NFL GAME DAY DISCUSSION AFCDG: Buffalo Bills at Denver Broncos

[One-If-By-Sea]

The fact that the other guy came away with the ball is prima facie evidence that he lost control - otherwise he would still have had the ball himself.

Why does Cooks have to have the ball himself? That is not in the rule. Both players can have control. There is no rule that says the WR has to have "sole" control.

 

[TinhWoodhead]

I said it when I saw it on tv and I’ll say it now. I have no idea if it was intercepted or a completion. 50-50 in my head, so I’m not too upset either way it would have gone.

if its 50-50, doesnt the ball goes to the receiver?

 

[Clonamery]

if its 50-50, doesnt the ball goes to the receiver?

No, that's tie goes to the runner. Cooks handed him the ball anyway, "here, you take it, you landed on my tummy."

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

I think in the end, just look after the ball and swarm to that thing if it comes out. The Bills did not do that. This is paramount for us today.

Paramount.

 

[turkeyneck]

Why does Cooks have to have the ball himself? That is not in the rule. Both players can have control. There is no rule that says the WR has to have "sole" control.

Cooks can't have had control if he didn't possess the ball. If the defender comes out of the furball in possession then where is this control that people are arguing Cooks had?

 

[moosekill]

And while we are at it. Last three pass plays for Denver. First one that wasn’t called was definitely a PI, Denver coach went after the refs. I thought it should have been called but they were letting it go all game. Next one was ticky tack but probably shouldn’t have been called, but I felt was a makeup call and there was roughing the passer anyways. Third one no question it was pi. It was like the Bills were flaunting the fact nothing was being called and they kept getting worse.

 

[turkeyneck]

I think in the end, just look after the ball and swarm to that thing if it comes out. The Bills did not do that. This is paramount for us today.

Paramount.

I hope Maye has a few moments to review Allen's game film.

 

[Triumph]

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Cooks did not have the ball secured for enough time.

There is no amount of time in the rule.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

I said it when I saw it on tv and I’ll say it now. I have no idea if it was intercepted or a completion. 50-50 in my head, so I’m not too upset either way it would have gone.

This is a good interpretation.

 

[turkeyneck]

There is no amount of time in the rule.

There is:

1. C) after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, clearly performs any act common to the game (e.g., extend the ball forward, take an additional step, tuck the ball away and turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent), or he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Cooks can't have had control if he didn't possess the ball. If the defender comes out of the furball in possession then where is this control that people are arguing Cooks had?

Players come out of the furball all the time with the ball, but possession stays with the player who had control when on the ground. "Possession out of the furball" is not in the rules.

Did Cooks have possession when he hit the ground? Not after hitting the ground and rolling, but the rule is when he hits the ground - like Ross posted. I see both players having possession as Cooks hits the ground and then the defender rips it out after they start to roll (I think this is what you mean by in the furball).

I think people think if both players had their hands on the ball than Cooks did not have sole possession. But sole possession is not in the rule. I don't understand why both could not have had possession when Cooks hit the ground, which makes it a catch.

 

[turkeyneck]

Players come out of the furball all the time with the ball, but possession stays with the player who had control when on the ground. "Possession out of the furball" is not in the rules.

Did Cooks have possession when he hit the ground? Not after hitting the ground and rolling, but the rule is when he hits the ground - like Ross posted. I see both players having possession as Cooks hits the ground and then the defender rips it out after they start to roll (I think this is what you mean by in the furball).

I think people think if both players had their hands on the ball than Cooks did not have sole possession. But sole possession is not in the rule. I don't understand why both could not have had possession when Cooks hit the ground, which makes it a catch.

Yes, Cooks did satisfy points (A) and (B) of the rule. It is a split-second judgement call whether he satisfied point (C) as to "long enough". It is my judgement that he did not. Others can judge otherwise.

 

[Tunescribe]

Mcermotts press conference lmaoooooooooo IM STANDING UP FOR BUFFALO d%#*!@t. FOH

He came across as measured and reasonable overall, but that bit was high school-ish.

 

[Ross12]

He came across as measured and reasonable overall, but that bit was high school-ish.

I’m just surprised he didn’t take his pants off like Mike Singletary.

 

[Tunescribe]

I’m just surprised he didn’t take his pants off like Mike Singletary.

That certainly would have guaranteed the Bills a new coach next season.

 

[The Gr8est]

The world rooted against seeing the first 19-0 season in NFL history in 2007, and celebrated it too. I never forgot. I also didn’t forget those who were calling that 2001 team a fluke, or that the NFL wanted the Pats to win because of 9/11, or that the Pats didn’t deserve to win because of the Tuck Rule. Over time I just learned that it comes with the territory, and that more exposure to other fanbases through the internet means more hate directed towards your team. People were hating the Patriots because this team’s greatness was coming at the expense of their favorite teams. It’s lonely at the top, but damn is the view wonderful. I learned to focus on enjoying my team and worry less about whether or not people on the outside feel the same. We may never be universally loved or pitied again, and that’s perfectly okay with me. As our captain Stefon Diggs recently said, “I like us!”

Not only were opposing fans rooting against us, the league conspired against the Pats with their draconian penalties for minor or totally fabricated offenses, BECAUSE THEY WERE TIRED OF THE PATS WINNING BUT COULDN’T BEAT THEM ON THE FIELD.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Cooks has a knack for finding himself in the post-season spotlight, not for positive reasons: J McCourty pass break up in Super Bowl LIII, getting knocked out in LII, and now this.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Yes, Cooks did satisfy points (A) and (B) of the rule. It is a split-second judgement call whether he satisfied point (C) as to "long enough". It is my judgement that he did not. Others can judge otherwise.

That is right. What does "survive the ground" mean? Some think it means hit the ground, some think it means hit the ground and roll over, some think it means hit the ground and stop moving. I think it means hit the ground without the ball moving. If you think it means hit the ground and roll then we do not see it the same.

Either way, with 5 turnovers the Bills did not deserve to win.

 

[NFL Mystique]

Cooks can't let a guy take the ball from him. Just like he can't try and jump over a guy instead of going for an easy first down in the SB. Or, allowing a defender to run from the other side to break up an easy TD in the SB. Granted, that was a great play.

Point being, this guy seems to come up short in every big game.