*** OFFICIAL Eli Manning Worship Thread ***

[nyjunc]

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.

[I]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.

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.


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

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


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

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.

[PhinzN703]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

[Blake the great]

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.

[CalDolFan10x14]

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

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