now it's all gone. I get that you don't like the Giants and are envious that they've won twice in 4 years (I am too). With that being said, making excuses about reality doesn't change the fact that you're completely wrong.

It's relevant b/c it's the rule and I know info like that b/c I was unaware of the rule at the time but I learned about it after the Chambers play.

I never said the pats should have won the SB, they had chances and couldn't catch passes. I'm simply commenting on two calls that could have gone either way both went in the Giants favor but they earned the win. There's no excuses, it's factual and just b/c you are unaware of the rule doesn't change the facts.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 11:32 AM
It's relevant b/c it's the rule and I know info like that b/c I was unaware of the rule at the time but I learned about it after the Chambers play.

I never said the pats should have won the SB, they had chances and couldn't catch passes. I'm simply commenting on two calls that could have gone either way both went in the Giants favor but they earned the win. There's no excuses, it's factual and just b/c you are unaware of the rule doesn't change the facts.

I'm unaware of the rule? I wasn't aware they called my house during the SB to ask me if the play should stand. I always thought the paid professional head referee was the one who made the decision.


an elite QB wins 13-14 games w/ that talent in that bad division. Eli has played like an elite QB at times but he's not up there w/ Brady and Rodgers, he's a notch below.

By this logic Eli is a better QB than Dan marino or on the same level.

Tim Hasselbeck was on Mike and Mike today saying it isn't premature to consider Eli Manning a HOF QB. Let me guess, you'd beg to differ right? He's **** b/c he can't lead his team to 13 wins in the regular season which means more than leading your team to the playoffs and winning the SB twice.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 12:09 PM
Aaron Rodgers and the Packers won 10 games last season...with a lot more talent than New York has.

That same New York team that beat the defending champs a few weeks ago.i know ive read on here from you how you have a soft side for the giants for what they did to the bills in that superbowl, and ill admit i dont exactly like the giants, but ill say this.

i think you are underestemating the talent the giants have on their roster. they have had one of the best defensive lines in the nfl for many years, they always have a strong run game for the most part, and they have a very talented group of wide recievers. maybe they dont have any ''top 3'' wr on their team, but with cruz's ability to run with the ball after the catch, nicks is a beast, and manninghamm is a very good 3rd wr, they got talent. Also they have pretty much had the same o line for the past 5 years or so, so they have that going for them.

also, i agree with junc here somewhat. eli manning is a very good qb, but hes not ''great'' yet like brady and peyton for example. those guys do it year in and year out, put up great numbers, lead their teams to 11 plus win seasons on a yearly occasion, division titles, etc.

eli manning has been a part of 2 great runs no doubt, but to be ''elite'' you need to be great in the regular season also. I was listening to a good argument yesterday by mike francesa in ny, and he brought up a good point.

Some caller called in and said how now with 2 superbowls, eli is better than peyton which was comical. his response was '' the majority of the games a player will play in their nfl career is in the regular season, not postseason'', which is a great point. its great to know that he comes up big in these postseason runs when the game is on the line, but he cant do this and then next year go 8-8 and miss the playoffs, and then the following year same thing. elite qbs win double digit games on a consistent basis in the nfl, not just here and their.

as for the superbowl mvps, can we be real for a second. aside for my hate for the giants which i will admit, can we at least admit that the qb is usually given the mvp no matter what unless someone has a standout performance on the other side of the ball ( dexter jackson 2 ints for tds in 2002 for bucs, desmond howard 2 td returns, holmes almost 140 yds including a phenominal gw td catch, etc)

in the first superbowl, i know he led the team down the field, but lets put it in context. aside from the fact that their were 2 dropped ints on that drive that gave them life, the only reason why that drive even mattered was because the giants defense rattled the best qb in the nfl that year by a landslide, and arguably the greatest offense of all time, and held them to 14 pts. 14!!! if it were not for the giants defense, that last drive is irrelevant. to me, the giants entire d line should have been co mvps of that superbowl, and im sure eli manning would prob admit that if u asked him.


this years superbowl,ok. he made clutch throws, the pats best weapon was hobbled and despite that, the defense still allowed big plays, and if not for wide open drops,the pats win, so ill give manning all credit here, he played a mistake free game, big time throws, deserved mvp here.

all in all, im curious to see how manning plays next season and if he can put an entire season together of dominant play, and make that step to being in the mvp discussion year in and year out like a brady, brees,manning, etc.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 12:16 PM
also, i agree with junc here somewhat. eli manning is a very good qb, but hes not ''great'' yet like brady and peyton for example. those guys do it year in and year out, put up great numbers, lead their teams to 11 plus win seasons on a yearly occasion, division titles, etc.

eli manning has been a part of 2 great runs no doubt, but to be ''elite'' you need to be great in the regular season also. I was listening to a good argument yesterday by mike francesa in ny, and he brought up a good point.



Give me Eli Manning then. You and Junc can concern yourselves all day and night about having 14-2 regular seasons. Give me the guy who's the QB of a team that's won 2 Super Bowls in MY conscience lifetime as opposed to my actual favorite team that hasn't done a ****ing thing for me as a fan ever.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Give me Eli Manning then. You and Junc can concern yourselves all day and night about having 14-2 regular seasons. Give me the guy who's the QB of a team that's won 2 Super Bowls in MY conscience lifetime as opposed to my actual favorite team that hasn't done a ****ing thing for me as a fan ever.no one said they wouldnt take manning on the team.

also, you make it seem like brady and peyton along with their great regular seasons have not won anything in their careers, but only have great regular season stats. they have both.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 12:25 PM
I'm unaware of the rule? I wasn't aware they called my house during the SB to ask me if the play should stand. I always thought the paid professional head referee was the one who made the decision.



Tim Hasselbeck was on Mike and Mike today saying it isn't premature to consider Eli Manning a HOF QB. Let me guess, you'd beg to differ right? He's **** b/c he can't lead his team to 13 wins in the regular season which means more than leading your team to the playoffs and winning the SB twice.

Again, the paid professionals do get it wrong from time to time. I am not 100% sure he was wrong, I don't know if the rule has been tweaked but I don't think it has. I also didn't see a great angle so maybe that played a role?

Let the overreactions begin, the man has maybe one Hall worthy season and now b/c he got hot and had great defense and receivers he's a HOFer. Can we calm down w/ that silly talk? If he keeps this up a few more years maybe but he's not close to a HOFer right now- Not even in the discussion.



I'm not taking anything away from Eli, he's a very good QB now but all this elite and HOF talk is just silly.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 12:31 PM
Again, the paid professionals do get it wrong from time to time. I am not 100% sure he was wrong, I don't know if the rule has been tweaked but I don't think it has. I also didn't see a great angle so maybe that played a role?

Let the overreactions begin, the man has maybe one Hall worthy season and now b/c he got hot and had great defense and receivers he's a HOFer. Can we calm down w/ that silly talk? If he keeps this up a few more years maybe but he's not close to a HOFer right now- Not even in the discussion.



I'm not taking anything away from Eli, he's a very good QB now but all this elite and HOF talk is just silly.its unfortunate, because in the sports world we live in today, people like to only judge qbs on superbowls and nothing else.

And while superbowls are obviously the ultimate goal of every team/player each year, teams win superbowls, not players. if peoples only claim as to why eli manning should be in the hall of fame is due to 2 superbowls, that weak. he needs other credentials also. jim plunkett also has 2 superbowls, hes not in.

if eli continues to play like he did at the end of the season for the next 5-6 years consistently, he will no doubt be a HALL OF FAMER.

JCane
02-07-2012, 12:36 PM
Eli Manning is Derek Jeter.

Peyton Manning is Alex Rodriguez.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 12:46 PM
Eli Manning is Derek Jeter.

Peyton Manning is Alex Rodriguez.

Brady is Jeter but the other comparison is valid. Eli is more Scott Brosius

Blake the great
02-07-2012, 01:15 PM
nyjunc,

You realize that Eli carried that whole offense right? their running game was one of the leagues worst and their defense was inconsistent. Eli is top 5 QB

1. Tom Brady
2. Aaron Rodgers
3. Drew Brees
4. Peyton Manning
5. Eli Manning

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 01:27 PM
no one said they wouldnt take manning on the team.

also, you make it seem like brady and peyton along with their great regular seasons have not won anything in their careers, but only have great regular season stats. they have both.

I'm not making it seem like anything. I don't even give a **** about Eli Manning but to say he isn't elite isn't true. Criticizing him for leading the Giants to only 9 wins while Rodgers had 15 is hilarious considering Manning's team beat GB.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 01:28 PM
Again, the paid professionals do get it wrong from time to time. I am not 100% sure he was wrong, I don't know if the rule has been tweaked but I don't think it has. I also didn't see a great angle so maybe that played a role?

Let the overreactions begin, the man has maybe one Hall worthy season and now b/c he got hot and had great defense and receivers he's a HOFer. Can we calm down w/ that silly talk? If he keeps this up a few more years maybe but he's not close to a HOFer right now- Not even in the discussion.



I'm not taking anything away from Eli, he's a very good QB now but all this elite and HOF talk is just silly.

The angle you saw is the one of you hating the Giants so you're blinded by lies. It's like you being a ***** of the sky and when someone says it's blue, you grasp at straws claiming it's anything but.

I don't care if he's a hall of famer or not. It's irrelevant to the discussion at this stage in his career b/c he's only 31. All I care about is the present and the present is where he's a two-time SB champion.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 01:31 PM
its unfortunate, because in the sports world we live in today, people like to only judge qbs on superbowls and nothing else.

And while superbowls are obviously the ultimate goal of every team/player each year, teams win superbowls, not players. if peoples only claim as to why eli manning should be in the hall of fame is due to 2 superbowls, that weak. he needs other credentials also. jim plunkett also has 2 superbowls, hes not in.

if eli continues to play like he did at the end of the season for the next 5-6 years consistently, he will no doubt be a HALL OF FAMER.

You're telling me it isn't fair to compare Eli Manning to other QBs who have won Super Bowls? Brady, Peyton, and Rodgers have all won SBs and have been brought up in this thread. It makes sense to compare them to each other.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 01:42 PM
You're telling me it isn't fair to compare Eli Manning to other QBs who have won Super Bowls? Brady, Peyton, and Rodgers have all won SBs and have been brought up in this thread. It makes sense to compare them to each other.but those guys also all have mvps in the regular season, showing they have dominated the sport for a long duration of that year, and in mannings case 4 seasons.

their is more to be a great qb than postseason, because although that is the biggest stage and all, their are plenty of people in sports that show up during the big stage, but are not consistent in the regular season, or play on a below par level compared to their postseason play level.

i dont like comparing sport to sport, but lebron james no doubt is a top talent in the nba, but he has 0 championships, does that mean he is not a top player in the game?

derek jeter has 5 rings, does that mean he is a better player than ted williams was who has 0 rings and 1 postseason appearance i believe?

playoffs are a big part, dont get me wrong, but what seperates the top echelon players and the very good players is the ability to perform at a consistently high level in the playoffs and REGULAR SEASON.

The giants get hot at the right time, thats what happens, and good for them, at the end of the day as long as you win, no one should give it back. But lets be honest, if the giants have a regular season like they had this year, they prob wont make the playoffs next year ( 1st time in 36 years nfc east division winner won 9 or less games)

if playoffs were all that mattered, dan marino is one of the worst qbs of all time, see how absurd that sounds?

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 01:42 PM
Hernancez dropped one. Branch dropped on that hit him right in the hands. Welker dropped one that hit him right in the hands. Bottom line is that the QBs job is to get the ball there, and the ball was there. The recievers have to catch the ball.

Hernandez did drop a gimme. The other two were bad passes. Really bad passes.

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 01:47 PM
but those guys also all have mvps in the regular season, showing they have dominated the sport for a long duration of that year, and in mannings case 4 seasons.

their is more to be a great qb than postseason, because although that is the biggest stage and all, their are plenty of people in sports that show up during the big stage, but are not consistent in the regular season, or play on a below par level compared to their postseason play level.

i dont like comparing sport to sport, but lebron james no doubt is a top talent in the nba, but he has 0 championships, does that mean he is not a top player in the game?

derek jeter has 5 rings, does that mean he is a better player than ted williams was who has 0 rings and 1 postseason appearance i believe?

playoffs are a big part, dont get me wrong, but what seperates the top echelon players and the very good players is the ability to perform at a consistently high level in the playoffs and REGULAR SEASON.

