*** OFFICIAL Eli Manning Worship Thread ***

[nyjunc]

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]

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]

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]

"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


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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]

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.

[PhinzN703]

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

[PhinzN703]

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]

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]

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.

[PhinzN703]

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.