Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[Marinlik]

VP of officiating on the Browner hit http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000441569/Was-this-

 

[RayClay]

Rodney Harrison predictable likes Browner's hit, and his aggressiveness in general:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...on_browner_s_style_perfect_for_pats_d_penalty

I agree that Browner attempted to make that hit legally and should continue being aggressive. Tough for a guy 6'4" on that play. I don't think Harrison is saying that was legal under the rules, however. He knows what the rule is and incurred plenty of penalties in his career that were borderline.

It's pretty clear, and I've searched some articles, that the rule under which that is a penalty derives from a Patriots player being paralyzed on a then legal hit.

The argument that a player who is moving and trying to control a juggled ball doesn't count as defenseless is so absurd it's not worth arguing.

 

[IllegalContact]

You said many many times he isn't defenseless because he should ignore the football and defend himself.
The exact point of the rule is to protect him so hr doesn't have to do that.
You have taken a rule designed to protect a receiver while he is focused on catching the ball and said that it means he should ignore the ball and watch for and defend against the hit. It's moronic.

Learn to read/comprehend. I didn't say he should do anything. Only the fact that he is capable to avoid/ward between the time he first touched the ball and the contact by Browner.

 

[IllegalContact]

The argument that a player who is moving and trying to control a juggled ball doesn't count as defenseless is so absurd it's not worth arguing.

yup........he wasn't defenseless.

If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

it was a bad call.....case closed.......especially if you consider the fact that the call was 'helmet to helmet' (which it wasn't)

 

[RayClay]

yup........he wasn't defenseless.

If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

it was a bad call.....case closed.......especially if you consider the fact that the call was 'helmet to helmet' (which it wasn't)

Stupid argument. The receiver isn't required to be tied up with a ball gag in his mouth to be considered defenseless.

 

[IllegalContact]

Stupid. The receiver isn't required to be tied up with a ball gag in his mouth to be considered defenseless.

I didn't see that written in the rules anywhere. there are no requirements other than the receiver to be capable of avoiding/warding. he had opportunity to catch the ball......

'hold off everyone......let him secure the ball first!!!'

what's stupid is the notion of a rule meant to address technique dependent upon whether a player secures the ball quickly or it takes awhile.

 

[UK_Pat37]

But it is incredulous to say that a receiver should abandon a catch to avoid a hit that is illegal while he is making a catch.
Remember if the hit is a foot lower at the same moment it is legal and if it is the exact same hit after the attempt to catch the ball is over it's legal.
The league is protecting a player who is distracted by doing his job which is catching the football. It defies logic to say he should be watching for a hit while he is trying to catch the ball and be expected to give up on the catch to defend himself.
The receiver is defenseless because he is focused on the ball not because he chooses to be.

The rule is written in order to protect the receiver. It's idiotic to say he should stop being a receiver to protect himself against a hit that the rule book protects him from on order to allow him to concentrate on the catch.

Very well said. I have no issue with the defenseless player penalties given the recent scientific research on brain damage. I myself suffered a head injury playing, which resulted in long term effects, and that was from a perfectly acceptable form hit whilst I was ready for it. Therefore it really is logical to protect these players and, given the fact a player is taught NOT to turn his head up field until he has completed the catch, it's ludicrous to suggest he should be doing the opposite as he'd have dropped it.

Saying that I don't think Browner should receive any criticism either. After re-watching numerous times I am resigned to the fact that he will probably get a fine because it is close enough to the neck and the NFL should be backing their referees whenever they can. Whilst you can't expect a WR to pull out of the catch, I don't expect a defender to back out of that hit.

I love how Browner is hitting. He needs to keep it up and just try and get a tiny bit lower. Sadly though I don't know if it matters how lower you get...I feel referees flag a hit because it looks bad nowadays. The referees used to celebrate those kinds of hits and enjoy them. Now they are looking for reasons to flag anything.

Don't blame the referees however. Or the NFL. I hate fans who blame Goodell and the league. Players are successfully suing the league and ripping them off for millions upon millions when they opt to go for a more comfortable fitting helmet than a safer, tighter fitting one. The league are just protecting themselves. Who can blame them????

Interestingly I'd like to know what the league's stance on 're-refereeing' games is. Now if the referee gets a call blatantly wrong in Soccer in the UK, they will over-turn it however they won't then 're-referee' it and change the call. So considering they called 'helmet to helmet' in the game, and it wasn't, will they then reverse the reason for calling the penalty?

 

[Ring 6]

Learn to read/comprehend. I didn't say he should do anything. Only the fact that he is capable to avoid/ward between the time he first touched the ball and the contact by Browner.