The giants get hot at the right time, thats what happens, and good for them, at the end of the day as long as you win, no one should give it back. But lets be honest, if the giants have a regular season like they had this year, they prob wont make the playoffs next year ( 1st time in 36 years nfc east division winner won 9 or less games)

if playoffs were all that mattered, dan marino is one of the worst qbs of all time, see how absurd that sounds?

Great post. WINS...be it post season or regular season, are TEAM accomplishments. No QB, ever, has went out and played all 22 positions (+ ST's) and won a game of football all by himself.

QB's who can literally carry bad teams are rare. However, in today's world it seems that every Tom (pun intented), Dick, and Harry is considered to be an "all-time" great because they played in or won a Super Bowl.

Tom Brady has NEVER...EVER...carried a bad team. He's had great games where he picked up somebody else's slack, but he's never had to carry a team like Marino, Peyton, Elway, or some of the other REAL All-Time greats have had to do.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 02:21 PM
nyjunc,

You realize that Eli carried that whole offense right? their running game was one of the leagues worst and their defense was inconsistent. Eli is top 5 QB

1. Tom Brady
2. Aaron Rodgers
3. Drew Brees
4. Peyton Manning
5. Eli Manning

:lol: he had maybe the best set of WRs in the league, if anyone carried anyone it was Victor Cruz carrying Eli late in the year.

It's very possible Eli was the 5th best QB this past season but he still wasn't on a level w/ Brady, Rodgers & Brees(or a healthy Peyton thouhg I'd rather have Eli as my QB in January than Peyton).


The angle you saw is the one of you hating the Giants so you're blinded by lies. It's like you being a ***** of the sky and when someone says it's blue, you grasp at straws claiming it's anything but.

I don't care if he's a hall of famer or not. It's irrelevant to the discussion at this stage in his career b/c he's only 31. All I care about is the present and the present is where he's a two-time SB champion.

I discuss reality whether for or against teams I like or dislike.


Great post. WINS...be it post season or regular season, are TEAM accomplishments. No QB, ever, has went out and played all 22 positions (+ ST's) and won a game of football all by himself.

QB's who can literally carry bad teams are rare. However, in today's world it seems that every Tom (pun intented), Dick, and Harry is considered to be an "all-time" great because they played in or won a Super Bowl.

Tom Brady has NEVER...EVER...carried a bad team. He's had great games where he picked up somebody else's slack, but he's never had to carry a team like Marino, Peyton, Elway, or some of the other REAL All-Time greats have had to do.

Tom Brady rescued a fading franchise, no QB carries a team to a SB but a good QB can be the difference maker and in regards to NE & Indy the difference has been play at QB IN Jan/Feb.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 02:23 PM
but those guys also all have mvps in the regular season, showing they have dominated the sport for a long duration of that year, and in mannings case 4 seasons.

their is more to be a great qb than postseason, because although that is the biggest stage and all, their are plenty of people in sports that show up during the big stage, but are not consistent in the regular season, or play on a below par level compared to their postseason play level.

i dont like comparing sport to sport, but lebron james no doubt is a top talent in the nba, but he has 0 championships, does that mean he is not a top player in the game?

derek jeter has 5 rings, does that mean he is a better player than ted williams was who has 0 rings and 1 postseason appearance i believe?

playoffs are a big part, dont get me wrong, but what seperates the top echelon players and the very good players is the ability to perform at a consistently high level in the playoffs and REGULAR SEASON.

The giants get hot at the right time, thats what happens, and good for them, at the end of the day as long as you win, no one should give it back. But lets be honest, if the giants have a regular season like they had this year, they prob wont make the playoffs next year ( 1st time in 36 years nfc east division winner won 9 or less games)

if playoffs were all that mattered, dan marino is one of the worst qbs of all time, see how absurd that sounds?

He has 2 Super Bowls MVPs. To me, those are more important.

I'm not going to compare football to any other sport so I'll leave those comments to other people.

The Giants did what they needed to do to win the Super Bowl. I want that exact situation to happen to the Dolphins. There will always be people that try and diminish that feat. "Oh they only won 9 games this year", "Eli isn't elite b/c they weren't 13-3", "They play in a weak division", "If Gronkowski wasn't hurt, NE wins by 2 TDs - Skip Bayless".

All of those statements in quotations are all meaningless drivel. They're for the sports talk shows, and ESPN, and the internet. They're all about entertaining. That is not why the game is played.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 02:24 PM
I discuss reality whether for or against teams I like or dislike.

Good. In reality, Manningham made the catch, the refs know the rules and got the call right, and the Giants won the Super Bowl. There's nothing more to say.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 02:29 PM
Good. In reality, Manningham made the catch, the refs know the rules and got the call right, and the Giants won the Super Bowl. There's nothing more to say.

The Giants won but that doesn't mean they got the call right. The Giants did what they had to do and I tip my cap but I can still discuss issues from the games.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 02:38 PM
The Giants won but that doesn't mean they got the call right. The Giants did what they had to do and I tip my cap but I can still discuss issues from the games.

In reality he made the catch. The Giants won the Super Bowl. There is nothing else to say yet you continue to try and bull**** how it went down.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 02:38 PM
The Giants won but that doesn't mean they got the call right. The Giants did what they had to do and I tip my cap but I can still discuss issues from the games.

Show me five people, writers, analysts, anyone, that say the refs blew the catch call.

tylerdolphin
02-07-2012, 02:43 PM
Show me five people, writers, analysts, anyone, that say the refs blew the catch call.

****, I dont think he can find one.

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 02:47 PM
:lol: he had maybe the best set of WRs in the league, if anyone carried anyone it was Victor Cruz carrying Eli late in the year.

It's very possible Eli was the 5th best QB this past season but he still wasn't on a level w/ Brady, Rodgers & Brees(or a healthy Peyton thouhg I'd rather have Eli as my QB in January than Peyton).



I discuss reality whether for or against teams I like or dislike.



Tom Brady rescued a fading franchise, no QB carries a team to a SB but a good QB can be the difference maker and in regards to NE & Indy the difference has been play at QB IN Jan/Feb.

I hate to spoil you dreams of fellating Brady, but Peyton has played better in Jan/Feb over his career than Brady has in his. FACT!

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 03:03 PM
****, I dont think he can find one.

I don't even think it matters. To be so completely off-base about something 114 million people saw for themselves just shows the ignorance hatred/homerism can do to a person.

Tunaphish429
02-07-2012, 03:15 PM
I heard Eli Manning once saved three babies from a burning NYC building. ****ing guy is a hero.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 03:24 PM
That is not true.

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.

The ball can move as long as the receiver is in control of the ball (which he was)

do you have a link? I couldn't find one and I'm pretty positive what you posted is correct.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 03:26 PM
I hate to spoil you dreams of fellating Brady, but Peyton has played better in Jan/Feb over his career than Brady has in his. FACT!

Peyton is not even in the discussion w/ Brady in Jan/Feb. FACT!


I don't even think it matters. To be so completely off-base about something 114 million people saw for themselves just shows the ignorance hatred/homerism can do to a person.

Of course if the majority thinks it's true they must be right!

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 03:35 PM
Of course if the majority thinks it's true they must be right!

So you're of the mindset that if out of 100 people (including you) were polled on if the catch was legit and only you were to say it wasn't, everyone else is wrong b/c they aren't speaking in reality like you.

Right?

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 03:37 PM
from the offical NFL rulebook at nfl.com:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf


Sideline Catches.�� 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.

NY8123
02-07-2012, 03:58 PM
The ball did move.



very few fans actually know the rule. Unless it has quietly been changed in recent years the play should have been ruled incomplete, the ball cannot move an inch in that situation and it clearly did.

This is where your argument fails epically.


Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”

This ball NEVER touched the ground and was always cradled in his arm. No where in any rule does it say the ball "CAN NOT" move, it merely states it can not touch the ground while moving. If this ball hits the ground in anyway than it isn't a catch but it clearly did not hit the ground once during the catch and tackle out of bounds.

I am truly sorry you are making yourself look like such a fool by arguing an invalid point. Usually your arguments are much more football sound but this one is clearly flawed beyond belief.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:04 PM
This is where your argument fails epically.



This ball NEVER touched the ground and was always cradled in his arm. No where in any rule does it say the ball "CAN NOT" move, it merely states it can not touch the ground while moving. If this ball hits the ground in anyway than it isn't a catch but it clearly did not hit the ground once during the catch and tackle out of bounds.

I am truly sorry you are making yourself look like such a fool by arguing an invalid point. Usually your arguments are much more football sound but this one is clearly flawed beyond belief.

It doesn't have to touch the ground:


Sideline Catches.�� 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.


where does it mention anything about touching the ground? it says "COMPLETE AND CONTINUOUS CONTROL", the ball bobbling does not indicate complete and continuous control, does it?

My link is DIRECLY from the rule book at NFL.com

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:06 PM
Peyton is not even in the discussion w/ Brady in Jan/Feb. FACT!



Of course if the majority thinks it's true they must be right!

You're really delusional man. Manning has a great overall post season resume. His teams, however, do not. Where as Brady has a worse overall post season resume while playing on some great teams. Let me guess, you like to cherry pick in order to disregard what refutes your opinions of Brady and Manning, right? Well, you can't look at the very tip of Jessica Alba's pinky toe and declare her beautiful without looking at the rest of her.

The FACTS are, Brady, over his last 13 post season games, has produced SHEET! 8 of those 13 games he failed to reach a 90 QBR with 6 of those 8 being under 80. In 7 of his last 13 games he's thrown as many or more INT's than TD's.

These are all games played AFTER spygate, mind you. ;)

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:09 PM
This is where your argument fails epically.



This ball NEVER touched the ground and was always cradled in his arm. No where in any rule does it say the ball "CAN NOT" move, it merely states it can not touch the ground while moving. If this ball hits the ground in anyway than it isn't a catch but it clearly did not hit the ground once during the catch and tackle out of bounds.

I am truly sorry you are making yourself look like such a fool by arguing an invalid point. Usually your arguments are much more football sound but this one is clearly flawed beyond belief.

I hate to admit it, bro, but junc is right about the definition.

If a player isn't out of bounds the ball can move, not touch the ground and be complete.

However, if the ball is moving after the player is out of bounds, even if it never touches the ground, it's incomplete.

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:14 PM
Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”



Look at what I underlined and bolded. This is talking about the endzone and field of play. Not out of bounds.

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.




This is the out-of-bounds rule and it clearly states that if the WR loses control, ie bobbles the ball, it's incomplete. Bobble doesn't equal touch the ground.


Junc is right about this.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:14 PM
You're really delusional man. Manning has a great overall post season resume. His teams, however, do not. Where as Brady has a worse overall post season resume while playing on some great teams. Let me guess, you like to cherry pick in order to disregard what refutes your opinions of Brady and Manning, right? Well, you can't look at the very tip of Jessica Alba's pinky toe and declare her beautiful without looking at the rest of her.

The FACTS are, Brady, over his last 13 post season games, has produced SHEET! 8 of those 13 games he failed to reach a 90 QBR with 6 of those 8 being under 80. In 7 of his last 13 games he's thrown as many or more INT's than TD's.

These are all games played AFTER spygate, mind you. ;)

Manning's postseason resume is average, he doesn't even have Eli's postseason resume let alone Brady. #s never tell the whole story as I explained last week.

Locke
02-07-2012, 04:15 PM
from the offical NFL rulebook at nfl.com:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

This never says the ball can't move. It just says he has to maintain control of the ball. The ball never touching the ground is pretty much the definition of having control of it...

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:17 PM
However, this is all a moot point. The ball never moved except when Manningham held it up in the air.

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------


This never says the ball can't move. It just says he has to maintain control of the ball. The ball never touching the ground is pretty much the definition of having control of it...

Yes it does.

Geez...I'm surprised so many people don't know the out-of-bounds catch rule in the NFL.

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:18 PM
Manning's postseason resume is average, he doesn't even have Eli's postseason resume let alone Brady. #s never tell the whole story as I explained last week.

Now you think Eli is better? hahhhahahaha? Dude, stop going by TEAM accomplishments.

Barry Sanders sucked. He never won a Super Bowl.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:21 PM
This never says the ball can't move. It just says he has to maintain control of the ball. The ball never touching the ground is pretty much the definition of having control of it...

"complete and continous control: tells us it can't move, I have seen catches overturned b/c a ball moved an inch and you could tell the ball moved. The angle was not great and maybe the offical didn't feel he had enough evidence but it's pretty clear the ball moved. watch when his elbow hits the ground

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/iRcsMcdOja3v0-1.gif

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:22 PM
Junc is right about this.

