What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why wasn't the Manningham TD called incomplete? (1 Viewer)

doubletrouble

Footballguy
Saw the highlights this AM and it appears to me that Manningham didn't have full control of the ball(Calvin johnson rule)when he was coming up off the ground and flipped the ball to the ref. I don't like either teams BTW. Anyone have any insight? Thanks!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.

 
Saw the highlights this AM and it appears to me that Manningham didn't have full control of the ball(Calvin johnson rule)
Here's where you're going wrong. The Calvin Johnson catch was actually a catch -- the NFL screwed that play up. No reason to keep making the same mistake and ruining great games over and over again just because they did it once.
 
Saw the highlights this AM and it appears to me that Manningham didn't have full control of the ball(Calvin johnson rule)when he was coming up off the ground and flipped the ball to the ref. I don't like either teams BTW. Anyone have any insight? Thanks!
The ball never juggled, moved, touched the ground, etc. On the "Calvin Johnson" play, as CJ went to the ground, the ball touched the ground (if I remember correctly, he seemed to try to use it to push himself up), and CJ didn't hold onto it after it touched the ground. It should have been a catch, but because he touched it to the ground, and then let go of it, it was ruled incomplete. Manningham never lost control of the ball or let it touch the ground. It was correctly (IMO) ruled a TD.video of the catch

 
Bottom line: the NFL needs to seriously examine this ruling in the offseason to prevent any confusion in the future.

 
I wondered the same thing.

He went to the ground.

Flipped the ball in the air on his way back to standing up.

Technically Im not sure he "completed the process"

Whatever the hell that means

 
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.
I think the ball was knocked out before the second foot was down. It probably should have been reviewed (to make sure the call is correct), but (IMO), the call wouldn't have been reversed based on the video evidence. For what it's worth, if it had been called a TD, I don't think it would have been reversed either.video of the play

This video is grainy & not a close-up, but when I saw the play, and the showed the replay, the 2nd foot and ball coming out were bang-bang.

 
I wondered the same thing.He went to the ground. Flipped the ball in the air on his way back to standing up.Technically Im not sure he "completed the process"Whatever the hell that means
The difference is Manningham rolled over and landed on his butt on the ground. For some reason, possession on ground + on butt = catch (thus trumping the maintaining the ball through the entirity of the catch rule).
 
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.
I think the ball was knocked out before the second foot was down. It probably should have been reviewed (to make sure the call is correct), but (IMO), the call wouldn't have been reversed based on the video evidence. For what it's worth, if it had been called a TD, I don't think it would have been reversed either.video of the play

This video is grainy & not a close-up, but when I saw the play, and the showed the replay, the 2nd foot and ball coming out were bang-bang.
yeah looking at it again. it was a good call
 
He did a 360 on his back (like he was Ozone in 'Breakin') with the ball in his before he tossed the ball up in the air

 
I wondered the same thing.He went to the ground. Flipped the ball in the air on his way back to standing up.Technically Im not sure he "completed the process"Whatever the hell that means
The difference is Manningham rolled over and landed on his butt on the ground. For some reason, possession on ground + on butt = catch (thus trumping the maintaining the ball through the entirity of the catch rule).
Calvin Johnson's butt clearly hit the ground too.
 
Saw the highlights this AM and it appears to me that Manningham didn't have full control of the ball(Calvin johnson rule)
Here's where you're going wrong. The Calvin Johnson catch was actually a catch -- the NFL screwed that play up. No reason to keep making the same mistake and ruining great games over and over again just because they did it once.
I like this explanation. :thumbup:
 
