- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I rest my case, Buffalo got screwed
Posted on 1/18/26 at 9:53 am to Eighteen
Posted on 1/18/26 at 9:53 am to Eighteen
quote:
Cooks has firm possession by himself at the high point
That’s not considered possession until he’s completed the catch
quote:
The defender never even has it until they are on the ground
Defender has two hands on it before cooks is on the ground, then makes a clean rip away from Cooks as he rolls over Cooks. There’s no struggle for possession - defender cleanly pulls it away from Cooks in an instant. The “tie goes to the runner” cases are when there’s a prolonged struggle on the ground
If Cooks actually reeled in the ball after putting two hands on it and then is downed before the defender has two hands on the ball, I’d agree with you. But Cooks is still pulling it in when the defender already has two hands on it
3
Posted on 1/18/26 at 9:55 am to Upperdecker
Its not even really a question. People are just looking for a reason to be outraged for a team that turned the ball over 5 times.
Posted on 1/18/26 at 9:55 am to Upperdecker
So let’s say a defender never touches a WR at all until the wide receiver catches the ball and is sliding on the ground. The defender can legally dive into the sliding WR and cause an incompletion?
Posted on 1/18/26 at 9:55 am to Upperdecker
so how is that consistent with this being a Chiefs catch, then? Cooks just needs to have firm control and be down.
it’s not near as clear cut as you are making it sound IMO
my issue is they never actuated explained the rule that made the catch incomplete. Gene just kept saying Cooks didn’t have firm or complete control, which just isn’t true and he sounded dumb saying it while showing slow motion replays of Cooks with two hands on the ball and it not moving at all.
He did have firm and complete control and lost it on the ground in the wrestle with the db. That part of the rule has everyone debating, how long does a db have to pull a ball away down on the ground?
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. it’s not near as clear cut as you are making it sound IMO
my issue is they never actuated explained the rule that made the catch incomplete. Gene just kept saying Cooks didn’t have firm or complete control, which just isn’t true and he sounded dumb saying it while showing slow motion replays of Cooks with two hands on the ball and it not moving at all.
He did have firm and complete control and lost it on the ground in the wrestle with the db. That part of the rule has everyone debating, how long does a db have to pull a ball away down on the ground?
This post was edited on 1/18/26 at 10:00 am
Posted on 1/18/26 at 9:56 am to TigerChief94
Josh Allen fumbled twice. James Cook fumbled once.
Those three fumbles led to 13 Denver points.
Buffalo screwed themselves.
Those three fumbles led to 13 Denver points.
Buffalo screwed themselves.
Posted on 1/18/26 at 9:58 am to Eighteen
quote:
and the defender doesn’t get unlimited time to knock a ball loose once they are on the ground
It's not unlimited time. But Cooks literally didn't have possession of the ball on the ground for a single second. Cooks didn't have complete possession. Watch the replay again, the defender had his arm underneath the ball in the air. Once they hit the ground, he came up with it. That's why it's an interception.
If Cooks held unto the ball more. And the defender had to actually wrestle the ball away with force on the ground, and then that's where the rule of "the tie goes to the offense" would come in at. But in this instance, there was never a fight over the ball. Cooks simply didn't do a good job holding
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:02 am to Eighteen
quote:
so how is that consistent with this being a Chiefs catch, then?
Chiefs catch both offense and defense have two hands on the ball when they go down, then offensive player cleanly takes the ball away for possession. There’s no prolonged struggle
Gemini description of the rule:
quote:
4 What is simultaneous possession?
The Simultaneous Possession Rule in American football means if an offensive player (receiver) and a defensive player both gain control of a live ball at the same time (a "simultaneous catch"), the ball is awarded to the offense, favoring the receiver in this tie-breaking situation. It applies when joint possession is established inbounds, even if the ball touches the ground briefly during the simultaneous control, as long as the offensive player completes the catch process.
Key Aspects:
Tie Goes to the Offense: If neither player clearly establishes control first, the rule awards the catch to the offense (the passing team).
What It Looks Like: It's often described as a "tug-of-war" where neither player gives up their grip on the ball, even if they come down together.
Inbounds Requirement: Both players must gain possession inbounds for the rule to apply; if the ball goes out of bounds during the process, it's incomplete.
Distinction from Muff: If the ball is muffed (not controlled) after simultaneous touching by both players, it becomes a loose ball, and any player can recover it.
The “tug of war” look is what the rule refers to, which happens in neither this Bills Broncos game or the Chiefs Bills game, but does happen in the Shaheed catch in the OP
Edit: the previous video of the Bills Chiefs play doesn’t show the prolonged struggle with dual possession, which is what the ruling is based on. Changes how I view the play. They end up in the above tug of war, resulting in tie to the runner. You can argue whether Worthy had possession when the defender comes down, but he has two hands on the ball before the defender is down
Better look at the “tug of war”
LINK
This post was edited on 1/18/26 at 10:14 am
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:03 am to FairhopeTider
No, that one was ripped from the receiver before he hit the ground because the receiver was on Eric Reid's knee.
