There are two ancient and well known dictums in English law: 1) "The divel himself knoweth not the thought of man" and 2) "The state of a man's mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion".
We will never know what was going on in Barr's mind and actually we don't need to know. All we need do is determine what the visual evidence objectively tells us he can reasonably be considered to have known or ought to have known. He had plenty enuf time to know before contact that AR would be in a vulnerable position and he chose, and I suspect consciously (tho this is not necessary to my conclusion), to land with his full weight (especially damning given the express wording of the rule) on the obviously defenseless AR (instead of opting for a less punishing type of contact). So Mannc 1, 26 0 (in my humble and respectful opinion). I will say that lots of wise heads disagree, for example Tony Dungy, who says it was just football. Still I think I see stuff like that called in the pocket all the time.
As for the fumble through the endzone, Corrente agrees that SJ regained possession and control (as in having a firm grip) after bobbling the ball, but he claims there was a second loss of possession as he went to the ground which none of the tape supports. To the contrary, the tape and two AP still frame shots from the back of the endzone show him with a firm handle of the ball as he breaks the plane at the pylon while still in bounds. So 100% coverup and fake news. Next time Corrente shows up in the meadowlands Jets fans should string him up to a goal post and let him hang there till he rots.
And whats with Brady doing all the time joining in on on field ref conferences (when all other players get pushed out)? There is another legal sayng, "justice must not only be done, but it must also manifestly appear to be done". Maybe someone should tell those dufusses in the league office how bad that looks.