- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Holy shite, Cooks had caught it and knee went down
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:35 pm to moneyg
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:35 pm to moneyg
quote:This is just so obvious, I don't even understand what the argument is. People are acting like - since there's a defender present - that the rule changed in the moment to "it's a catch immediately in the very nanosecond that the receiver touches the ground".
Cause isn’t relevant. You have to complete the catch and completing the catch means you control the ball through the ground and maintain that control.
That didn’t happen. Him hitting the ground and losing it tot he defender was all a simultaneous act.
2
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:41 pm to GWfool
quote:
That either has to be a catch and down by contact or just an incomplete
How can a ball that never touched the ground be incomplete?
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:44 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
That was a fricking travesty. He doesn’t need “firm possession” once the play is dead. JFC.
They need firm possession before they go out of bounds for a reception.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:44 pm to RLDSC FAN
If portnoy agrees with you, you are most definitely wrong
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:49 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
"it's a catch immediately in the very nanosecond that the receiver touches the ground".
Not if he loses possession, if the ball hit the ground it would have been incomplete instead the DB took it
This post was edited on 1/17/26 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:51 pm to H-Town Tiger
If the ball had popped out at the point the DB took it.. it's incomplete every time so not yet a catch. That makes it an obvious interception to me.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 8:52 pm to LSUBoo
quote:
If the ball had popped out at the point the DB took it.. it's incomplete every time so not yet a catch. That makes it an obvious interception to me.
I agree
Posted on 1/17/26 at 10:11 pm to infantry1026
I was rooting for the Bills, but if no one touched Cooks and the ball came loose there, I feel very confident it would have been incomplete, not a fumble.
IMO, he did not survive the ground with the ball and therefore the correct call was made.
We can debate about what the rule should be, but based on what it is, I think it was definitely the correct call.
IMO, he did not survive the ground with the ball and therefore the correct call was made.
We can debate about what the rule should be, but based on what it is, I think it was definitely the correct call.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 10:19 pm to Big Scrub TX
I’m ok with the cooks call
Not ok with them swallowing the whistle on the PI on cooks at the end of
Regulation just to then call borderline PI back to back for the broncos
Not ok with them swallowing the whistle on the PI on cooks at the end of
Regulation just to then call borderline PI back to back for the broncos
This post was edited on 1/17/26 at 10:20 pm
Posted on 1/17/26 at 10:33 pm to GWfool
quote:The ball never hit the ground and no one was out of bounds, so it clearly can’t be incomplete. You can rule that out. Now the question is who caught the ball.
That either has to be a catch and down by contact or just an incomplete.
The NFL catch rules are ridiculous. When the pass initially hit someone’s hands (Cooks), the DB wasn’t even close. Unfortunately for Buffalo, the NFL catch rules are retarded. Cooks must maintain possession through the ground if he doesn’t get two feet down (or 1 knee) AND make a football move. Cooks got a knee down, but didn’t make a “football move” (whatever TF that means). So the DB was rewarded with the INT.
You have to reframe what you think a catch is in the NFL, it’s not just 2 feet. It’s 2 feet AND a football move. It’s dumb, and I fully expect the NFL to adjust what’s a catch this offseason. This has affected the outcome of a few big games this season.
Apologies for the long post, but I’ve done extensive research (including reading the NFL rules thoroughly
) a few weeks ago when something similar happened in a Pittsburgh game. NFL catch rules are broken. 
Posted on 1/17/26 at 10:53 pm to whatiknowsofar
quote:
Have to survive the ground with the ball.
He did. Surviving doesnt mean rolling iver and having a db grab it.
Catch, yes
Control, yes
Down by contact, yes
Rolling around and having db pry it AFTWR YOURE DOWNED BY CONTACT.........not a turnover
Worst call I've seen this year
Posted on 1/17/26 at 10:54 pm to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Surviving doesnt mean rolling iver and having a db grab it.
It does if you catch it going to the ground with zero football moves or steps.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 10:57 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:Of course - that's the exact point. Instead of incomplete, the DB took it and it never touched the ground. It was the exact right call.
Not if he loses possession, if the ball hit the ground it would have been incomplete instead the DB took it
Posted on 1/17/26 at 11:29 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
If there had been no defender and the ball had popped out on the ground, there's no chance they would have given him the catch. There simply was no way for him to have completed it prior to the ball coming out.
He survived the ground.
What he didn’t survive was the DB taking the ball away from him after they were on the ground already, which means it should have been a catch and a dead play before the ball was ripped out.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 11:32 pm to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
He did. Surviving doesnt mean rolling iver and having a db grab it. Catch, yes Control, yes Down by contact, yes Rolling around and having db pry it AFTWR YOURE DOWNED BY CONTACT.........not a turnover Worst call I've seen this year
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. You’re absolutely right.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 11:33 pm to infantry1026
That was 100% an int am shocked this is even remotely controversial
Posted on 1/17/26 at 11:35 pm to SirWinston
quote:
That was 100% an int am shocked this is even remotely controversial
Is this a troll, jackass?
Posted on 1/17/26 at 11:36 pm to cbree88
No there's zero way that could have been anything other than an interception.
I recognize that the majority of upvotes / downvotes support your opinion. That's what surprises me. MSB is usually pretty good. Way wrong on this one. That's an INT 100 out of 100 times. I wasn't worried it would be overturned in the slightest.
I recognize that the majority of upvotes / downvotes support your opinion. That's what surprises me. MSB is usually pretty good. Way wrong on this one. That's an INT 100 out of 100 times. I wasn't worried it would be overturned in the slightest.
This post was edited on 1/17/26 at 11:38 pm
Posted on 1/17/26 at 11:42 pm to SirWinston
You’re wrong. The receiver survived the ground and then had it ripped out by the DB afterwards.
That’s not an interception.
bullshite call at a critical point in the game. That call goes to the offense 99% of the time.
That’s not an interception.
bullshite call at a critical point in the game. That call goes to the offense 99% of the time.
Posted on 1/17/26 at 11:49 pm to cbree88
quote:
You’re wrong. The receiver survived the ground and then had it ripped out by the DB afterwards.
Ball was ripped out immediately. If it was ripped out "afterwards" I'd agree with you. But it was ripped out during the play. Its close - ill give you that.
Were talking about. 25 of a second. But it's clearly an INT in both game speed and slow motion replay. Cookie gotta hang on to that
This post was edited on 1/17/26 at 11:52 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News