So he's the only person in the country who is right and everyone else isn't? GTFO with this ****

Locke
02-07-2012, 04:23 PM
Yes it does.

Geez...I'm surprised so many people don't know the out-of-bounds catch rule in the NFL.

It doesn't say anything about the ball not moving, it says remain continuous control. That's the issue though, it's an interpretive statement. However, I'm sure it was written that way to let the referee make the call. I simply don't see how anyone can call a ball that never touches the ground incomplete. The very definition of a completion is that a ball is thrown and doesn't touch the ground. That ball never touched the ground, if it moved it was minimal, and he had 2 feet in bounds. There was no other way to call that play.

If that play was called incorrectly, you can be damn sure it would be all over the sports world. There would be countless articles about how a blown call cost the Patriots their title. I've yet to see one even question it, nevermind actually accuse it of being wrong...

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:23 PM
"complete and continous control: tells us it can't move, I have seen catches overturned b/c a ball moved an inch and you could tell the ball moved. The angle was not great and maybe the offical didn't feel he had enough evidence but it's pretty clear the ball moved. watch when his elbow hits the ground

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/iRcsMcdOja3v0-1.gif

Do your eyes see things normal human beings see? In that clip, the ball doesn't move at all at any point. So WTF are you talking about?

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:23 PM
Now you think Eli is better? hahhhahahaha? Dude, stop going by TEAM accomplishments.

Barry Sanders sucked. He never won a Super Bowl.

Eli is not a better QB but I'd trust Eli in a big spot over Peyton any day.

Barry never had a team capable of winning, Peyton has for 90% of his career and they have failed mostly b/c of the play of the QB.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:24 PM
Do your eyes see things normal human beings see? In that clip, the ball doesn't move at all at any point. So WTF are you talking about?

I must have amazing vision b/c it's very clear when his elbow hits the ground that the ball shifts.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:25 PM
It doesn't say anything about the ball not moving, it says remain continuous control. That's the issue though, it's an interpretive statement. However, I'm sure it was written that way to let the referee make the call. I simply don't see how anyone can call a ball that never touches the ground incomplete. The very definition of a completion is that a ball is thrown and doesn't touch the ground. That ball never touched the ground, if it moved it was minimal, and he had 2 feet in bounds. There was no other way to call that play.

If that play was called incorrectly, you can be damn sure it would be all over the sports world. There would be countless articles about how a blown call cost the Patriots their title. I've yet to see one even question it, nevermind actually accuse it of being wrong...

The problem is I have seen catches w/ less movement of the ball overturned and I have seen some w/ more movement not overturned. It's a bad rule but it is the rule.

Locke
02-07-2012, 04:27 PM
"complete and continous control: tells us it can't move, I have seen catches overturned b/c a ball moved an inch and you could tell the ball moved. The angle was not great and maybe the offical didn't feel he had enough evidence but it's pretty clear the ball moved. watch when his elbow hits the ground

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/iRcsMcdOja3v0-1.gif

No, complete and continuous control tells YOU it can't move. YOU are interpreting it that way. No where in the rule book does it say the ball can't move. You are assuming that information based on a purposely vague description meant to allow the referee leeway on different scenarios. You are assuming your interpretation of the rule if correct and everyone else's, including the referees, the NFL, and the entire sports journalism world's, is wrong. Are you really so arrogant as to think that your subjective interpretation of the rule is correct and everyone else's is not...?

EDIT: Also, that ball never ever touches the ground. How can you call a pass that never touches the ground incomplete...?

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:28 PM
So he's the only person in the country who is right and everyone else isn't? GTFO with this ****

GTFO with your not reading or comprehending all of my posts.

I don't think the ball moved. Period.

However, if it had moved it would be incomplete.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:29 PM
I must have amazing vision b/c it's very clear when his elbow hits the ground that the ball shifts.

I'll be honest. I've never "met" someone like you on a message board before. I don't know why you spin **** the way you do but I guess it's just the way you are. The clip you provide shows no ball movement whatsoever yet you say it does. It's baffling

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:30 PM
GTFO with your not reading or comprehending all of my posts.

I don't think the ball moved. Period.

However, if it had moved it would be incomplete.

Junc is the one saying it moved and you said he's right (on the rule which is why he's thinks he's right). The ball did not move.

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:32 PM
No, complete and continuous control tells YOU it can't move. YOU are interpreting it that way. No where in the rule book does it say the ball can't move. You are assuming that information based on a purposely vague description meant to allow the referee leeway on different scenarios. You are assuming your interpretation of the rule if correct and everyone else's, including the referees, the NFL, and the entire sports journalism world's, is wrong. Are you really so arrogant as to think that your subjective interpretation of the rule is correct and everyone else's is not...?

EDIT: Also, that ball never ever touches the ground. How can you call a pass that never touches the ground incomplete...?

To answer yiour edit question. If a player is out of bounds the play is over. If the ball is still moving, it's considered incomplete because the play is over before they have control of the ball. Period.

Do none of you watch football? lol (And damn you all for making me stand by a stinking Jets fan...no offense Junc) lol

ChrisHanson
02-07-2012, 04:33 PM
Junc is the one saying it moved and you said he's right (on the rule which is why he's thinks he's right). The ball did not move.

So it's the comprehension you're having a problem with.

No, I never said he was correct about the ball moving. I said his definition was correct.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:33 PM
To answer yiour edit question. If a player is out of bounds the play is over. If the ball is still moving, it's considered incomplete because the play is over before they have control of the ball. Period.

Do none of you watch football? lol (And damn you all for making me stand by a stinking Jets fan...no offense Junc) lol

Out of bounds completely or his body out of bounds but two feet in? The ball didn't move so even mentioning what it would be considered if it did move is pointless in this discussion.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:34 PM
So it's the comprehension you're having a problem with.

No, I never said he was correct about the ball moving. I said his definition was correct.

Insult me all you like.

"His" definition was brought up by him to validate his point about the ball moving (in his mind). It didn't move. The rule doesn't apply to the catch b/c it didn't move.

NY8123
02-07-2012, 04:36 PM
I hate to admit it, bro, but junc is right about the definition.

If a player isn't out of bounds the ball can move, not touch the ground and be complete.
However, if the ball is moving after the player is out of bounds, even if it never touches the ground, it's incomplete.

Wrong!


It doesn't have to touch the ground:



where does it mention anything about touching the ground? it says "COMPLETE AND CONTINUOUS CONTROL", the ball bobbling does not indicate complete and continuous control, does it?

My link is DIRECLY from the rule book at NFL.com

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

My quote came from the item directly above in the same section dude. So the ref ruled he had complete and continuous control and the ball did not touch the ground.

Sorry man = catch all day long.


COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long
enough to do so.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands
to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.��If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches.�� 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.

Item 3: End Zone Catches.��If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body
other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

Locke
02-07-2012, 04:39 PM
Out of bounds completely or his body out of bounds but two feet in? The ball didn't move so even mentioning what it would be considered if it did move is pointless in this discussion.

I'm glad you know what I meant. These people treating everyone else like they are football retarded gets old...

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:44 PM
I'm glad you know what I meant. These people treating everyone else like they are football retarded gets old...

His body was falling out of bounds but everyone except cavemen (sorry Geico) knows that it's all about your two feet being in as being the important part.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:46 PM
[quote]

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. [quote]


I don't know how this discussion is even continuing on but the information above should put an end to any talk about him not having total control (which never happened).

Locke
02-07-2012, 04:48 PM
[quote]

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. [quote]



I don't know how this discussion is even continuing on but the information above should put an end to any talk about him not having total control (which never happened).


Boom. Roasted.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:49 PM
No, complete and continuous control tells YOU it can't move. YOU are interpreting it that way. No where in the rule book does it say the ball can't move. You are assuming that information based on a purposely vague description meant to allow the referee leeway on different scenarios. You are assuming your interpretation of the rule if correct and everyone else's, including the referees, the NFL, and the entire sports journalism world's, is wrong. Are you really so arrogant as to think that your subjective interpretation of the rule is correct and everyone else's is not...?

EDIT: Also, that ball never ever touches the ground. How can you call a pass that never touches the ground incomplete...?

I am not interpreting it that way, it's pretty clear plus I have seen it explained during games and called that way during games.

In regards to your last sentence, I don't disagree w/ you but that's the rule.


I'll be honest. I've never "met" someone like you on a message board before. I don't know why you spin **** the way you do but I guess it's just the way you are. The clip you provide shows no ball movement whatsoever yet you say it does. It's baffling

it's not spin, I post what i think is correct no matter what it is. It sure as heck looks like the ball moves when his elbow hits the ground. I'm not sure how you can miss that.


Wrong!



My quote came from the item directly above in the same section dude. So the ref ruled he had complete and continuous control and the ball did not touch the ground.

Sorry man = catch all day long.

You highlighted so much stuff and you are still wrong, all that matters is the sideline rule where he must "maintain complete and continuous possession". The movement part was for a catch in the field of play. This isn't that difficult.


I'm glad you know what I meant. These people treating everyone else like they are football retarded gets old...

I'm not treating anyone like they are idiots, if you think that I apologize but I'm being treated as you describe b/c I know the rule and most people don't. It doesn't make me better than anyone but I have seen this play tons of times in games so I know it, before I saw it applied in a game I didn't know it either.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:52 PM
[quote]

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. [quote]


I don't know how this discussion is even continuing on but the information above should put an end to any talk about him not having total control (which never happened).



[QUOTE=PhinzN703;1064203611][quote]

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

Boom. Roasted.


You guys are killing me, that is not the SIDELINE rule! I posted the exact definition from NFL.com and the OFFICIAL rule book.

from the offical NFL rulebook at nfl.com:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf


Sideline Catches.�� 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.

Locke
02-07-2012, 04:52 PM
I'm not treating anyone like they are idiots, if you think that I apologize but I'm being treated as you describe b/c I know the rule and most people don't. It doesn't make me better than anyone but I have seen this play tons of times in games so I know it, before I saw it applied in a game I didn't know it either.

It wasn't in reference to you. Whatever other people call you, the one thing they can't is condescending. I don't think I've ever seen you talking down to anyone...

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:53 PM
You highlighted so much stuff and you are still wrong, all that matters is the sideline rule where he must "maintain complete and continuous possession". The movement part was for a catch in the field of play. This isn't that difficult.

If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 04:55 PM
[QUOTE=PhinzN703;1064203611][quote]
[LEFT][U][B]Note 2[FONT=Swiss721BT-Light][SIZE=2][FONT=Swiss721BT-Light][SIZE=2]: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

[QUOTE=Locke;1064203613][QUOTE=PhinzN703;1064203611]

You guys are killing me, that is not the SIDELINE rule! I posted the exact definition from NFL.com and the OFFICIAL rule book.

from the offical NFL rulebook at nfl.com:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

So you think the referees have no idea that this rule exists? It has to be one of the most common occurrences in football, making a sideline catch and what goes down that needs to make it a catch.

NY8123
02-07-2012, 04:57 PM
You highlighted so much stuff and you are still wrong, all that matters is the sideline rule where he must "maintain complete and continuous possession". The movement part was for a catch in the field of play. This isn't that difficult.

I didn't highlight anything if you had waited 4 seconds for me to fix the format problem between the NFL "official" rule book and the Finheaven forum you should pay attention to Note: 2 (which I highlighted above).

I am sure the NFL appreciates your interpretation of their rules but since you are not a qualified NFL official or rules committee member I must reject your spintastic approach because it is merely opinion and nothing more. It is your interpretation of the NFL rule which clearly covers this catch (it was a catch) completely and thoroughly.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 04:58 PM
So you think the referees have no idea that this rule exists? It has to be one of the most common occurrences in football, making a sideline catch and what goes down that needs to make it a catch.

Obviously the ref knows the rule(or should), the question is did he feel there was enough evidence? the angle wasn't great they were showing the other night, it still looked like it clearly moved and you know that refs blow calls, right? even after watching on replay.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 05:00 PM
Obviously the ref knows the rule(or should), the question is did he feel there was enough evidence? the angle wasn't great they were showing the other night, it still looked like it clearly moved.

The only evidence present is that he didn't drop the ball nor did it move. Making a full catch, as he did, doesn't need anyone to look into the rulebook. Even with the angle not being great, in your words, you still know for a fact the ball moved.

It's priceless

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 05:01 PM
I didn't highlight anything if you had waited 4 seconds for me to fix the format problem between the NFL "official" rule book and the Finheaven forum you should pay attention to Note: 2 (which I highlighted above).