Saw the highlights this AM and it appears to me that Manningham didn't have full control of the ball(Calvin johnson rule)when he was coming up off the ground and flipped the ball to the ref. I don't like either teams BTW. Anyone have any insight? Thanks!
The rule reads that if you go to the ground you have to maintain control through the act of going to the ground. Which doesn't really give any clear guideline on when the act of going to the ground ends, but I think we can define it pretty well.If I have to explain it in language someone's girlfriend would understand, I would tell her that means they have to control the ball until the bulk of their momentum from hitting the ground is gone.If you land flat on your back, once you're on your back the momentum is gone, and as long as you maintained control up until then it is a catch.If you hit the ground and are flipped over once by the impact, you have to control it during the rolling over until the bulk of that energy of going to the ground is gone. Do you have to hold it until you are COMPLETELY still? No, just the bulk of the momentum (again, this is how I'd explain it, not the exact wording of the rule which doesn't go into this amount of detail).In Calvin Johnson's case, he tried to use the momentum of going to the ground to roll to his feet. In doing so he lost the ball. A half second earlier and his momentum is inarguably from going to the ground. A half second later and I think it's also pretty inarguable his momentum is his own in standing up. Unfortunately for him, he lost the ball right in that grey area where you can make a case for either. Since the rule says when not sure it's incomplete, that means it was incomplete.In Manningham's case, I would say the bulk of his momentum from going to the ground is done before he flips the ball to the ref. He's pretty much sitting on his butt. He tries to rise (as did CJ), but Manningham is more rising on his own power than he is rising with the energy of his fall.I think that is the case clear enough that I wouldn't have called for a review either. You need to see something you think might be wrong. Calvin was a borderline call so that qualifies. I don't think Manningham is borderline. It's not far past borderline, but it is past it in my view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.
Evans did have two feet down with possession. But that is not all the requirements for a catch.When not going to the ground, a player has to have two feet down, with possession, and: maintain control of the ball long enough 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.)

Evans lost the ball pretty much immediately after getting two feet down. There is no way he had it long enough he could have pitched it, juked or stiff-armed someone, lunged forward for more yards, etc.

 
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.
Evans did have two feet down with possession. But that is not all the requirements for a catch.When not going to the ground, a player has to have two feet down, with possession, and: maintain control of the ball long enough 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.)

Evans lost the ball pretty much immediately after getting two feet down. There is no way he had it long enough he could have pitched it, juked or stiff-armed someone, lunged forward for more yards, etc.
:thumbup:
 
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.
Evans did have two feet down with possession. But that is not all the requirements for a catch.When not going to the ground, a player has to have two feet down, with possession, and: maintain control of the ball long enough 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.)

Evans lost the ball pretty much immediately after getting two feet down. There is no way he had it long enough he could have pitched it, juked or stiff-armed someone, lunged forward for more yards, etc.
No, he really didn't.
 
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.
Evans did have two feet down with possession. But that is not all the requirements for a catch.When not going to the ground, a player has to have two feet down, with possession, and: maintain control of the ball long enough 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.)

Evans lost the ball pretty much immediately after getting two feet down. There is no way he had it long enough he could have pitched it, juked or stiff-armed someone, lunged forward for more yards, etc.
No, he really didn't.
First off no he didn't. Second he surely did not control it all the way through the catch.
 
Saw the highlights this AM and it appears to me that Manningham didn't have full control of the ball(Calvin johnson rule)when he was coming up off the ground and flipped the ball to the ref.
His catch was good. He had control while rolling on the ground, then hopped up and flipped the ball.BTW Calvin's should have been good too, the refs blew that call so you can't use it as a basis for future rulings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Big Petey said:
I wondered the same thing.He went to the ground. Flipped the ball in the air on his way back to standing up.Technically Im not sure he "completed the process"Whatever the hell that means
The difference is Manningham rolled over and landed on his butt on the ground. For some reason, possession on ground + on butt = catch (thus trumping the maintaining the ball through the entirity of the catch rule).
Calvin Johnson's butt clearly hit the ground too.
But Johnson put the ball on the ground with his hand and the ball came out.
 
'yellowdog said:
I thought his TD was good without question. Now Lee Evans "drop" deserved a second look. It appeared he had two feet down with possession before the ball was knocked away.
Evans did have two feet down with possession. But that is not all the requirements for a catch.When not going to the ground, a player has to have two feet down, with possession, and: maintain control of the ball long enough 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.)

Evans lost the ball pretty much immediately after getting two feet down. There is no way he had it long enough he could have pitched it, juked or stiff-armed someone, lunged forward for more yards, etc.
No, he really didn't.
Saw an ESPN replay and on super slow mo the ball comes out a couple of frames before his toe hits down, so you're correct. Yet missed the point of the post.It's extremely clear even at full speed that he could never have made a football move after the 2nd foot came down. Worrying about the split second timing of 2nd foot down vs ball coming out is pretty much not worth discussing in light of that. It's like worrying about whether a receiver's foot just grazed the sideline when he never even caught the ball in the first place.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top