- 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 1/19/26 at 7:41 am to Funky Tide 8
Posted on 1/19/26 at 7:41 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:
so what should the rules be? What should they say in the rulebook?
It should be simple and as cut and dry as possible. None of this oh the receiver must survive the ground. When they cannot clearly define what constitutes surviving the ground. Also this bullshite about a receiver has to make a football move? Well what exactly is a football move? One step, two steps, three? They have too much questionable stuff cooked into the rules that you do not get consistent calls. If you catch the ball and control it that is it, is how the rule should read.
0
Posted on 1/19/26 at 7:42 am to Eighteen
quote:
He hits the ground, then defender rips it away as they roll over. It was never bobbling or loose until after the ground and the defender rips it away
It's not rocket science. You have to maintain control through contact with the ground. Doesn't matter that a defender is what rips the ball away instead of the ground contact. Watch the video and imagine the defender wasn't there it's just cooks catching the ball and the ball rolling away after ground contact. Zero chance anyone would call that a catch.
In the video above both players maintain possession through contact with the ground and have both hands on the ball. The wresting for the ball part was irrelevant as simultaneous possession goes to the Offense and the play was dead once both players were down on the ground. The wresting away happened after the play was over.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 7:44 am to TigerChief94
You just now figuring that out. Someone wrote a book about it years ago.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 7:48 am to DeoreDX
quote:
It's not rocket science. You have to maintain control through contact with the ground. Doesn't matter that a defender is what rips the ball away instead of the ground contact. Watch the video and imagine the defender wasn't there it's just cooks catching the ball and the ball rolling away after ground contact. Zero chance anyone would call that a catch.
In the video above both players maintain possession through contact with the ground and have both hands on the ball. The wresting for the ball part was irrelevant as simultaneous possession goes to the Offense and the play was dead once both players were down on the ground. The wresting away happened after the play was over.
people are being so dense and annoying about this shite.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 8:32 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
How did he survive the ground? That ball was in his hands less than a second before getting loose. He caught it in the air so there was never a football move.
quote:
A catch isn't fully complete until the player is stable on the ground (or has completed their football act)
quote:
This
This breaks the game. Defenders can simply spear would-be ball catchers as they go to the ground and on the ground. Literally cannon ball on arms and hands and chests.
No football move would be made by the would-be ball catcher. They wouldn’t have survived the ground if they never became stable.
Don’t ever let ball catchers going to the ground become stable, period. Don’t let them make a football move and the window to intercept the ball can be infinite.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 8:36 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:We just want to know the exact moment something becomes a catch.
You have to maintain control through contact with the ground. Doesn't matter that a defender is what rips the ball aw
There is a split second where it goes from unknown to known.
When is that moment?
Can I prolong the act by never letting the receiver “survive the ground?” I can just keep intruding ground to survive by aggressively making the receiver defend against me while he’s still on the ground.
ETA: My contention is if the above slop can’t be answered, then one cannot also claim the Cooks play WASNT a catch.
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 8:39 am
Posted on 1/19/26 at 8:39 am to s0tiger
quote:
Everyone is ignoring the fact that Denver had already won the game if the refs correctly called the egregious holding in the endzone on Buffalo at the beginning of the drive.
There was an EGREGIOUS PI no call on Brandin Cooks in the endzone (in 4th Quarter) that would have led to a TD. Which likely would have ended it in regulation. See, we can do this all day.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 9:23 am to Brightside Bengal
quote:They won’t answer your question.
So I have a question...with the cooks catch / int call in the game yesterday.....if the defender hadn't clawed the ball out but just fell to the ground with cooks.....at what point would the catch have been completed? When they both stopped sliding on the ground from their momentum?
Bit I can answer it for you.
They have now established that it isn’t a catch until the defender/defenders are done trying to pry the ball from the receiver’s hands while on the ground.
Simply keep them on the ground. No football move. Haven’t survived the ground yet. Just keep going until the ball is out.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:36 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:Somebody should post the video of Kayshon's TD yesterday.
This breaks the game. Defenders can simply spear would-be ball catchers as they go to the ground and on the ground. Literally cannon ball on arms and hands and chests.
No football move would be made by the would-be ball catcher. They wouldn’t have survived the ground if they never became stable.
Don’t ever let ball catchers going to the ground become stable, period. Don’t let them make a football move and the window to intercept the ball can be infinite.