I am sure the NFL appreciates your interpretation of their rules but since you are not a qualified NFL official or rules committee member I must reject your spintastic approach because it is merely opinion and nothing more. It is your interpretation of the NFL rule which clearly covers this catch (it was a catch) completely and thoroughly.

Ther isn't an interpretation, it is there in black and white. It has also been enforced like that.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 05:01 PM
The only evidence present is that he didn't drop the ball nor did it move. Making a full catch, as he did, doesn't need anyone to look into the rulebook. Even with the angle not being great, in your words, you still know for a fact the ball moved.

It's priceless

It's pretty clear the ball moves when his elbow hits but apprently I am seeing things.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 05:09 PM
It's pretty clear the ball moves when his elbow hits but apprently I am seeing things.

How is it possible to see something pretty clear from an angle that isn't great (in your words)?

NY8123
02-07-2012, 05:14 PM
Ther isn't an interpretation, it is there in black and white. It has also been enforced like that.

You are right and it's a catch.

nyjunc
02-07-2012, 05:50 PM
How is it possible to see something pretty clear from an angle that isn't great (in your words)?

It is b/c it sure looks like the ball moves.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 06:12 PM
It is b/c it sure looks like the ball moves.

Makes complete sense. Crystal clear anything coming from something that isn't a great view. The logic is astounding

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 07:14 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/

a (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/)t least another nfl qb sees it. again, its obviously just an opinion and his opinion does not hold more value than any of ours because it is just an opinion in the end, but that is what the people who talk about eli not being a hall of famer bring up. he has not be consistent.

at least someone sees eye to eye with me. i said exactly what he said. 5 more years of performing like he did this past year, he will be in.

JCane
02-07-2012, 10:07 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/

a (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/)t least another nfl qb sees it. again, its obviously just an opinion and his opinion does not hold more value than any of ours because it is just an opinion in the end, but that is what the people who talk about eli not being a hall of famer bring up. he has not be consistent.

at least someone sees eye to eye with me. i said exactly what he said. 5 more years of performing like he did this past year, he will be in.

One guy.

Now go find the many others who say he is a top QB in the league and well on his way to the Hall of Fame.

tylerdolphin
02-07-2012, 10:16 PM
It's pretty clear the ball moves when his elbow hits but apprently I am seeing things.


If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

.

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 10:20 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/

a (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/)t least another nfl qb sees it. again, its obviously just an opinion and his opinion does not hold more value than any of ours because it is just an opinion in the end, but that is what the people who talk about eli not being a hall of famer bring up. he has not be consistent.

at least someone sees eye to eye with me. i said exactly what he said. 5 more years of performing like he did this past year, he will be in.

All I've said about the HOF comment is that it's pointless to discuss that when Manning is 31 and has plenty of games to play. So Warner says he isn't a HOF, is he automatically disqualified from Canton now?

SpurzN703
02-07-2012, 10:21 PM
.

Not sure what else can be said y'know? :lol:

JCane
02-07-2012, 10:25 PM
I'm convinced that nepunc is actually Skip Bayless.

NY8123
02-07-2012, 10:33 PM
One guy.

Now go find the many others who say he is a top QB in the league and well on his way to the Hall of Fame.

All I know is there are three AFC East teams that would be better teams with Eli then they are right now.

tylerdolphin
02-07-2012, 10:36 PM
List the QBs you would take over Eli. Im only coming up with Rodgers, Brady and Brees.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 10:56 PM
One guy.

Now go find the many others who say he is a top QB in the league and well on his way to the Hall of Fame.again, i did not say that just because warner said hes not a hall of famer that it means hes not.

what i was trying to point out is, just like i have been saying and other people as well, just because ''he'' has 2 superbowl rings, that does not automatically put him in canton like everyone is doing. he needs to be consistent and do better in the regular season on a consistent basis.

if he did this in the postseason every single year, then ya the regular season would not mean as much maybe in his case, but for him he needs better regular seasons, because they matter. if they didnt matter, marino wouldnt be in the hall, see how absurd that sounds.

if he does what he did statistically this year for the next 4-5 years, then he will be a shoe in.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 11:00 PM
List the QBs you would take over Eli. Im only coming up with Rodgers, Brady and Brees.a healthy peyton, big ben.

i never said hes not good, i just dont think hes a lock hall of famer yet. he needs to do more in the regular season consistently. is that not fair?

what kurt warner says , he brings up a good point, and something that everyone should realize, but sadly they dont. ''TEAMS'' win superbowls, not individual players.

the other good point he brings up is that its not like he carried them on his back, winning shootouts, scoring every drive, etc. the giants offense the past few games actually was not very good, but eli in the superbowl was clutch when it mattered, so he deff deserves props.

do you not agree that he needs to be more consistent with his numbers in the regular season as well, rather than just have great streaks.

take for example these 6 or 7 4th qtr comebacks everyone brings up this year. do you know why guys like brady, brees, rodgers, the top 3 qbs in the nfl this year dont really have many? because they put the game away early against the poor teams, not needing these comebacks all the time.

manning is deff clutch, but when is he going to become that dominant player like his brother peyton, or brady, or brees, or rodgers?

JCane
02-07-2012, 11:01 PM
List the QBs you would take over Eli. Im only coming up with Rodgers, Brady and Brees.

Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady

That's it.

I'm putting Drew Brees and Eli Manning as 3A and 3B.

JCane
02-07-2012, 11:03 PM
big ben

So then Eli is in your top five.

This "healthy" Peyton stuff isn't flying.

That's like me saying a younger Marino.

Peyton is not healthy and there is no way I'm touching Peyton right now.

Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning

Top five isn't elite? Is the gap between Roethlisberger and Manning that great somehow? No way.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-07-2012, 11:32 PM
All I've said about the HOF comment is that it's pointless to discuss that when Manning is 31 and has plenty of games to play. So Warner says he isn't a HOF, is he automatically disqualified from Canton now?no, not at all. that is not what i was trying to say.

i actually think warner looks at it the best way and most logical way. he needs to be consistent, rather than streaky which he has been in his career. if he plays like he did the final 6 games this year for the next 5-6 years at a consistent level, he will be a lock and rightfully so.

also, warner likes eli manning, he was the giants starting qb in 04 before manning took over, and part of the reason why manning took over mid year that season was warner wanted eli to get a chance to play because he was the future. warner isnt saying this with a sour taste about manning, hes just saying what many other people are thinking as well, it should not just be based on superbowl wins, because that is a team thing.

the top 4 superbowl winning qbs are 1. montana 1. bradshaw, 2. brady, 2. aikman.

does anyone really think bradshaw and aikman are top qbs because they have 4 and 3 rings respectively. my point is, you need great regular season stats also. that is where most of a players career is played, in the regular season, so it means plenty.

he deff has talent, deff has the talent around him, will he be able to continue this play into next year, or will he revert back to the qb who is game to game, being he can throw for 400 yds, 4 tds 1 week, then the next 2 weeks, 245 yds, 2 ints, and back and fourth.

consistency is the key.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 02:42 AM
The ball didn't move! But you're still right in regards to the NFL rule

Youre the one who doesnt know what time it is. The ball clearly moved. That much is obvious. The issue is that it only moved a minuscule amount and possession was never in doubt. So before you call everyone else retards, you might want to watch the play again.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 09:34 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/

a (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/)t least another nfl qb sees it. again, its obviously just an opinion and his opinion does not hold more value than any of ours because it is just an opinion in the end, but that is what the people who talk about eli not being a hall of famer bring up. he has not be consistent.

at least someone sees eye to eye with me. i said exactly what he said. 5 more years of performing like he did this past year, he will be in.

It's obvious to any sane individual, some folks get too caught up in the moment. This is the same guy that one year ago threw TWENTY FIVE interceptions.


One guy.

Now go find the many others who say he is a top QB in the league and well on his way to the Hall of Fame.

It's laughable to put Eli and HOF in the same sentence right now. He has had one or 2 borderline Hall seasons in his 8 year career. He's not even in the discussion right now. He's never been an MVP, he's never been even a 2nd team all pro so how in the world is he a HOFer?


.

Once again I posted the rule for a sideline play so his quote is meaningless.


Not sure what else can be said y'know? :lol:

Are you just completely ignoring the sideline rule I posted from the OFFICIAL NFL rulebook? I don't get it.


List the QBs you would take over Eli. Im only coming up with Rodgers, Brady and Brees.

Brady
Brees
Rodgers
Ben
Peyton

after that he's in the next group, going into this year he was closer to 10 but now he is closer to 5.


So then Eli is in your top five.

This "healthy" Peyton stuff isn't flying.

That's like me saying a younger Marino.

Peyton is not healthy and there is no way I'm touching Peyton right now.

Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning

Top five isn't elite? Is the gap between Roethlisberger and Manning that great somehow? No way.

No top 5 isn't elite b/c there is a big drop off after #4. I would say there is a big dropoff after #3 if we aren't including Peyton. It would be:

top tier;

Brady
Brees
Rodgers

next tier:
Ben:

next tier:
Eli

and Eli has onl;y been at this level for ONE year, the others have been there for multiple years.


Youre the one who doesnt know what time it is. The ball clearly moved. That much is obvious. The issue is that it only moved a minuscule amount and possession was never in doubt. So before you call everyone else retards, you might want to watch the play again.

That's all it has to move though to be considered incomplete.

JCane
02-08-2012, 10:05 AM
Eli Manning is better than Ben Roethlisberger. That argument is ridiculous.

And I said "on his way."

You mix that up like you have this caught ball rule?

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 10:16 AM
Eli is not better than Ben no matter what way you compare them. The only edge Eli has is he has 2 undeserved SB MVP awards.

JCane
02-08-2012, 10:22 AM
Such a *****. Doesn't matter what Eli does in his career.

You will NEVER admit that he's elite.

I hope he beats the Jets in the next Super Bowl.

Vaark
02-08-2012, 10:27 AM
Eli is not better than Ben no matter what way you compare them. The only edge Eli has is he has 2 undeserved SB MVP awards.

more deserved than at least 1 recent jest playoff entrees.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 10:45 AM
Such a *****. Doesn't matter what Eli does in his career.

You will NEVER admit that he's elite.

I hope he beats the Jets in the next Super Bowl.

I only admit the truth, he had a good year this year and a good postseason. That doesn't make him elite, elite QBs are Brady, Rodgers, Brees- he's not on the level no matter how much you try to convince us he is.

He's a good QB that could only lead his team to 9 wins w/ all that talent, he also threw 25 INTs a year ago and failed to lead his team to postseason in '09 & '10.

IF he keeps this level up then we can start to discuss him being an elite QB but one good season doesn't make one elite.

I'm glad that you love Eli so much more than the Dolphins that you'd like to see us reach the SB.


more deserved than at least 1 recent jest playoff entrees.

you mean the 2008 dolphins, right?

NY8123
02-08-2012, 10:51 AM
Just....stop. You're wrong. Am I in the twilight zone? How the **** do you guys not know this SIMPLE rule?

You must be in the junc zone. It was a catch even the Pats didn't argue the call and they lost the Super Bowl. Maybe the rule isn't what is simple in this case.

Vaark
02-08-2012, 10:57 AM
I only admit the truth, he had a good year this year and a good postseason. That doesn't make him elite, elite QBs are Brady, Rodgers, Brees- he's not on the level no matter how much you try to convince us he is.

He's a good QB that could only lead his team to 9 wins w/ all that talent, he also threw 25 INTs a year ago and failed to lead his team to postseason in '09 & '10.

IF he keeps this level up then we can start to discuss him being an elite QB but one good season doesn't make one elite.

I'm glad that you love Eli so much more than the Dolphins that you'd like to see us reach the SB.



you mean the 2008 dolphins, right?

No I meant the team that was 7-7 before being gifted into the playoffs by 2 teams with nothing to play for and incentive to rest their starters. And those 7 wins were against teams with a sub .400 cumulative winning percentage. I'm talking about the team who blew the only game they really needed to win, losing to the Falcons at home. I don't care what happened afterwards.. any team can get hot for 2 games especially when kickers **** up and they play teams that over the last 6 games went .500 and gave up more points than they scored. The point is, that particular 09 team should never have been in the playoffs in the first place. As a matter of fact, the charity was so egregious that it caused the league to change their policy about rescheduling the last 2 games against non-divisional opponents.

Oh and unlike any version of the latest jest teams, the 08 Fins actually won their division and they did it in a division where 3 out of the 4 teams won 9 or more games.

