Yes like the Gronk-Kuechly play from 2013 - it's uncatchable because the defender rode the receiver out of the play.Keyshawn Johnson on NFL Primetime on the Cooks PI call: “The New England Patriots are going to get calls. That’s just simple and plain.”
He earlier said that call was a bad one because the ball was uncatchable.
My favorite comment in there is:
Because Harry Hooper is a sensitive flower.Why does Jim Nantz dislike the Patriots?
Whatever. If there was this conspiracy, they would have said Lewis didn't fumble. That call, had it been overturned, would have been just as iffy as others they claim show that the Pats get every call.Keyshawn Johnson on NFL Primetime on the Cooks PI call: “The New England Patriots are going to get calls. That’s just simple and plain.”
He earlier said that call was a bad one because the ball was uncatchable.
But they are dumb.Whatever. If there was this conspiracy, they would have said Lewis didn't fumble. That call, had it been overturned, would have been just as iffy as others they claim show that the Pats get every call.
It's stupid because it makes the people saying it look dumb.
He doesn't hate the Patriots. He wants an interesting game to call. The Patriots continually winning is fucking boring to him. The upstart Jags coming into NE and upsetting the Patriots is a far more interesting story than Bill and Brady winning again.There's over a decades' worth of games where Nantz very obviously LOOOOOOVES Peyton Manning and has shown a bit of coolness to the Pats. I concede that Nantz is the exception to most of the national broadcasters, though.
There was actually a third Cooks deep ball that was PI with the defender holdings Cooks’ arm, but they probably withheld it because of PI fatigue. The ball landed right in his breadbasket otherwise.There was a play early in the game where I think it was Amendola was held AND interfered with on the same play. Yet no one is commenting on THAT non call.
And that is one of the most obvious PI calls ever. Bouye had two hands on Cooks shoving him away from the route and out of bounds. He wasnt running him out, he was using two hands to direct him there while the ball is in the air
Yeah, Romo called out Cooks for the ball going right through where his hands should have been, not noticing that the DB blatantly grabbed his arm and held it down.There was actually a third Cooks deep ball that was PI...
I live in Montana country in the Bay Area and that sentiment is pretty common. At this point, its also laughable given just about every statistical measure. That won't stop Montana fans and Patriot haters from arguing that Brady is inferior for whatever twisted logic they choose to put forth so I've stopped discussing him/the Pats with any non-NE fans.Amazingly I’m still seeing people saying Montana is still the better QB. Brady has now doubled his SB appearances. Brady is 18 games over .500 in the playoffs which is more than the total number of Montana playoff wins.
Yeah I don’t get some of the complaints. The refs let them play today. 6 accepted penalties on Jax- false start, delay of game, illegal formation (or shift when they rushed to avoid a possible challenge), helmet-to-helmet on Gronk, and the 2 DPI’s that Cooks drew. They all seemed like straight forward calls. Take out the procedural flags and the personal foul and you’re left with 2 contact/judgement flags. 3 if you include the decliners holding.Yeah, Romo called out Cooks for the ball going right through where his hands should have been, not noticing that the DB blatantly grabbed his arm and held it down.
The refs let them play and the biggest difference in this game is that Jax committed some really blatant penalties and some of them actually got called.
I haven't seen a close-up replay of it, but watching it live and the other replays at-distance, it looked like he knocked Cooks out of bounds (legal), but then continued to block him while out of bounds (illegal) and prevent him from re-entering the field (illegal). Is that not what happened? Is there a good view? Crucial play either way.And that is one of the most obvious PI calls ever. Bouye had two hands on Cooks shoving him away from the route and out of bounds. He wasnt running him out, he was using two hands to direct him there while the ball is in the air
knockingnoutnof bounds isn’t legal. He’s not a gunner. If he did knock him out, it’s illegal contact after 5 yards.I haven't seen a close-up replay of it, but watching it live and the other replays at-distance, it looked like he knocked Cooks out of bounds (legal), but then continued to block him while out of bounds (illegal) and prevent him from re-entering the field (illegal). Is that not what happened? Is there a good view? Crucial play either way.
Steeler fans are having a Pitty partyA NE-Philly Super Bowl has to be their worst nightmare.
So what happens to national announcers who do have a rooting interest? Are they immediately sent to hell? So we never get to notice it? Are they immediately fired because they’re breaking a network rule? They’re human beings so of course some some of them have a rooting interest. To say that they don’t is the epitome of stupidity. Had to say so, it’s true! Sorry.Local announcers, sure. I'm talking about national announcers. They don't have a rooting interest. I don't agree with all the posts about Nantz and Romo wanting the Pats to lose.
You cannot shove a runner with your hands off the route while the ball is in the air. That is PI. If he shoved him before the ball was thrown, then it is illegal contactknockingnoutnof bounds isn’t legal. He’s not a gunner. If he did knock him out, it’s illegal contact after 5 yards.
