Gints 2nd td

[WV Cowboy]

I thought Mannings 6 yd TD pass to Toomer hit the ground.

 

[Doomsday101]

I thought Mannings 6 yd TD pass to Toomer hit the ground.

I think it was close but in my view I think he did get his hands under the ball and did not allow it to hit the ground. Having said that the initial ruling was incomplete and I did not see enough to overturn it so I was surprised when it was changed

 

[newcster68]

it did.. bad calling on the refs bpart as a completed pass. the ball actually bounced off his hands, then off his chest then hit the ground. they were handed that game by the nfl.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

No, unfortunately he clearly caught the ball, his hands were under the ball when it bounced up a little.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

No, unfortunately he clearly caught the ball, his hands were under the ball when it bounced up a little.

Exactly... the ball hit his hands and then moved down his arms a little BUT Toomer had squeezed his forearms together.... the ball never touched the ground.. Hands, forearms - locked in.

 

[Future]

As much as I can't stand Eli...it was a catch.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

It was very close, but on replay, I thought he got it

 

[superpunk]

I didn't see the game - but I've seen the replay.

Did they rule it incomplete on the field?

Whatever the ruling on the field was had to stand IMO - because there was not sufficient video evidence to change the call either way.

 

[Phrozen Phil]

I didn't see the game - but I've seen the replay.

Did they rule it incomplete on the field?

Whatever the ruling on the field was had to stand IMO - because there was not sufficient video evidence to change the call either way.

They ruled it incomplete on the field and then reversed it. I did not think it was a catch , but this officiating crew was not particulrly stellar all game. This would be a bad crew to do a playoff game. I got the sense that they were protecting themselves rather than the integrity of the game. Having said that, it's easy to be critical after the fact. Officiating is a challenge at any level, but at the NFL level, it's subject to replay after replay and armchair refs like me.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I didn't see the game - but I've seen the replay.

Did they rule it incomplete on the field?

Whatever the ruling on the field was had to stand IMO - because there was not sufficient video evidence to change the call either way.

INC on the field.

Vidoe showed hands under ball and forearms squeezed together(parallel)..... nowhere for ball to hit ground.

 

[superpunk]

INC on the field.

Vidoe showed hands under ball and forearms squeezed together(parallel)..... nowhere for ball to hit ground.

But you couldn't see the ball.

IMO, when that is the case, you've got to stick with the ruling on the field.

It wasn't nearly as bad as Braylon Edwards' TD yesterday, though. Unbelievable call there - someone was working those refs.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

But you couldn't see the ball.

IMO, when that is the case, you've got to stick with the ruling on the field.

It wasn't nearly as bad as Braylon Edwards' TD yesterday, though. Unbelievable call there - someone was working those refs.

I think it gets chalked up to physics. Two things cant occupy the same space.

The forearms are closed enough that a ball couldnt fit it and fall.... the officials seemed to think that was the case

 

[superpunk]

I think it gets chalked up to physics.

Or the ref's definition of "Conclusive Video Evidence"

 

[Zman5]

One angle looked like he caught it and one angle looked like it bounce off the turf. I didn't think there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call. Having said that, I thought he did catch the ball when I was watching the game and was glad that the ref called it incomplete.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Or the ref's definition of "Conclusive Video Evidence"

Yes. The ball could not be where the forearms were. "As seen on TV" :laugh2:


So we see it different ways... ok by me.... LOL

 

[aikemirv]

My view of it is that while although it was ruled inc on the field, the replay did not ever show the ball touching the ground and they had a couple of good replays of the catch. In which case I think it was correct to overturn it!

So, basically from the replays they had it was conclusive that it did not hit the ground. ( I know that is really not a correct interpretation of the rule but...)

If it was the Boys, I would have been livid if it did not count!

 

[TX_Yid]

I'm glad they gave it to them. I want Coughlin back as their coach next year, and that 'catch' helps.

 

[trueblue1687]

I think it gets chalked up to physics. Two things cant occupy the same space.

The forearms are closed enough that a ball couldnt fit it and fall.... the officials seemed to think that was the case

Looking at it over and over again right now....his arms aren't closed when the ball initially comes in and by the way the ball bounces up, I tend to think that it didn't come up that hard from bouncing off of flesh and muscle. Obviously a moot point, but there is nothing there to "clearly" call it a catch. The ball bounces up with certainty, unlike a bobble. Call should've stood as incomplete in my book, sure isn't enough that I'm seeing here and I'm looking for a way to call it complete, just to play Yomick's advocate

 

[Jay]

Was definitely a catch, I think some of you need to stop being homers and searching for ways the Giants should have lost.

 

[jesusphreak]

Was definitely a catch, I think some of you need to stop being homers and searching for ways the Giants should have lost.

I'm not being a homer, I am just saying that since they ruled it incomplete on the field, it should've stayed that way. There was *nothing* conclusive about the tape to show it was a catch. And if they would've been ruled it a catch on the field there was no way it should've been overturned.