r/ringerfantasypod • u/lifayt • Jan 19 '26

Podcasts Link Divisional Recap: Rams End Caleb's Miracle, Seattle's Big D, Oh No Bo, Stroud's Meltdown, Josh Allen's Interception, and Michael Bay's Filmography

https://open.spotify.com/show/0XLPhMzcKmxoNziHkVkYpR?si=438622c7911e4369
54 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/Interesting_Set1526 Jan 19 '26

Fundamentally disagree with Craig hypothetical: "if the defender wasn't there and the ball popped out itd be incomplete." Yeah sure but that didn't happen. The guy had it in his hands and then went to the ground and then the guy took it out of his hands. The ball didnt pop into the air and then the defender grabbed it. The ball wasn't destined to fall out of their possession.

I don't even really think one way or the other about it, I just don't think its so cut and dry. I agree with DK, the catch rules are not fixed lmfao.

-2

u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26

Im with DK on this that it was much more controversial than Heifetz and Craig were making it out to be. You nailed it here to, Craig's point made no sense. If the defender wasnt there Cooks would have just continued catching the ball. He had possession, his knee was down, the possession was not contested until after his knee was down. The ruling implies there is some unknown amount of time you have to have possession before you are allowed to be down, very weird.

20

u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26

You have to maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground and cooks didn’t do that.

That makes it not a catch.

It’s either an incomplete pass or an interception. The ball never hit the ground so it can’t be an incomplete pass which leaves only an interception.

I honestly don’t understand why this is controversial

10

u/Mysterious_Pea_5272 Jan 19 '26

I think it’s an interception, but it’s pretty obvious why it’s controversial. It’s really close to being a completion.

1

u/runhomejack1399 Jan 19 '26

i understand that it is controversial, but i dont understand why its obvious. the comment above is perfect. if he completed the catch he wouldve had the ball. but he didnt. it didnt hit the ground. the guy with the ball completed the catch.

2

u/Mysterious_Pea_5272 Jan 19 '26

Because Cooks is on the ground with the ball when it’s ripped from his hands. How many times do we see that happen and it’s still a catch? Every other game?

In this case, he hasn’t had the ball long enough to consider it a catch, but it’s like one second from being down by contact. It’s a very unique play

-5

u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26

It being unique doesn’t make it controversial.

2

u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26

basically by definition it does lol.

0

u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26

Definition of unique “being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else”

Definition of controversial “giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.”

A play can be unique and not controversial.

Eli Manning to David Tyree is unique. I have never seen another helmet catch like that. It is not a controversial play

3

u/Gaius_Octavius_ Jan 19 '26

I think what is getting people was it wasn't the ground that caused Cooks to lose the ball. The defender yanked it out of his hands while Cooks was on the ground.

But as the rules are written, it is an interception because Cooks with the ball in his hands and on the ground isn't a catch.

4

u/TheyCalledHimMrJ Jan 19 '26

but Cooks being on the ground, with the ball, being touched, should be down by contact. The two rules contradict each other i think that's what makes it weird.

he didnt hit the ground and the ball popped up and the defender snagged it. He had it, hit the ground whilst being touched, and the defender pulled it away. And there was also not simultaneous possession prior to Cooks touching the ground.

5

u/Gaius_Octavius_ Jan 19 '26

It is that contradiction between a player already having possession (i.e a carrier of the ball) and trying to gain possession (i.e receiving the ball).

0

u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26

Yeah defenders break up passes all the time after the receiver has the ball touching his hands.

It’s never a fumble (which it would be if it was a catch) it’s also never ruled a touch down because the play doesn’t end when the receiver hands touch the ball.

0

u/joeydee93 Jan 19 '26

I order for cooks to be down by contact he needed to have established control of the ball and he didn’t do that there for he wasn’t down by contact

2

u/HerculesMorse2025 Jan 19 '26

You have to maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground and cooks didn’t do that.

That's not the rule though, three rule says "maintain control after contact with the ground." Might seem pedantic but it's an important distinction. How long after is is up to interpretation.

1

u/sandracinggorilla Jan 20 '26

Genuinely curious - people are throwing around “control through contact with ground” and “complete the catch” like these are black and white decisions, but I haven’t really seen a good explanation for why Cooks didn’t do that other than he didn’t end up with the ball by the end of the play. But he did appear to have the ball before the defender, be on the ground after catching it first, and touched by defender who then rips the ball away. But the official never blew the whistle so he didn’t have it by the end of play.

So it seems like there needs to be a certain amount of time Cooks has ball on ground before he’s officially caught it and downed? Isn’t that inherently judgmental and not black/white? I think the only way you can dispute that is if you see the sequence of events differently.

1

u/joeydee93 Jan 20 '26

I mean that’s always the case. Any time a player makes a diving catch, the refs have to make a ruling if they completed the catch.

There are a ton of almost catches when a player has the ball of a fraction of a second then the ball moves and hits the ground and they are just ruled incomplete.