Again, please don't pizz and moan about a QB having 2 undeserved MVPs when your own team didn't deserve to be in at least 1 post season, and possibly 2 considering they didn't carry the division. It is what it is.

DisturbedShifty
02-08-2012, 10:59 AM
You must be in the junc zone. It was a catch even the Pats didn't argue the call and they lost the Super Bowl. Maybe the rule isn't what is simple in this case.
Um, yeah they did. The Patriots challenged the catch. That is how they lost one of their time outs before the two minute warning.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 11:02 AM
No I meant the team that was 7-7 before being gifted into the playoffs by 2 teams with nothing to play for and incentive to rest their starters. And those 7 wins were against teams with a sub .400 cumulative winning percentage. I'm talking about the team who blew the only game they really needed to win, losing to the Falcons at home. I don't care what happened afterwards.. any team can get hot for 2 games especially when kickers **** up and they play teams that over the last 6 games went .500 and gave up more points than they scored. The point is, that particular 09 team should never have been in the playoffs in the first place. As a matter of fact, the charity was so egregious that it caused the league to change their policy about rescheduling the last 2 games against non-divisional opponents.

Oh and unlike any version of the latest jest teams, the 08 Fins actually won their division and they did it in a division where 3 out of the 4 teams won 9 or more games.

Again, please don't pizz and moan about a QB having 2 undeserved MVPs when your own team didn't deserve to be in at least 1 post season, and possibly 2 considering they didn't carry the division. It is what it is.

Ooohhh my mistake, I thought you meant the team that didn't have to deal w/ Tom Brady and played 5-6 dead teams to end the season before being humiliated at home in the WC rd.

Eli didn't deserve either SB MVP, Tyree deserved it 4 years ago and Tuck the other day but they skew towards QBs(and QBs w/ the last name Manning as Peyton didn't deserve his either).

JCane
02-08-2012, 11:05 AM
You want to hand out MVPs based on one play. David Tyree had 43 yards in that Super Bowl. Three receptions.

SMH

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 11:15 AM
This thread is a classic! It wasn't a catch, Eli isn't elite, Obama doesn't have a real birth certificate, and Lebron is better than Jordan.

Vaark
02-08-2012, 11:16 AM
Ooohhh my mistake, I thought you meant the team that didn't have to deal w/ Tom Brady and played 5-6 dead teams to end the season before being humiliated at home in the WC rd.

Eli didn't deserve either SB MVP, Tyree deserved it 4 years ago and Tuck the other day but they skew towards QBs(and QBs w/ the last name Manning as Peyton didn't deserve his either).

No I meant the team that the next season beat a hobbled Brady before getting spanked later in the season once he got his sealegs back. I'm talking about the team that got humiliated by Peyton and an Al Sanders-less and hobbled Freeney playoff game when despite that they got outscored 24-0 in the last 31 minutes when the Colts were actually trying. I meant that fraud of a team who shouldn't have been in the playoffs at all. :idk: Happy to clear that up

Eli's SB MVPs >>>> 2009, 2010 backdoor wild card jests

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 11:17 AM
The ball didn't move! But you're still right in regards to the NFL ruleNo, he's not.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 11:31 AM
You want to hand out MVPs based on one play. David Tyree had 43 yards in that Super Bowl. Three receptions.

SMH

yeah, it was only the most miraculous catch in SB history and he did ad a TD reception as well but he didn't deserve it. Eli's 56% passing, 255 yds w/ 2 TDs and 1 INT clearly showed he deserved it. If you don't give it to Tyree then how about a defender? the D won that game holding down the greatest O in history to 14 pts.


This thread is a classic! It wasn't a catch, Eli isn't elite, Obama doesn't have a real birth certificate, and Lebron is better than Jordan.

I can't help you if I know the rulew and you don't.

Eli isn't elite, that doesn't mean he isn't good.


No I meant the team that the next season beat a hobbled Brady before getting spanked later in the season once he got his sealegs back. I'm talking about the team that got humiliated by Peyton and an Al Sanders-less and hobbled Freeney playoff game when despite that they got outscored 24-0 in the last 31 minutes when the Colts were actually trying. I meant that fraud of a team who shouldn't have been in the playoffs at all. :idk: Happy to clear that up

Eli's SB MVPs >>>> 2009, 2010 backdoor wild card jests

Did Brady have his sealegs when we shooped him in the '10 div rd? we were in the '09 title game in the 4th qtr, sonething Miami couldn't say about the '08 wc game.


nepunc probably thinks LeBron isn't elite because he came to Miami.

he's elite, he's a choker but he is w/o a doubt elite. You think Eli is as good of a QB as Lebron is a basketball player?

JCane
02-08-2012, 11:32 AM
Where do you come up with this ****?

I never said Eli was the best player in the NFL.

Vaark
02-08-2012, 11:51 AM
yeah, it was only the most miraculous catch in SB history and he did ad a TD reception as well but he didn't deserve it. Eli's 56% passing, 255 yds w/ 2 TDs and 1 INT clearly showed he deserved it. If you don't give it to Tyree then how about a defender? the D won that game holding down the greatest O in history to 14 pts.



I can't help you if I know the rulew and you don't.

Eli isn't elite, that doesn't mean he isn't good.



Did Brady have his sealegs when we shooped him in the '10 div rd? we were in the '09 title game in the 4th qtr, sonething Miami couldn't say about the '08 wc game.



he's elite, he's a choker but he is w/o a doubt elite. You think Eli is as good of a QB as Lebron is a basketball player?

No I'm talking about your farce of a season in 09 where you beat a shaky returning Brady 16-7 then got your azz kicked later in the season 31-14 when Brady became Brady. The season where you needed to beat Atlanta at home to have a legitimate possibility of sneaking into the playoffs back door, but fell short and ending up entering through a magic portal at the equivalent of a Salvation Army shelter.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 11:55 AM
Eli is not better than Ben no matter what way you compare them. The only edge Eli has is he has 2 undeserved SB MVP awards.

Explain to me like Im 5 years old why Eli didnt deserve those MVPs

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 11:59 AM
Still not understanding the nyjunc rationale behind it not being a catch. Manningham lands on his elbow...the ball shifts ever so slightly because of the force, but is still cradled in his arms. Ball never leaves his full possession. Ball never touches the ground. He never isnt touching both points of the ball.

Goddamn. If youre gonna overturn that one, you can find a reason to overturn 25% of the catches in football.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:01 PM
no, not at all. that is not what i was trying to say.

i actually think warner looks at it the best way and most logical way. he needs to be consistent, rather than streaky which he has been in his career. if he plays like he did the final 6 games this year for the next 5-6 years at a consistent level, he will be a lock and rightfully so.

also, warner likes eli manning, he was the giants starting qb in 04 before manning took over, and part of the reason why manning took over mid year that season was warner wanted eli to get a chance to play because he was the future. warner isnt saying this with a sour taste about manning, hes just saying what many other people are thinking as well, it should not just be based on superbowl wins, because that is a team thing.

the top 4 superbowl winning qbs are 1. montana 1. bradshaw, 2. brady, 2. aikman.

does anyone really think bradshaw and aikman are top qbs because they have 4 and 3 rings respectively. my point is, you need great regular season stats also. that is where most of a players career is played, in the regular season, so it means plenty.

he deff has talent, deff has the talent around him, will he be able to continue this play into next year, or will he revert back to the qb who is game to game, being he can throw for 400 yds, 4 tds 1 week, then the next 2 weeks, 245 yds, 2 ints, and back and fourth.

consistency is the key.

This is all sports-talk radio discussion that I could care less about. Why is so much emphasis put on who is a HOF QB and who isn't? If I was Eli Manning, I'd be the happiest guy in the world b/c I just won my 2nd Super Bowl. I'd let the talking heads concern themselves about my place in history and among current NFL QBs.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:02 PM
Are you just completely ignoring the sideline rule I posted from the OFFICIAL NFL rulebook? I don't get it.

The ball didn't move so your posting of the rulebook is irrelevant

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:04 PM
Eli is not better than Ben no matter what way you compare them. The only edge Eli has is he has 2 undeserved SB MVP awards.

So not only did the head referee make the wrong decision b/c he doesn't know how to do his job in the Super Bowl, the people who voted for SB MVP were completely wrong as well.

This is the definition of delusion.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:05 PM
I only admit the truth, he had a good year this year and a good postseason.

You only admit what you consider to be the truth. I hope you're mature enough to realize that not everything you consider the truth actually is.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:08 PM
Still not understanding the nyjunc rationale behind it not being a catch. Manningham lands on his elbow...the ball shifts ever so slightly because of the force, but is still cradled in his arms. Ball never leaves his full possession. Ball never touches the ground. He never isnt touching both points of the ball.

Goddamn. If youre gonna overturn that one, you can find a reason to overturn 25% of the catches in football.

You really need to find his rationale for being insane?

JCane
02-08-2012, 12:11 PM
Goddamn. If youre gonna overturn that one, you can find a reason to overturn 25% of the catches in football.

More than that.

The play was reviewed more for whether or not his feet were in bounds. Ball didn't move enough for it to even be considered. Dude had control of the football.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 12:14 PM
Where do you come up with this ****?

I never said Eli was the best player in the NFL.

aren't you the one who brough up Lebron? you don't even know what you post.


No I'm talking about your farce of a season in 09 where you beat a shaky returning Brady 16-7 then got your azz kicked later in the season 31-14 when Brady became Brady. The season where you needed to beat Atlanta at home to have a legitimate possibility of sneaking into the playoffs back door, but fell short and ending up entering through a magic portal at the equivalent of a Salvation Army shelter.

It was 16-9, if you are going to post whiny excuses at least get the facts straight. We beat NE at home early in 2010 before losing badly in NE then we beat them up in postseason on the road.

Obviously we didn't need to beat Atlanta, we won the games we had to win and earned our way in before proving we belonged unlike the 2008 dolphins.


Explain to me like Im 5 years old why Eli didnt deserve those MVPs

he wasn't great in either game and others made bigger plays to win. They faced the greatest O ever in 2007 and the D he,ld them to 14 pts- you don't thinka defensive player deserved that award? Tyree made the most ridiculous fluky catch ever plus had a TD rec- you don't think he deserved the award?

The other day Tuck was responsible for a safety and had 2 sacks in addition- you don't think he deserved the award?


Still not understanding the nyjunc rationale behind it not being a catch. Manningham lands on his elbow...the ball shifts ever so slightly because of the force, but is still cradled in his arms. Ball never leaves his full possession. Ball never touches the ground. He never isnt touching both points of the ball.

Goddamn. If youre gonna overturn that one, you can find a reason to overturn 25% of the catches in football.

If the ball shifts, not matter how slightly it is, it's not a catch. I have seen balls move less that were overturned. I don't like the rule but it is the rule and has been called that way.


The ball didn't move so your posting of the rulebook is irrelevant

Others seem to think it moved too.


So not only did the head referee make the wrong decision b/c he doesn't know how to do his job in the Super Bowl, the people who voted for SB MVP were completely wrong as well.

This is the definition of delusion.

yeah, he deserved it. He willed the team to victory. It had nothing to do w/ the Giant D holding down the best QB of this generation AGAIN- it was all Eli.

Please explain why he deserved it?

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 12:19 PM
More than that.

The play was reviewed more for whether or not his feet were in bounds. Ball didn't move enough for it to even be considered. Dude had control of the football.

There wasn't a great angle to see the movement, it sure looks like it moved but my guess is the ref didn't have the right angle to say for 100% sure. I'm hoping NFL films got a better angle so we can see for sure.

Nowhere am I saying the Giants didn't deserve it, this wasn't like the Bradshaw fumble which would have ended the game w/ SF winning it but it is a discussion piece after this game. I have seen plays like that called a million times w/ less movement than I saw on the Manningham play. Sorry if that offends you guys.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 12:26 PM
I have seen balls move less that were overturned.

No you havent. When have you ever seen a player that clearly never lost control of the football, maintained contact of both points and didnt allow the ball to touch the ground be overturned and called incomplete?

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 12:28 PM
he wasn't great in either game and others made bigger plays to win. They faced the greatest O ever in 2007 and the D he,ld them to 14 pts- you don't thinka defensive player deserved that award? Tyree made the most ridiculous fluky catch ever plus had a TD rec- you don't think he deserved the award?

The other day Tuck was responsible for a safety and had 2 sacks in addition- you don't think he deserved the award?

