Predicting NE Miracles Should Not Be Possible. But we do it

Waterboy, went back and looked at the play again a second time. The first time was just focusing on any movement of the ball after hitting the ground. This time I looked at the ball as he was flying through the air. I did see what appeared to be movement as the ball seemed to move slightly along his torso a bit, but yet the other point still pinned in his elbow.

Movement is okay provided it is done within a player's control. It is not okay if it is not in his control like a jarring hit by the ground, he is still trying to get control of the ball and its still moving and one has not demonstrated control over the ball, etc.

It just it comes down to an opinion if this movement was him still trying to secure the ball, was not able to maintain control of the ball, or that he was still in control of the ball. As he had already got his two feet in and his next touch of the ground was out of bounds, Cooks will not be able to use any securing of the ball after hitting the ground and would be deemed not in possession of the ball if that movement was not in his control.

I did not see it the first time and understand now where you are coming from regarding the Cooks play. .

 

As someone that frequents Patriot game threads, I can assure that "Gronk getting every call" is about as far away as possible from the general consensus of Pats fans as you can possibly get.

While most would agree Gronk pushes off from time to time, they would challenge you to find a replay of a route where he isn't held, illegally contacted, or pass interfered with... and the refs seemingly ignore the activity because Gronk BIG, defender small. A prime example being the play he lost his shit on and speared the Dolphins defender.

 

I could easily be wrong here, but my interpretation is that Cooks landed in the end zone both feet down with possession of the ball. The play should be dead at that moment as a TD. Yes he was knocked out of bounds immediately after, but I feel he completed the process of the catch before that. The Jesse James play was a lot different. James was already mid air when he caught it and didn't complete the process. It may be annoying, but I think that it's correct based on the wording of the rules. So I feel both times were the right call.

Don't get me wrong I dislike these rules, and think they need to be adjusted or at least clarified a bit but I feel they were accurate calls.

 

I agree with you that Gronk should have received more than one game suspension. If you read my other post I go into detail on this.

Also I agree that Jenkins call was difficult to understand since it was not that obvious to begin with. But you also have to give credit for the Patriots Butler for swiping at the ball. which caused movement, and made the call even possible. I think rewarding the defense with possession on a fumble in and out of the end zone is not fair. Maybe the fair thing to do is rule a loss of down and the ball be placed at the 20. The offense still keeps the ball, but now at the 20. Then again my idea might still suck, who knows. But I think it would still be better than the present rule.

 

I will back you up that you have repeatedly ripped Gronk and stated he deserved more games.
As for the Jenkins touchdown why the 20? He established himself as a runner, moving them back essentially 19 yards and a loss of down though better still sounds ridiculous. In cases such as this the ref should have the authority to award the Jets the ball at the spot of the fumble, the 1 yard line. The league wants offence but are discouraging players from pushing for a score. The rule needs a lot of work to eliminate these "grey areas."

 

(sorry long post)

I hear yah. I just want to make sure you are not confusing possession with control, which are two different things with the latter being a sub part of the former. For some one catching a ball we have two cases in which one can be credited with possession, standing and going to the ground.

Standing.

When able to stand we have

Possession = (1) control + (2) two feet/body part north of knee + (3) become a runner (3rd step/football move, etc.).


Going to the Ground

If one is not able to stand and going to ground (voluntarily or by defender) we have

Possession = (1) control + (2) two feet/body part north of knee + (3) maintain control of the ball through the ground (stop it from moving before the ball is dead by it hitting the ground or WR touches out of bounds). In practice, there really is not need for the becoming the runner, so long as the WR has the ball secured for a moment, it is possession (so a defender ripping it out after a momentary pause is not incomplete)

NOTE: If the player can not control the ball from moving, everything is reset and one must fulfill the 3 elements. So if a WR gets two feet down while falling out of bounds and bobbles it before hitting the ground out of bounds, it is not possession as he lost the credit of his two feet being in, also if the hits the ground and bobbles it, the play is dead as he is out of bounds.

With James, he hit the ground, he could not prevent the ball from moving, things reset, but the ball touched the ground, so ball is dead (no different than if the ball hit the ground and bounced into a WR in the first place, no possession), no possession, no TD

With ASJ, they said ball moved as he rolled out of bounds, things reset, he is touching out of bounds once he secured the ball, ball dead therefore no possession, no TD

With Cooks, the ball appeared to move whilst he was in the air, if movement deemed outside his control, things reset, as he is in the air can not get his two feet down, as next body part touch (fore arm) is out of bounds, ball dead, therefore no possession, no TD.

A quick caveat not all going to the ground and uncontrolled movement results in no possession, only when the ball is dead before securing the ball. So for example, if a WR grabs the ball in the middle of the end zone, goes to the ground on his back with the ball i his chest and bobbles it for 3 seconds, then secures it. It is possession and TD at point he grabs it after it spun for 3 seconds. The ball was never dead as the ball never hit the ground and the WR was not touching out of bounds. The WR would have possession at that point (control, body part down (back) and momentary pause after securing it).

Similarly, had James had his hands under the ball when it moved on him and the ball never touched the ground, he would of had possession when his right had secured the ball when he was lying on the ground, possession, ball in end zone, TD.

20 years ago, we did not have the going to the ground or football move, so Cooks and James would be TDs. The way you describe Cooks. But some have said with the additions of the 3rd elements, a jarred ball after 2 feet is an incomplete pass as opposed to a fumble (old rule possession and it is stripped resulting in fumble)

 

Is Brady gay for this trainer guy? I ask because he sure was PMSing when the media was asking about Belichick taking away his boyfriend. What kind of grown man is that upset about a personal trainer?

 

Just a good way for the team to funnel extra cash to Br*dy though the company he owns with the trainer. Taking that away, takes away the salary cap work around, money out of Br*dy's pocket.

Edit: Just pulled up a NY Post article on the recent rift and saw this, "Guerrero’s murky background has come to light in recent days.", sorry but anyone that has been paying attention has known that this guy is shady.

 

It just happened yet again.... NFL takes a clear touchdown away from NEs opponent. How many times is this going to happen?

 

Now the Bills can join the #metoo movement.

 

Wow don't you believe that drinking extra water will prevent skin cancer?