The commentators didn't mention it, but you can pretty clearly see Stingley attempt to kick the ball out of his hands while he's on the ground. Had he done so, I think it's pretty likely it would not have been a TD - despite the fact that Kayshon was already in contact with the ground and had the ball.
quote:I don't see how this differs from a forward progress situation. You very often see a runner with possession of the ball have like 5 guys ripping and pulling at him trying to get the ball out. At some point, the play is blown dead for forward progress. As we can see, your "infinite" comment is just dumb.
Don’t let them make a football move and the window to intercept the ball can be infinite.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:40 am to Big Scrub TX
Simple, roll his arse forward while you’re trying to pry the ball out.
Receiver is still interacting with the ground, hasn’t made a football move, and isn’t yet settled.
What’s dumb is watching a guys knee and shoulders go down while in possession of the football and him not being down. Especially if the ground isn’t what caused the ball to no longer be controlled.
I know my argument here isn’t air tight.
Receiver is still interacting with the ground, hasn’t made a football move, and isn’t yet settled.
What’s dumb is watching a guys knee and shoulders go down while in possession of the football and him not being down. Especially if the ground isn’t what caused the ball to no longer be controlled.
I know my argument here isn’t air tight.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:45 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:That's easier said then done - not to mention a lot of these are sideline/OOB situations.
Simple, roll his arse forward while you’re trying to pry the ball out.
quote:I have never said I thought the rule was necessarily good. All I've said is the criteria were met - according to the current rule.
What’s dumb is watching a guys knee and shoulders go down while in possession of the football and him not being down. Especially if the ground isn’t what caused the ball to no longer be controlled.
It's weird that people act like this is all so new. How often do we see the one where the guy catches the ball and starts running and then there's a fumble...and then the replay shows he really just didn't have it long enough to be a catch? And that's not always a bobbling situation. The football move is a thing. Surviving the ground is a thing. And judgments about both of those things are a thing.
Re the specific Bills play, I just don't see how anyone can argue the rule is actually "the very hundredth of a second he touches the ground with the ball, it's a catch". You don't actually think that.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:47 am to DeoreDX
quote:
Watch the video and imagine the defender wasn't there it's just cooks catching the ball and the ball rolling away after ground contact. Zero chance anyone would call that a catch.
Sure, but imagine the defender isn’t there and therefore it stays firm control and he completes the catch. We never know, because it was the defender who dislodged the ball as he hit the ground.
This doesn’t get the argument anywhere, just citing scenarios but not rules. It’s arbitrary.
The only rule, which was cited by Gene in the booth and he said multiple times on air during replay, was Cooks didn’t control the ball or have firm control on the way to the ground. Which is completely made up and not reality, Cooks had complete sole possession of the ball from high point all the way to the ground. On the ground is when it’s then ripped out by defender. It was never even simultaneous possession.
The defender should have to dislodge the ball before the ground, just like a fumble.
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 10:52 am
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:58 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:I do
Re the specific Bills play, I just don't see how anyone can argue the rule is actually "the very hundredth of a second he touches the ground with the ball, it's a catch". You don't actually think that.
I don’t think a catch is hard to see. An actual catch.
And I don’t think it’s hard to see if a guy who caught the ball, and is in possession of the ball, has a body part hit the ground that constitutes him being down.
You catch the ball and then knee hits the ground while you still have possession, it should be a catch. Mostly bc you literally caught the ball and are literally down(down by contact in the Bills example). Nothing else matters to me. Especially not some arbitrary amount of time or distance needed to flop on the ground before we claim we saw your hands holding the ball as you went down and were touched down.
Maybe you don’t have control if you’re pinning the ball to your helmet and hit the ground and it moves/bounces away. I see good reason to think maybe that wasn’t solid possession. A ball being held and a knee going down is easy to see.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 2:16 pm to ReauxlTide222
You're arguing "what should it be" as opposed to "what has to be called given what the rule actually is".
If we're going down that rabbit hole, my idea for instant review is that the call on the field is irrelevant. They should let a remote team - with ZERO knowledge of any aspect of the particular game - look at the play and just say what they think happened.
If we're going down that rabbit hole, my idea for instant review is that the call on the field is irrelevant. They should let a remote team - with ZERO knowledge of any aspect of the particular game - look at the play and just say what they think happened.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 4:38 pm to ReauxlTide222
Are y'all still melting over this call? It wasn't a catch. Let it go.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News