Tuck played great in both SBs and Tyree obviously made an incredible catch, but you cant sit there and watch Eli make clutch throw after clutch throw and take the team down for game winning drives and then say he doesnt deserve the MVP. Theres no doubt he deserved this one. The other one you could have given Tuck, but Eli still played well.

JCane
02-08-2012, 12:31 PM
The ball did move. Of course it did. Every caught ball moves. But it's not enough to say he didn't control it to the ground. It wasn't bobbled and fumbled to the ground. He caught it and took it to the ground. There will always been movement of sorts.

Ruling on the field was a catch. For that call to be overturned there has to be indisputable evidence that he did not have control.

Clearly there's a dispute here.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:33 PM
Others seem to think it moved too.

What is your point? You and one other person think the ball moved when it didn't. And?


yeah, he deserved it. He willed the team to victory. It had nothing to do w/ the Giant D holding down the best QB of this generation AGAIN- it was all Eli.

Please explain why he deserved it?

I can't tell you why those who voted for him to be MVP thought that way. You mentioned Justin Tuck being a candidate right?

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:34 PM
There wasn't a great angle to see the movement, it sure looks like it moved but my guess is the ref didn't have the right angle to say for 100% sure. I'm hoping NFL films got a better angle so we can see for sure.

Nowhere am I saying the Giants didn't deserve it, this wasn't like the Bradshaw fumble which would have ended the game w/ SF winning it but it is a discussion piece after this game. I have seen plays like that called a million times w/ less movement than I saw on the Manningham play. Sorry if that offends you guys.

You've already said it was crystal clear the ball moved yet you keep clamoring for a better angle. Why the hell can't you see this is completely ***-backwards?

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:36 PM
The other day Tuck was responsible for a safety and had 2 sacks in addition- you don't think he deserved the award?

Tuck didn't drive the team down the field on their winning last drive of the game so no, I wouldn't think he'd deserve MVP. I have no problem with Manning winning the MVP. Had Tuck scored a TD that would've been different, the stats would've been more in his favor to award him MVP.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 12:36 PM
The ball did move. Of course it did. Every caught ball moves. But it's not enough to say he didn't control it to the ground. It wasn't bobbled and fumbled to the ground. He caught it and took it to the ground. There will always been movement of sorts.

Ruling on the field was a catch. For that call to be overturned there has to be indisputable evidence that he did not have control.

Clearly there's a dispute here.

A 200+ pound man lands on his elbow and junc expects there to be no movement at all and anything short of that is no catch. I really wish I had the time and resources to review every sideline and endzone catch where the receiver hit the ground this season and figure out what percentage arent catches in juncs book. Im willing to bet all around 50%.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 12:39 PM
A 200+ pound man lands on his elbow and junc expects there to be no movement at all and anything short of that is no catch. I really wish I had the time and resources to review every sideline and endzone catch where the receiver hit the ground this season and figure out what percentage arent catches in juncs book. Im willing to bet all around 50%.

Even with that, I didn't see the ball move at all. Manningham hitting the ground with the ball in his hands might make it appear that it moved (which it didn't) if anything and I'm totally grasping at straws.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 12:39 PM
Its understandable being that he likes Mark Sanchez as his QB, but I think junc doesnt quite realize the value of QB compared to other positions. What Eli did as a QB had more bearing on the outcome of the game than Tuck. No question. Tuck was important, but Eli carried that team to the win.

Vaark
02-08-2012, 12:39 PM
It's amusing how some "fans" can cling to beating Brady in playoff games and in-season as major accomplishments..or whine about the validity of winning a division because Brady is sidelined.

...that's of course until Eli does it 2 out of 2 times on the biggest stage in the world. :idk:

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 12:41 PM
Even with that, I didn't see the ball move at all. Manningham hitting the ground with the ball in his hands might make it appear that it moved (which it didn't) if anything and I'm totally grasping at straws.

I think it moved, but only very slightly and there was never a moment where he didnt have full possession. He clearly had both point of the football the whole time. Ball never touched the ground. Really its irrelevant whether it moved that slightly or not.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 12:45 PM
It's amusing how some "fans" can cling to beating Brady in playoff games and in-season as major accomplishments..or diminish the winning of a division because Brady is sidelined.

...that's of course until Eli does it 2 out of 2 times on the biggest stage in the world. :idk:

Hadnt even thought of it from that angle. Junc should just quit while hes only down by 30.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 12:52 PM
I can't help you if I know the rulew and you don't.

Eli isn't elite, that doesn't mean he isn't good.
You clearly don't know the rules, but at least you are trying. If I could, I would give you a gold star sticker for effort.

And Eli is elite, despite suffering dumbface. And while not as elite as Lebron, he certainly has more rings than him.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 12:55 PM
Hadnt even thought of it from that angle. Junc should just quit while hes only down by 30.We know that won't happen under any circumstances. We could get a panel of officials in here to explain why it was a catch and he'd still stick to his water guns.

The New Guy
02-08-2012, 01:06 PM
If the ball shifts, not matter how slightly it is, it's not a catch. I have seen balls move less that were overturned. I don't like the rule but it is the rule and has been called that way.



A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long
enough to do so.
Note 2:If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands
to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2: Sideline Catches. 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.
Item 3: End Zone Catches.If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complete and continuous control of the ball does not mean shifting of the ball is not aloud when the player hits the ground. It means he can not bobble the ball / lose control (even after he had possession and both feet in bounds) on his way out of bounds. These are not separate rules. Just slight variation based on where the player is on the field. A player could bobble the ball in the field of play as long as he had possession of the ball (and maintained possession of the ball) when he hit the ground, but he can't do that on the way out of bounds for abvious reasons. You can't bobble the ball on a sideline catch becasue you are going out of bounds. Even if you had possession of the ball with 2 feet down before you go out, if you bobble the ball or lose control of the ball when you hit the ground, it is an incomplete pass.



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."

^ is talking about the Chambers play in 02 against the Jets. If you watch the play, you will see the ball come out at the very end, much like the Louis Murphy TD catch that was also overruled a few years ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7QwZCIwMyc&amp;feature=player_embedded#

If you watch that video, you can see that he losses control of the ball at the very end (in between his legs) even after he had possession of it. At the 3:20 mark, Mike even notes that when the ball shifts, it would still have been called a TD if he had not lost control of the ball at the very end. Before you say that is an endzone rule and not a sideline catch rule, read the highlighted red above. The complete and continuous control statement only means no bobbling is aloud on the way out of bounds. It never says anything about the ball not being able to shift slightly. In fact the above says just the opposite.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 01:09 PM
I think it moved, but only very slightly and there was never a moment where he didnt have full possession. He clearly had both point of the football the whole time. Ball never touched the ground. Really its irrelevant whether it moved that slightly or not.

I don't see it. It's one thing for it to be obvious but in this thread, it's been discussed as if not only did the ball move but the ref doesn't know the rule regarding ball control (you know b/c these sorts of plays are uncommon and rarely happen/need to be reviewed).

If Wes Welker was the guy who made the catch instead of Manningham point for point I'd still feel the same way. I hate NE but if it's a catch, it's a catch.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 01:11 PM
That Louis Murphy play was clearly a dropped pass.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 01:16 PM
Another thing that isn't being mentioned regarding the catch (unless it was discussed in the middle 10 pages that I couldn't be bothered to read), is the fact that it was called a catch on the field. We could argue all day about whether it didn't move, moved slightly, or was complete loss of control; but there is no conclusive evidence of any of them. There is no way you can conclusively say it isn't a catch, not with any credibility; unless, of course, you had an extra camera on the sideline pointing directly at the ball as he was falling that shows he lost control of it. So, if you have that video, please post it.

Ilovemyfins4eva
02-08-2012, 01:35 PM
Ooohhh my mistake, I thought you meant the team that didn't have to deal w/ Tom Brady and played 5-6 dead teams to end the season before being humiliated at home in the WC rd.

Eli didn't deserve either SB MVP, Tyree deserved it 4 years ago and Tuck the other day but they skew towards QBs(and QBs w/ the last name Manning as Peyton didn't deserve his either).the giants d line as a whole deserved the mvp for that superbowl, without them rattling brady and the pats offense, arguably the best of all time, mannings final drive is meaningless no matter what he does because the game is so far out of reach. the giants defense was the reason they won that game, superbowl 42.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 01:37 PM
It's amusing how some "fans" can cling to beating Brady in playoff games and in-season as major accomplishments..or whine about the validity of winning a division because Brady is sidelined.

...that's of course until Eli does it 2 out of 2 times on the biggest stage in the world. :idk:

when have I taken credit away from Eli? I credit him for playing really well but i'm not going to lie and call him elite just like I wouldn't have called Jim Plunkett elite.


No you havent. When have you ever seen a player that clearly never lost control of the football, maintained contact of both points and didnt allow the ball to touch the ground be overturned and called incomplete?

MANY times.


Tuck played great in both SBs and Tyree obviously made an incredible catch, but you cant sit there and watch Eli make clutch throw after clutch throw and take the team down for game winning drives and then say he doesnt deserve the MVP. Theres no doubt he deserved this one. The other one you could have given Tuck, but Eli still played well.

He made a great throw to manningham who made a better catch but w/o the D keeping that game close(and the first one) they don't have a chance.

he deserved this one more than the other one but the safety was huge and adding 2 sacks to that there's no doubt Tuck deserved this one.


You've already said it was crystal clear the ball moved yet you keep clamoring for a better angle. Why the hell can't you see this is completely ***-backwards?

it's obvious to anyone w/ eyes but my question is was his arming moving w/ it? maybe w/ a clear angle it shows a different look? We should see when we see the NFL films footage.


Tuck didn't drive the team down the field on their winning last drive of the game so no, I wouldn't think he'd deserve MVP. I have no problem with Manning winning the MVP. Had Tuck scored a TD that would've been different, the stats would've been more in his favor to award him MVP.

yeah he only was directly responsible for 2 pts(if the rest of the game plays out the same NE only needs a FG on the final drive to tie) and helped keep Brady & co. down AGAIN.

Eli didn't have eye popping #s or make a ton of big plays in eaither game, he made big plays and he helped his team win but he was not the true MVP in either game.


A 200+ pound man lands on his elbow and junc expects there to be no movement at all and anything short of that is no catch. I really wish I had the time and resources to review every sideline and endzone catch where the receiver hit the ground this season and figure out what percentage arent catches in juncs book. Im willing to bet all around 50%.

I don't make the rules.


Its understandable being that he likes Mark Sanchez as his QB, but I think junc doesnt quite realize the value of QB compared to other positions. What Eli did as a QB had more bearing on the outcome of the game than Tuck. No question. Tuck was important, but Eli carried that team to the win.

against a better Pats team sanchez on the road led his O to 28 points.

The safety was HUGE in this game.


You clearly don't know the rules, but at least you are trying. If I could, I would give you a gold star sticker for effort.

And Eli is elite, despite suffering dumbface. And while not as elite as Lebron, he certainly has more rings than him.

you are either elite or not elite, you can't say not as elite as Lebron. Eli is not elite.


A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long
enough to do so.
Note 2:If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands
to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2: Sideline Catches. 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.
Item 3: End Zone Catches.If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complete and continuous control of the ball does not mean shifting of the ball is not aloud when the player hits the ground. It means he can not bobble the ball / lose control (even after he had possession and both feet in bounds) on his way out of bounds. These are not separate rules. Just slight variation based on where the player is on the field. A player could bobble the ball in the field of play as long as he had possession of the ball (and maintained possession of the ball) when he hit the ground, but he can't do that on the way out of bounds for abvious reasons. You can't bobble the ball on a sideline catch becasue you are going out of bounds. Even if you had possession of the ball with 2 feet down before you go out, if you bobble the ball or lose control of the ball when you hit the ground, it is an incomplete pass.



^ is talking about the Chambers play in 02 against the Jets. If you watch the play, you will see the ball come out at the very end, much like the Louis Murphy TD catch that was also overruled a few years ago.


If you watch that video, you can see that he losses control of the ball at the very end (in between his legs) even after he had possession of it. At the 3:20 mark, Mike even notes that when the ball shifts, it would still have been called a TD if he had not lost control of the ball at the very end. Before you say that is an endzone rule and not a sideline catch rule, read the highlighted red above. The complete and continuous control statement only means no bobbling is aloud on the way out of bounds. It never says anything about the ball not being able to shift slightly. In fact the above says just the opposite.

I can't see the video but why are you highlighting "If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession."? when the only improtant part in regards to this discussion is "Sideline Catches. 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."