I mean, it's shocking to me that you would even need to know the formal rules to understand this. If this wasn't the case, DBs would just push receivers out of bounds every single time on sideline routes.Its amazing how many NFL talking heads are too stupid to read the rule book
From the replay of the Lewis fumble, the correct call was made when the official ruled it down. However, it's unclear if there would have been enough evidence to overturn had the official not blown the whistle and allowed Jack to run the ball back.I should add that the Patriots did get a bit lucky on two calls that were questionable to me. First, I think there maybe was holding on Lewis' run at the end of the game. It was close, but a grab on the edge on running plays tends to get called. That was 50/50.
Second, I do not think Jack was ever down by contact on his fumble recovery. Lewis came close with his foot but didn't get him. The officials blew the whistle and ended the play before declaring it a fumble, but he looked like he could have gone a long way and maybe even scored, but because they ended the play the most they could do was give him the ball at the recovery spot.
This has been posted a number of times. He does NOT need to be touched after gaining full possession. That is not the rule.ISecond, I do not think Jack was ever down by contact on his fumble recovery. Lewis came close with his foot but didn't get him. The officials blew the whistle and ended the play before declaring it a fumble, but he looked like he could have gone a long way and maybe even scored, but because they ended the play the most they could do was give him the ball at the recovery spot.
What are you seeing to say it's correct? I rewatched and they showed about 10 replays -- focused on the fumble not down by contact. There's one angle that looks like Lewis' foot touches his butt but on one quick angle they show you see it misses by at least a foot. Just curious what you saw -- did someone else get him?From the replay of the Lewis fumble, the correct call was made when the official ruled it down. However, it's unclear if there would have been enough evidence to overturn had the official not blown the whistle and allowed Jack to run the ball back.
Oh. Weird rule, but ok.Dude, this has been posted a number of times. He does NOT need to be touched after gaining full possession. That is not the rule.
I thought they blew the play dead and the official was signaling that LEWIS was down by contact. I thought that was the initial call. And then when they talked it over, they were ruling that no, it turns out that Jack had the ball and it was a fumble. I could totally be wrong but that's what I thought they were saying, which is why the whistle blew.What are you seeing to say it's correct? I rewatched and they showed about 10 replays -- focused on the fumble not down by contact. There's one angle that looks like Lewis' foot touches his butt but on one quick angle they show you see it misses by at least a foot. Just curious what you saw -- did someone else get him?
I'm not even sure it was called down by contact on the field. I think the play might have been whistled down by the side Judge who didn't know Lewis lost the ball and then the other official said it was a fumble.
I like this photo. I'd take another serving.
It's actually not weird. It happens on catches where there's a bobble all the time. Well, not all the time, but a lot.Oh. Weird rule, but ok.
Contact that occurs as the defender begins to establish control of the ball is valid. It doesn't need to happen after Jack had fully gained control of the football for him to be down by contact. It was the right call.What are you seeing to say it's correct? I rewatched and they showed about 10 replays -- focused on the fumble not down by contact. There's one angle that looks like Lewis' foot touches his butt but on one quick angle they show you see it misses by at least a foot. Just curious what you saw -- did someone else get him?
I'm not even sure it was called down by contact on the field. I think the play might have been whistled down by the side Judge who didn't know Lewis lost the ball and then the other official said it was a fumble.
It's almost like the refs actually know what they're doing. Until you look at twitter.I thought they blew the play dead and the official was signaling that LEWIS was down by contact. I thought that was the initial call. And then when they talked it over, they were ruling that no, it turns out that Jack had the ball and it was a fumble. I could totally be wrong but that's what I thought they were saying, which is why the whistle blew.
Yeah, I guess I can see that. But you can draw up imaginary plays where it would look stupid and where you'd prefer that you need possession -- to be a runner -- to be tackled or down. But, the rule is the rule.It's actually not weird. It happens on catches where there's a bobble all the time. Well, not all the time, but a lot.
iirc, Nantz and Petyon share an agent, which may drive his underwhelming enthusiasm for all things Pats...or his failing/refusal to delve into Peyton and HGH-gate at all during broadcastsHe doesn't hate the Patriots. He wants an interesting game to call. The Patriots continually winning is fucking boring to him. The upstart Jags coming into NE and upsetting the Patriots is a far more interesting story than Bill and Brady winning again.
They'd have to talk to their kids otherwise.I don't understand how anyone who honestly believes the NFL is fixing games for the Pats would continue to spend any time watching football. Why would you want to watch a league that was actively favoring one team over the others?
If it wasn’t the rule, players could intentionally “bobble” the ball when they hit the ground and then get up and run. It’s similar to the tag-up rules in baseball where a runner can tag up the moment it hits a fielder’s glove.Oh. Weird rule, but ok.
This is incredibly true! At the end of the first half, my phone was remarkably silent despite having had a group text where much shit was talked pregame. I even sent out a text in the 4th quarter "Cat got your tongue?" No takers. After the game, I wanted to be classy so I send a last text to the group "The NFL can have their league back when BB and TB12 are goddamned good and ready."An underrated side benefit of these comebacks is how, for many of the people rooting against New England, the looming specter of a possible (probable) Brady 4th quarter comeback just sucks the joy out of games where the Patriots find themselves getting beat. Talking to a few non-Pats fans today, to a person they all admitted that they couldn't take much enjoyment out of the first half of yesterday's game because they just knew it wouldn't hold up.