>
> Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:05 am to Upperdecker
quote:Dude. Worthy had zero hands on the ball
Chiefs catch both offense and defense have two hands on the ball when they go down
Bishop had both hands around the ball and it’s pressed on worthy’s side as it hits the ground but looks like Bishop pins it on worthy’s body
As they roll over worthy then grabs at the ball
This post was edited on 1/18/26 at 10:10 am
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:05 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Chiefs catch both offense and defense have two hands on the ball
Calling the Chiefs catch as having “two hands on the ball” is really generous, but if that’s your interpretation I can’t argue against it but I just don’t that that’s reality.
Cooks had two hands on the ball with firm control by himself from the start
This post was edited on 1/18/26 at 10:06 am
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:07 am to Eighteen
That Chiefs one looks more like an incomplete pass than anything.
But if you don't call it an incomplete, then this is a case where both guys have hands on the ball on the ground, and thus possession tie goes to the offense.
The difference is, is the Chiefs v Bills game, there's a moment where the guys are fighting for possession on the ground, where they're both clearly trying to hold on to the ball. This moment doesn't happen in our game last night. Cooks didn't even have time to fight to hold on to the ball, because it was already out of his hands.
But if you don't call it an incomplete, then this is a case where both guys have hands on the ball on the ground, and thus possession tie goes to the offense.
The difference is, is the Chiefs v Bills game, there's a moment where the guys are fighting for possession on the ground, where they're both clearly trying to hold on to the ball. This moment doesn't happen in our game last night. Cooks didn't even have time to fight to hold on to the ball, because it was already out of his hands.
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:09 am to QJenk
So the truth is a player can have complete and sole possession of the ball before hitting the ground and a player with zero possession can gain possession by ripping it out while on the ground if they do it really fast
I never once have heard it said that way but that’s what the rule is according to some
I never once have heard it said that way but that’s what the rule is according to some
This post was edited on 1/18/26 at 10:11 am
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:09 am to Eighteen
quote:
Cooks had two hands on the ball with firm control by himself from the start
Sure but there’s a process of a catch and he hasn’t completed it before the defender has two hands on it
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:15 am to lsupride87
quote:
So the truth is a player can have complete and sole possession of the ball before hitting the ground and a player with zero possession can gain possession by ripping it out while on the ground
No, the difference is Cooks did not have complete and sole possession. It looked like he did but in actuality the defender had his arm lodged in there. As well. To determine possession, he would have had to maintain possession once on the ground.
quote:
player with zero possession can gain possession by ripping it out while on the ground if they do it really fast
This did not happen. He didn't rip the ball away once on the ground. There was no forceful pulling by the defender. In a natural motion of the 2 guys falling to the ground, Cooks loses the ball. He didn't lose the ball in a struggle on the ground.
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:17 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
You can be mad, just be honest with yourself and have some integrity.
You're trolling with that comment
There is ZERO integrity in the NFL.
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:18 am to QJenk
quote:Now you are making things up
No, the difference is Cooks did not have complete and sole possession. It looked like he did but in actuality the defender had his arm lodged in there. As well. To determine possession, he would have had to maintain possession once on the ground.
Cooks has possession of the ball in his hands
He has possession while first hitting the ground
As he rolls on his back the defense rips and gains possession
You can have your interpretation and that’s fine, but this is exactly what happened, and maybe that is the actual rule
quote:
a player can have complete and sole possession of the ball before hitting the ground and a player with zero possession can gain possession by ripping it out while on the ground
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:23 am to TigerChief94
I think it was a catch, but if you don’t want the game to come down to that, don’t turn the ball over 4 other times
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:25 am to DownSouthCrawfish
quote:Correct. Wrong call in the Indy game.
That was a pick too
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:25 am to lsupride87
quote:
Cooks has possession of the ball in his hands
He doesn’t have NFL “possession” at that point. He has to complete the catch. In the process of completing the catch, and before he is “down”, the defender gets two hands on the ball. At which point Cooks hits the ground. Then the defender cleanly pulls the ball away in the process while they both had possession. There is no prolonged struggle for the ball, therefore there is no simultaneous possession ruling. Equally important, there is no single possession when the possessing player is downed, so it is not considered a catch from that rule. This isn’t the same as an established runner whose knee hits ground then a defender grabs the ball and pulls it out
Posted on 1/18/26 at 10:25 am to Eighteen
quote:It wasn't a tie.
As the rules are written, a tie goes to the offense.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News