I have seen similar plays w/ less movement called incomplete. I don't care what peirera says, he says many things that contradict what the refs actually call.

Find the Chrebet play from 2003 at NE, find the Coles TD from the NO game 2005. I have seen it over and over.


Another thing that isn't being mentioned regarding the catch (unless it was discussed in the middle 10 pages that I couldn't be bothered to read), is the fact that it was called a catch on the field. We could argue all day about whether it didn't move, moved slightly, or was complete loss of control; but there is no conclusive evidence of any of them. There is no way you can conclusively say it isn't a catch, not with any credibility; unless, of course, you had an extra camera on the sideline pointing directly at the ball as he was falling that shows he lost control of it. So, if you have that video, please post it.

I agree w/ you and I think that played a role in why they didn't reverse it.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 01:45 PM
you are either elite or not elite, you can't say not as elite as Lebron. Eli is not elite.



I agree w/ you and I think that played a role in why they didn't reverse it.:bobdole: Yes, you can. You can have two elite players and discuss which is better than the other. It doesn't mean only one of them is elite. You're talking nonsense.

They didn't reverse it because it was a catch. The point I made only further kills the idea that it wasn't.

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 02:10 PM
Youre the one who doesnt know what time it is. The ball clearly moved. That much is obvious. The issue is that it only moved a minuscule amount and possession was never in doubt. So before you call everyone else retards, you might want to watch the play again.


If the refs thought that the ball moved, they would have called it incomplete.

Is everyone here being serious or are you guys playing a joke on Junc and failed to tell other people in this thread? Seriously, do you ALL not understand the rule book? Have you NEVER once watched an NFL game where a player catches the ball, lands two feet in bounds, falls out of bounds, has the ball move, and seen the refs call it incomplete due to the SIDELINE CATCH RULE that both Junc and I posted?

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 02:12 PM
You must be in the junc zone. It was a catch even the Pats didn't argue the call and they lost the Super Bowl. Maybe the rule isn't what is simple in this case.


proof you didn't even watch the game! The Pats challenged that catch because they thought the ball moved too! hahahahahah!!

And of course it was a catch. The BALL DIDN'T MOVE! If it had moved the refs would have called it incomplete!

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 02:14 PM
No, he's not.

Yes he is...re-read the SIDE-LINE catch rule!

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 02:18 PM
Still not understanding the nyjunc rationale behind it not being a catch. Manningham lands on his elbow...the ball shifts ever so slightly because of the force, but is still cradled in his arms. Ball never leaves his full possession. Ball never touches the ground. He never isnt touching both points of the ball.

Goddamn. If youre gonna overturn that one, you can find a reason to overturn 25% of the catches in football.

I don't know how to make this much more simple than it's already written:

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 retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

"RETAIN CONTROL"...bobbling of or shifting of the ball is not "RETAINING CONTROL"!!!

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 02:23 PM
The ball didn't move so your posting of the rulebook is irrelevant

but tyler also thinks it moved.

I've been watching that play over and over and over...Is it possible the ball moved? maybe...but the angle does not allow us to know for certain. The refs looked at the play again after Belicheat challenged the play and they also don't think the ball moved.

Why did BB challenge the play? Because he also thought the ball moved. And if he thought the ball moved, he thought it would be overturned and called an incomplete pass?

Hmmmmm...now, why would BB think that? Well, because the sideline catch rule states, "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 retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete."

Junc is right about the rule, but wrong about the ball moving.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 02:30 PM
Yes he is...re-read the SIDE-LINE catch rule!Read it. It was a catch.

NY8123
02-08-2012, 02:49 PM
proof you didn't even watch the game! The Pats challenged that catch because they thought the ball moved too! hahahahahah!!

And of course it was a catch. The BALL DIDN'T MOVE! If it had moved the refs would have called it incomplete!

I did watch the game, watched every minute of it. What I was eluding too was the fact that no New England player or coach has made a peep about that call being a bad call after the game was over. No tweet, no comment, not even a "no comment" when asked about it.

I am really confused here Chris you are either agreeing with junc that it isn't a catch, agreeing with 99.999% of humanity that it was a catch or simple arguing to hear the sound of your own keyboard clicky clacking away?

Which is it?

If you look at the section that junc and numerous others have eluded to in this lengthy and fruitless debate, the section is to be taken as a whole with regard to a completion and incomplete pass.

Section 8 Article 3

Item 2 does pertain to sideline catches but it also is subject to Article 3, Note 1 and Note 2 in addition to Item 2. It is the culmination of the section and article with regard to the fact that, in the side judges opinion and in the review of the referee that not only did the act and reception meet the requirements to be considered a "catch" it was also strong enough to maintain said "catch" within the bounds of official review withholding to the standard of "irrefutable proof" that the catch could not be overturned by video replay evidence, the same evidence to lesser extent that is/has been provided in this thread.

This was the opinion of three highly respected NFL referees, the line judge, the replay official and the head referee if I am in a court of law I am asking any three of these individuals what "their" interpretation of the NFL rules are because they are the ones who sit in meetings with the NFL to extrapolate on all the given rules and procedures, to the best of my knowledge no one in this debate has sat in an "official" NFL meeting with regard to NFL rule enforcement hence my stance that the catch was a catch no matter what an arm chair blogger from NJ wants to spin it as or whoever wants to insult my intelligence as a NFL fan of a rule that is or isn't in dispute depending on your interpretation of the rules we are not paid to enforce.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 02:52 PM
I don't know how to make this much more simple than it's already written:

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 retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

"RETAIN CONTROL"...bobbling of or shifting of the ball is not "RETAINING CONTROL"!!!

A ball can shift very slightly and the receiver still have full possession of the ball.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 02:56 PM
He made a great throw to manningham who made a better catch but w/o the D keeping that game close(and the first one) they don't have a chance.

he deserved this one more than the other one but the safety was huge and adding 2 sacks to that there's no doubt Tuck deserved this one.

Well no **** other people made important plays. Nobody is saying they didnt. Obviously if the defense doesnt play well, they lose. Thats obvious. You can make the same case for literally every SB MVP though..."Well if X player hadnt done that they would have lost anyway". No ****. If Eli hadnt been cold blooded as hell and made clutch throw after clutch throw, the safety and sacks dont matter. See, you can play this game all day. If Manningham doesnt make a good catch, Eli and the D are irrelevant. But wait! If so and so hadnt done so and so, all three are irrelevant! Of course more than one person made a few big plays. A team doesnt win a SB without a few players stepping up. You still havent explained why Eli didnt deserve it though.

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 03:03 PM
I did watch the game, watched every minute of it. What I was eluding too was the fact that no New England player or coach has made a peep about that call being a bad call after the game was over. No tweet, no comment, not even a "no comment" when asked about it.

I am really confused here Chris you are either agreeing with junc that it isn't a catch, agreeing with 99.999% of humanity that it was a catch or simple arguing to hear the sound of your own keyboard clicky clacking away?

Which is it?

If you look at the section that junc and numerous others have eluded to in this lengthy and fruitless debate, the section is to be taken as a whole with regard to a completion and incomplete pass.

Section 8 Article 3

Item 2 does pertain to sideline catches but it also is subject to Article 3, Note 1 and Note 2 in addition to Item 2. It is the culmination of the section and article with regard to the fact that, in the side judges opinion and in the review of the referee that not only did the act and reception meet the requirements to be considered a "catch" it was also strong enough to maintain said "catch" within the bounds of official review withholding to the standard of "irrefutable proof" that the catch could not be overturned by video replay evidence, the same evidence to lesser extent that is/has been provided in this thread.

This was the opinion of three highly respected NFL referees, the line judge, the replay official and the head referee if I am in a court of law I am asking any three of these individuals what "their" interpretation of the NFL rules are because they are the ones who sit in meeting with the NFL to extrapolate on all the given rules and procedures, to the best of my knowledge no one in this debate has sat in an "official" NFL meeting with regard to NFL rule enforcement hence my stance that the catch was a catch no matter what arm chair blogger from NJ wants to spin it as.

The SIDE-LINE CATCH RULE...read it...read it...read it! If a player is bobbling the ball or the ball shifts while hitting the ground out of bounds it's an incomplete catch! It's right there in the rules.

And I am agreeing with Junc in what the NFL rule states. I am not, however, agreeing with him when he says that the ball moved. Hell, the Pats challenged the play and the refs didn't think the ball moved or else they would have called it incomplete.

The reason the Pats aren't saying anything is because the ball didn't move. If it had we would see Pat players, coaches and fans all talking about that play.

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 03:09 PM
A ball can shift very slightly and the receiver still have full possession of the ball.

"very slightly"? Please, show me where in the NFL rule book it states "very slightly".

Look, a lot of NFL rules are subjective because human beings see things differently. A hold to one ref may not get a flag, but may draw a flag from another.

However, I have watched dozens..maybe hundreds.... of side-line catches get called incomplete due to the ball moving in the players arms when they hit the ground out of bounds. Key words, "RETAIN CONTROL"...arbitrary? maybe...but would you call the ball "controlled" if it moves in a players hands when he didn't intend for it to move? That's not controlled in my book.

Anyhow, I'm done with this topic. I know the rules. I know what I've seen in many other NFL games. I also don't think the ball moved in this instance or else the refs, when it was being reviewed, would have called it incomplete.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 03:09 PM
I tip my cap to the Giants, they made plays to win the SB. This has been a fun discussion, next year when they check the replay and overturn a catch where a ball slightly moves on a sideline catch(and it will hapen) I want you to remember this discussion.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 03:11 PM
"very slightly"? Please, show me where in the NFL rule book it states "very slightly".

Look, a lot of NFL rules are subjective because human beings see things differently. A hold to one ref may not get a flag, but may draw a flag from another.

However, I have watched dozens..maybe hundreds.... of side-line catches get called incomplete due to the ball moving in the players arms when they hit the ground out of bounds. Key words, "RETAIN CONTROL"...arbitrary? maybe...but would you call the ball "controlled" if it moves in a players hands when he didn't intend for it to move? That's not controlled in my book.

Anyhow, I'm done with this topic. I know the rules. I know what I've seen in many other NFL games. I also don't think the ball moved in this instance or else the refs, when it was being reviewed, would have called it incomplete.

You keep saying lose control...I agree that is control is lost its incomplete. If you hit the ground and the ball shifts an inch, thats not and never has been losing control as long as the ball doesnt hit the ground.

Ill patiently wait on you or junc to post a video of a ball moving that little and it being called incomplete. Junc says hes seen it a hundred times. Im very :skepticalhippo: about that. Shouldnt be that hard to find a video.

ChrisHanson
02-08-2012, 03:12 PM
OK...last post on this:

The score is Baltimore 31, Cincinnati 21, and there are 5:35 seconds left in the fourth quarter. The Bengals line up for a 3rd-and-2 play at the Ravens 9-yard line. Andy Dalton takes the snap, and throws a dart to TE Jermaine Gresham at about the 2 yard line, near the left sideline. Gresham bobbles the pass, then obtains possession, then gets both feet in bounds, and crosses the plane of the goal line before falling out of bounds. Upon hitting the ground, the ball–secured in Gresham’s right hand–moves a bit. However, his hand never leaves the football. The official nearest the play throws his arms in the air. Touchdown, Bengals–31-27.
As a scoring play, it is automatically reviewed. After much deliberation, Referee Ron Winter announces that due to the ball moving, the pass is incomplete.

http://whodeyfans.com/2011/11/21/analyzing-the-non-td-call/

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 03:13 PM
I tip my cap to the Giants, they made plays to win the SB. This has been a fun discussion, next year when they check the replay and overturn a catch where a ball slightly moves on a sideline catch(and it will hapen) I want you to remember this discussion.

LOL

Im sure you'll bump this thread posting a catch where the ball hit the ground and moved halfway down his body or something.

tylerdolphin
02-08-2012, 03:17 PM
OK...last post on this:

The score is Baltimore 31, Cincinnati 21, and there are 5:35 seconds left in the fourth quarter. The Bengals line up for a 3rd-and-2 play at the Ravens 9-yard line. Andy Dalton takes the snap, and throws a dart to TE Jermaine Gresham at about the 2 yard line, near the left sideline. Gresham bobbles the pass, then obtains possession, then gets both feet in bounds, and crosses the plane of the goal line before falling out of bounds. Upon hitting the ground, the ball–secured in Gresham’s right hand–moves a bit. However, his hand never leaves the football. The official nearest the play throws his arms in the air. Touchdown, Bengals–31-27.
As a scoring play, it is automatically reviewed. After much deliberation, Referee Ron Winter announces that due to the ball moving, the pass is incomplete.

http://whodeyfans.com/2011/11/21/analyzing-the-non-td-call/

You left out the part where the former head of officiating said after the game that the call was a mistake:


Gresham was going to the ground to complete the catch, but he had complete control of the ball in his right hand before the ball hit the ground,” Pereira wrote. “I do agree that the ball moves slightly when it hits the ground, but in this case Gresham kept his right hand on the ball the entire time. The ball will always move, which is why referees are told never to use that terminology. You either maintain possession or you lose possession, which means your hands come off the ball.In the end, it’s all about judgment. But you need absolutely indisputable evidence to overturn a ruling on the field.”

