Soooooooo.... our headsets were cutting out?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,041
Name
Stu
The only thing about the head shot on Cooks is that Cooks head lowered more than the defenders head. I don't think it was anything more than a continuation play of these two players movements and could argue Cooks actually lowered his head into the other guys head. So I don't think it should have warranted an ejection but at the same time, there absolutely should have been a helmet to helmet penalty thrown in there. You just can't ignore that.

We haven't heard the last on this play. That's for sure.

Question I have....can replay be the catylist for an ejection? A flag? I seriously doubt the NFL would want to open up that can and allow penalties based on new views from replay, but replay influencing elections wouldn't be criminal to me.
To me it was more about angles. Cooks is running forward and appeared to lower his helmet to avoid a direct hit while the defender launched with his head. To me, that’s a clear violation.

As to not wanting to allow replay to decide that, college does it and it seems to work better than what we’re seeing in the NFL. I don’t see any reason NOT to.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,041
Name
Stu
To add, the most important thing in all of this is player safety. If they need to use it to stop targeting, then it seems far more important than literally ANYTHING else for which they are using replay.
 

DR RAM

Rams Lifer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
12,111
Name
Rambeau
I asked someone about that and he stated they changed the rule during the offseason that as long as the defender doesn't wrap his left hand around the receiver, then it is not a PI if the intent of the defender was going after the ball.

I can't remember if the defender wrapped his left hand around Gurley or just put his left hand on Gurley's back while going for the ball. Definite contact before the ball but I do not know enough about this new rule to judge one way or the other.
Yes, the rule was changed, but...it was wrapped, and he pushed. That non-call, IMO gave the Seahags the notion that things were on their side. Remember, it was 3 and out, and then we blocked a punt, that TD early in the game might have stopped them, before they started, but it certainly gave them the balls to cheat all they wanted to.
 
Last edited: