So, still, nobody is able to disprove the 70 million viewers claim (cited by NBC, SI, ESPN, Fiesta, LA Times, PSU, several books, etc). Or even offer another published number (aside from the 52 million citation from the NY Times).
And that's the point. The game moves so fast real time it's hard to tell who's helmet hits who's
Doesn’t change the fact that they still can’t lead with their helmet on a tackle.
It is damn near physically impossible to not have your head and helmet leading when you make a tackle.
Yet they still call it all the time, but they didn’t in this case. Apparently these refs didn’t read the memo informing them they had to cheat on behalf of the Patriots. It’s funny that so many posters can come to the officials’ defense when the calls go against the Patriots, but when they go in favor of the Patriots then it’s cheating.
I think you are reaching wayyyyyy to far on this one.
There is probably "helmet-to-helmet" contact 40-50% of every tackle. In real-time, high-speed action, helmet to helmet occurs because the ball carrier twists, turns or is otherwise contorts their body such that the defender cannot possibly react to the motion/movement and prevent it. That was the point that the poster made above when he suggested (sarcasm I think) that Cooks be cited. It wasn't the defender. It was Cooks who actually initiated the contact.
Just because a helmet touches a helmet does not automatically indicate a penalty. In fact, in this case, the rule was explained to you why there was no penalty on that play. This was not controversial.
There is probably "helmet-to-helmet" contact 40-50% of every tackle. In real-time, high-speed action, helmet to helmet occurs because the ball carrier twists, turns or is otherwise contorts their body such that the defender cannot possibly react to the motion/movement and prevent it. That was the point that the poster made above when he suggested (sarcasm I think) that Cooks be cited. It wasn't the defender. It was Cooks who actually initiated the contact.
Just because a helmet touches a helmet does not automatically indicate a penalty. In fact, in this case, the rule was explained to you why there was no penalty on that play. This was not controversial.
If it went against the Eagles you can bet your life it would have been made controversial. And Cooks did not initiate it at all, he didn’t even see the guy coming at him. I’ve definitely seen the call made for less.
BS. Anyone who knows anything knew that that was a hard, no-penalty hit. Not even controversial.
Not controversial because it went the way people wanted it to. The calls in the AFC championship were correct as well, but many made them controversial because they went in favor of the Patriots. People see what they want to see. When people are discussing particular calls and writing about them, they are controversial whether fans think they’re right or wrong. I’ll bet Pats fans think they’re controversial.
here's an article on that very play with a gif of the hit on Cooks, looks to me 27 leads with his shoulder, and the helmets only contact each other due to the force of the shoulder hit, but believe what you want. One thing for sure, he certainly wasnt defenseless
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/2...ule-explained-examples-helmet-hit-defenseless
Similar threads