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 03:36 PM
the giants d line as a whole deserved the mvp for that superbowl, without them rattling brady and the pats offense, arguably the best of all time, mannings final drive is meaningless no matter what he does because the game is so far out of reach. the giants defense was the reason they won that game, superbowl 42.

And while they didn't light the Patriots D on fire, Manning and the offense put the points on the board necessary for the defense to do their thing and secure the win. It being a team game you can't have one without the other unless you want to win games 3-0.

NY8123
02-08-2012, 03:36 PM
"very slightly"? Please, show me where in the NFL rule book it states "very slightly".

Look, a lot of NFL rules are subjective because human beings see things differently. A hold to one ref may not get a flag, but may draw a flag from another.

However, I have watched dozens..maybe hundreds.... of side-line catches get called incomplete due to the ball moving in the players arms when they hit the ground out of bounds. Key words, "RETAIN CONTROL"...arbitrary? maybe...but would you call the ball "controlled" if it moves in a players hands when he didn't intend for it to move? That's not controlled in my book.

Anyhow, I'm done with this topic. I know the rules. I know what I've seen in many other NFL games. I also don't think the ball moved in this instance or else the refs, when it was being reviewed, would have called it incomplete.


Note 2!!! read it, read it, read it!!

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 03:39 PM
it's obvious to anyone w/ eyes but my question is was his arming moving w/ it? maybe w/ a clear angle it shows a different look? We should see when we see the NFL films footage.

The adjectives you use paint a pretty funny story. From crystal clear to being obvious the ball moved when you and one other person are the only one claiming it did so.



yeah he only was directly responsible for 2 pts(if the rest of the game plays out the same NE only needs a FG on the final drive to tie) and helped keep Brady & co. down AGAIN.




Eli didn't have eye popping #s or make a ton of big plays in eaither game, he made big plays and he helped his team win but he was not the true MVP in either game.

He wasn't the true MVP to you. You whose opinion has as much merit to anyone in the NFL as an ant's.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 03:41 PM
If the refs thought that the ball moved, they would have called it incomplete.

Is everyone here being serious or are you guys playing a joke on Junc and failed to tell other people in this thread? Seriously, do you ALL not understand the rule book? Have you NEVER once watched an NFL game where a player catches the ball, lands two feet in bounds, falls out of bounds, has the ball move, and seen the refs call it incomplete due to the SIDELINE CATCH RULE that both Junc and I posted?

That didn't happen in the god damn Super Bowl so why even mention it here?

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 03:42 PM
proof you didn't even watch the game! The Pats challenged that catch because they thought the ball moved too! hahahahahah!!

And of course it was a catch. The BALL DIDN'T MOVE! If it had moved the refs would have called it incomplete!

They also challenged it to make sure he got two feet down

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 03:43 PM
LOL

Im sure you'll bump this thread posting a catch where the ball hit the ground and moved halfway down his body or something.

If I spent time bumping old threads where I was right I'd never have time to do anything else, I very rarely bump a thread.


You left out the part where the former head of officiating said after the game that the call was a mistake:

I have seen Pereira be wrong many times, you asked for video and he provided it. That's just one example, I wouldn't know where to look for other clips. I will try to pull the Coles '05 and Chrebet '03 clips at home but I have seen this play called dozens of times and every season it comes up.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 03:43 PM
but tyler also thinks it moved.

I've been watching that play over and over and over...Is it possible the ball moved? maybe...but the angle does not allow us to know for certain. The refs looked at the play again after Belicheat challenged the play and they also don't think the ball moved.

Why did BB challenge the play? Because he also thought the ball moved. And if he thought the ball moved, he thought it would be overturned and called an incomplete pass?

Hmmmmm...now, why would BB think that? Well, because the sideline catch rule states, "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 retain control of the ball throughout the act of falling to the ground and after hitting the ground, or the pass is incomplete."

Junc is right about the rule, but wrong about the ball moving.

The rule doesn't mean a thing in this situation b/c the ball didn't move. Junc is saying the ball DID move and the REFEREE blew the call b/c he doesn't know the rules that JUNC does.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 03:45 PM
Note 2!!! read it, read it, read it!!

Even in black and white w/ the official rule book you guys still don't get it. It's amazing.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 03:46 PM
The rule doesn't mean a thing in this situation b/c the ball didn't move. Junc is saying the ball DID move and the REFEREE blew the call b/c he doesn't know the rules that JUNC does.

I think it moved but if the ref didn't think so that's different. To me it looks conclusive but maybe they needed a better angle? We'll know muchmore when the NFL films highlights are released.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 03:47 PM
OK...last post on this:

The score is Baltimore 31, Cincinnati 21, and there are 5:35 seconds left in the fourth quarter. The Bengals line up for a 3rd-and-2 play at the Ravens 9-yard line. Andy Dalton takes the snap, and throws a dart to TE Jermaine Gresham at about the 2 yard line, near the left sideline. Gresham bobbles the pass, then obtains possession, then gets both feet in bounds, and crosses the plane of the goal line before falling out of bounds. Upon hitting the ground, the ball–secured in Gresham’s right hand–moves a bit. However, his hand never leaves the football. The official nearest the play throws his arms in the air. Touchdown, Bengals–31-27.
As a scoring play, it is automatically reviewed. After much deliberation, Referee Ron Winter announces that due to the ball moving, the pass is incomplete.

http://whodeyfans.com/2011/11/21/analyzing-the-non-td-call/

Dude, I don't think anyone is debating whether a call is or isn't made based on the ball moving during a catch. The point is that Manningham didn't **** the catch up by bobbling it or letting it move around. Even mentioning anything other than what he did detracts from the discussion.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 03:47 PM
I think it moved but if the ref didn't think so that's different. To me it looks conclusive but maybe they needed a better angle? We'll know muchmore when the NFL films highlights are released.

So you think it moved. Does this mean the Giants won the SB b/c of this call and didn't deserve the win? I'm asking, not assuming.

NY8123
02-08-2012, 03:59 PM
Here is the official definition to what constitutes possession of a Catch, fumble or any other said instance of "possession" on or out of the field of play. Extracted from the NFL definitions guidelines. Notice Note 3 which comes after note 1 and 2 and pertains to player possession:


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 04:03 PM
So you think it moved. Does this mean the Giants won the SB b/c of this call and didn't deserve the win? I'm asking, not assuming.

No, I think even if they don't get that call they are moving down the field for at least a FG to win it. They earned the win, this wasn't like the awful call on the Bradshaw fumble which would have won the game for SF. They earned the victory.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 04:05 PM
Here is the official definition to what constitutes possession of a Catch, fumble or any other said instance of "possession" on or out of the field of play. Extracted from the NFL definitions guidelines. Notice Note 3 which comes after note 1 and 2 and pertains to player possession:


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdfLooks pretty clear to me. Just like the fact that it was a catch was pretty clear.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 04:07 PM
Here is the official definition to what constitutes possession of a Catch, fumble or any other said instance of "possession" on or out of the field of play. Extracted from the NFL definitions guidelines. Notice Note 3 which comes after note 1 and 2 and pertains to player possession:



http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf


Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.��If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.
Item 2: Sideline Catches.�� 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.
Item 3: End Zone Catches.��If a player controls the ball while in the end zone, both feet, or any part of his body
other than his hands, must be completely on the ground before losing control, or the pass is incomplete.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

this isn't that hard, note #3 is not in regards to a sideline play in your link.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 04:08 PM
Looks pretty clear to me. Just like the fact that it was a catch was pretty clear.

of course it does except for the litle fact that is not for a SIDELINE play like it is noted in the link I provided from the official rules.

SpurzN703
02-08-2012, 04:28 PM
No, I think even if they don't get that call they are moving down the field for at least a FG to win it. They earned the win, this wasn't like the awful call on the Bradshaw fumble which would have won the game for SF. They earned the victory.

So what the hell are we all even arguing about then?

The New Guy
02-08-2012, 04:37 PM
I can't see the video but why are you highlighting "If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession."? when the only improtant part in regards to this discussion is "Sideline Catches. 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."

I have seen similar plays w/ less movement called incomplete. I don't care what peirera says, he says many things that contradict what the refs actually call.

Find the Chrebet play from 2003 at NE, find the Coles TD from the NO game 2005. I have seen it over and over.


They are not separate rules. They are only expounded upon.

NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira said:


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.

I think Mike knows the rules a little better than you. The only reason sideline catches are even talked about is becasue you are going out of bounds. In the field of play, you could bobble a ball and as long as the ball didn't hit the ground, and you had it at the end of the play, it would be a catch. That is not the case with a sideline catch becasue you are going out of bounds, which is why they say:

complete and continuous
control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground

No where does it say that the ball can not shift slightly when the player hits the ground. You and ChrisHanson are making that up on your own. We know what constitutes control and possession by reading the rules directly above the sideline catch rule. It specifically says:

a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession.

If the sideline catch rule implied that no movement of the ball was allowed, don't you think they would say that, especially since they state the exact opposite on what is aloud directly above that?

Complete and continuous control means you must catch the ball and not bobble it on your way out, and can not lose possession of it throughout the process of contacting the ground. In red is the reason the Chambers TD was overturned.

You say you have seen plays overturned that were just like it. The only examples that you have given was a Chambers TD reception (Not a sideline catch) where he actually lost the ball at the end, and a Coles TD reception (Not a sideline catch) where he bobbled the ball on his way out. If you are so stuck on the sideline catch rule and think that the rule is different, why are you giving examples that were not sideline catches?

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 04:40 PM
So what the hell are we all even arguing about then?

It's not really an argument, I was just pointing out a rule most fans are unaware of. I promise you this situation will come up again next year. I hate the rule but it is a rule.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 04:41 PM
of course it does except for the litle fact that is not for a SIDELINE play like it is noted in the link I provided from the official rules.Yes it is. Item 3 is under Article 3, so the notes for the article pertain to the items under it as well. It would be redundant to repeat each Note under each Item. Do you honestly believe "a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession" only pertains to inbound catches?

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 04:41 PM
They are not separate rules. They are only expounded upon.

NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira said:


I think Mike knows the rules a little better than you. The only reason sideline catches are even talked about is becasue you are going out of bounds. In the field of play, you could bobble a ball and as long as the ball didn't hit the ground, and you had it at the end of the play, it would be a catch. That is not the case with a sideline catch becasue you are going out of bounds, which is why they say:

complete and continuous
control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground

No where does it say that the ball can not shift slightly when the player hits the ground. You and ChrisHanson are making that up on your own. We know what constitutes control and possession by reading the rules directly above the sideline catch rule. It specifically says:

a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession.

If the sideline catch rule implied that no movement of the ball was allowed, don't you think they would say that, especially since they state the exact opposite on what is aloud directly above that?

Complete and continuous control means you must catch the ball and not bobble it on your way out, and can not lose possession of it throughout the process of contacting the ground. In red is the reason the Chambers TD was overturned.

You say you have seen plays overturned that were just like it. The only examples that you have given was a Chambers TD reception (Not a sideline catch) where he actually lost the ball at the end, and a Coles TD reception (Not a sideline catch) where he bobbled the ball on his way out. If you are so stuck on the sideline catch rule and think that the rule is different, why are you giving examples that were not sideline catches?

again, you are combining a ctach in thefield of play w/ a sideline catch.

Coles and Chambers not sideline catches but were similar in that they were out of bounds plays.

nyjunc
02-08-2012, 04:42 PM
Yes it is. Item 3 is under Article 3, so the notes for the article pertain to the items under it as well. It would be redundant to repeat each Note under each Item. Do you honestly believe "a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession" only pertains to inbound catches?

I know it is b/c I have seen that called a ton of times through the years and it's clear in the rule book about sideline plays. You guys keep combining catches in the field of play and sideline/OOb catches.