You are saying he was in a position to defend himself which can only be the case if he abandons his attempt to catch the ball. The entire purpose of the rule is to consider him defenseless while he is catching the ball.
The NFL says while catching the ball you are defenseless. You are saying he was defenseless because he could have chosen to defend himself. By NFL definition that would mean he abandon his efforts to make the catch.
Its not reading comprehension, its writing comprehension. When you make a statement that requires something else to happen to be true, then you are saying the other thing must happen.

 

[IllegalContact]

After re-watching numerous times I am resigned to the fact that he will probably get a fine because it is close enough to the neck and the NFL should be backing their referees whenever they can.

and why would he get a fine?

head of officiating (Blandino) already stated that the call on the field lacked merit.

There is a majority opinion across all forms of media that there should not have been a flag.

 

[RayClay]

I didn't see that written in the rules anywhere. there are no requirements other than the receiver to be capable of avoiding/warding. he had opportunity to catch the ball......

'hold off everyone......let him secure the ball first!!!'

what's stupid is the notion of a rule meant to address technique dependent upon whether a player secures the ball quickly or it takes awhile.

So, you want players to stop playing football to make penalties harder to enforce?

Should they wear suits of armor just in case they might keep playing football by mistake and possibly be in a defenseless position at times?

Maybe they should employ the star wars defense system to prevent defensive hits?

 

[Ring 6]

yup........he wasn't defenseless.

If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

it was a bad call.....case closed.......especially if you consider the fact that the call was 'helmet to helmet' (which it wasn't)

Dean Blandino, who we can all agree is much more knowledgable about the rules than anyone on this board, said Green was defenseless. NOW Case closed.

 

[Ring 6]

and why would he get a fine?

head of officiating (Blandino) already stated that the call on the field lacked merit.

There is a majority opinion across all forms of media that there should not have been a flag.

No he did not. He said it was not helmet to helmet but was shoulder to facemask, the receiver was defenseless. EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.

 

[IllegalContact]

You are saying he was in a position to defend himself which can only be the case if he abandons his attempt to catch the ball. The entire purpose of the rule is to consider him defenseless while he is catching the ball.
The NFL says while catching the ball you are defenseless. You are saying he was defenseless because he could have chosen to defend himself. By NFL definition that would mean he abandon his efforts to make the catch.
Its not reading comprehension, its writing comprehension. When you make a statement that requires something else to happen to be true, then you are saying the other thing must happen.

the rule doesn't address that one way or the other. the rule doesn't say 'as long as he is trying to catch the football' .... only that he is capable to avoid/ward.....

yes.....at some point the receiver does have a decision to make in the name of self preservation

 

[RayClay]

the rule doesn't address that one way or the other. the rule doesn't say 'as long as he is trying to catch the football' .... only that he is capable to avoid/ward.....

yes.....at some point the receiver does have a decision to make in the name of self preservation

You want football to be like this?

 

[UK_Pat37]

and why would he get a fine?

head of officiating (Blandino) already stated that the call on the field lacked merit.

There is a majority opinion across all forms of media that there should not have been a flag.

I wouldn't agree with the decision, but we all know the league try and back their referees where they can...especially nowadays when it comes to the whole player safety aspect of the game.

The replay shows he is perilously close to the neck area and that is part of the rules. Whilst I don't think there should be a flag or a fine for that hit, I have a feeling the NFL backs their officials on this one because of the fact is in that neck region.

 

[RayClay]

Dean Blandino, who we can all agree is much more knowledgable about the rules than anyone on this board, said Green was defenseless. NOW Case closed.

It's not even close. That's an extreme example of a receiver being defenseless, it's text book.

 

[IllegalContact]

No he did not. He said it was not helmet to helmet but was shoulder to facemask, the receiver was defenseless. EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.

no....that's really not what he said.....go listen again and take the sticks out of your ears

he said it was close.......which is about as close to getting to 'I'm not throwing my refs under the bus' as you're going to get

"it's a very close call, but it's not helmet to helmet' is exactly what he said

 

[IllegalContact]

It's not even close. That's an extreme example of a receiver being defenseless, it's text book.

you are entitled to your own opinion, but that does not guarantee it's acuracy

 

[IllegalContact]

You want football to be like this?

nice drama......but irrelevant

you must prefer this

 

[RayClay]

nice drama......but irrelevant

I sometimes get caught up in an argument so much, I have to go back and realize, no matter how well I argue a point, I never had a logical argument. you've gone past that point by about twenty posts.

I even post a video of a receiver doing exactly what you said they should do and you say it's irrelevant. By all means keep saying the receiver in the Browner penalty wasn't defenseless when he got hit, I'm sure it's as amusing to others as it is to me.

We're in dead parrot territory on this issue.