Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

He clearly lead with the shoulder. One of the worst calls this year.
I'm glad it didn't cost them the game.

You can disagree with the rule as written (and that's a fair thing to do), but given that the rule as written says it's illegal to among other things contact a "player attempting to make a catch" in the "neck area", even with "the shoulder", I don't think the call is as outrageous as many are making it out to be.

It's cost us before, and other poor calls have cost us a game.

For example, the famous "4th & 2" play against the Colts. Kevin Faulk gained just over 2 yards on that play, but the ref spotted the ball short. Replays consistently showed Faulk just past the sticks and then being pushed back.

This penalty, fortunately, didn't cost us the game, but like you say, it might have. There needs to be some sort of review of these egregious penalties, in the same manner that fumbles and touchdowns are reviewed. In fact, this ought to have been reviewed WHEN the league replay officials in NYC reviewed the fumble. It should have been overturned than. But it wasn't.

I don't have any good answers yet, but there needs to be one. Poor refereeing should never cost one team or the other the game.

Cantabrigian said:

This adds fuel to BB's advocacy of all calls on the field being reviewable. I find the argument against it (it lengthens the game) to be nonsensical when the NFL is shoving commercials down our throats every chance they can.

Click to expand...

he actually said, its one of the 2 challenges in the game and if the coach chooses to use it nothing wrong with it. The argument against it wasnt the length of the game. Its because other coaches are scared to take responsibility of not challenging critical holding and PI calls and then getting called out after the game. Basically coaches dont know how they will use it. ITs easy to blame the refs after a loss instead of thinking on their feet and challenge critical calls. Heck , coaches even now dont know to challenge correctly sometimes.

rlcarr said:

You can disagree with the rule as written (and that's a fair thing to do), but given that the rule as written says it's illegal to among other things contact a "player attempting to make a catch" in the "neck area", even with "the shoulder", I don't think the call is as outrageous as many are making it out to be.

Click to expand...

It's outrageous to expect Browner to just stand there and not hit him. Otherwise, he was going to catch it.

What's Browner supposed to do? Tippy toe up to the guy and poke the ball away with his finger? Let the guy catch it, give him a massage, then gently bring him to the ground?

Patradomous said:

He clearly lead with the shoulder. One of the worst calls this year.
I'm glad it didn't cost them the game.

Click to expand...

Leading with the shoulder on a receiver "attempting to make a catch" is still illegal if contact is made even as low as "the neck area". One may not like it (I don't particularly), but that's what the rule says.

TBR said:

It's outrageous to expect Browner to just stand there and not hit him. Otherwise, he was going to catch it.

What's Browner supposed to do? Tippy toe up to the guy and poke the ball away with his finger?

Click to expand...

I didn't say I liked it, but on the other hand, do you want the refs to get into ignoring the rules (more than they already do)? As for what Browner is "supposed to do", he could have drilled the guy in the chest (or anywhere lower than "the neck area"). Like it or not, that's the sort of thing the rulemakers are trying to encourage.

rlcarr said:

You can disagree with the rule as written (and that's a fair thing to do), but given that the rule as written says it's illegal to among other things contact a "player attempting to make a catch" in the "neck area", even with "the shoulder", I don't think the call is as outrageous as many are making it out to be.

Click to expand...

It was a terrible call

rlcarr said:

Leading with the shoulder on a receiver "attempting to make a catch" is still illegal if contact is made even as low as "the neck area". One may not like it (I don't particularly), but that's what the rule says.

Click to expand...

But if we're going to define "the neck area" as the shoulder than half the tackles in the NFL are penalties. I'd call that definition pretty weak, never used, and not the intent of the rule.

I was 75 yards away from the play, and I could CLEARLY see that there was no helmet to helmet, and so could all of the Chargers fans since they went dead quiet until the convenient flag came out. One of the worst flags I've ever seen. Even in the moment it was obviously wrong

Bobsyouruncle said:

But if we're going to define "the neck area" as the shoulder than half the tackles in the NFL are penalties. I'd call that definition pretty weak, never used, and not the intent of the rule.

Click to expand...

If a player isn't in a "defenseless posture" you can hit the neck area all you want. And once you've completed the catch you're basically not defenseless anymore. As the rule defining defenseless says, "If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player".

rlcarr said:

For reference in this thread, here's the defenseless player rule since that has at least a chance of being legitimately applied to the Browner play. (I do think a H2H call was indefensible):

Click to expand...

How many penalties on the Lafell fumble for a touchdown went uncalled. I saw a few block in the backs and at least one block that should have been a crack back.

That said, garbage call on Browner. I loved the announcers railing him for his penalties this year, most have been crap. Tonight, he hit the receiver too hard. Flag football is upon us, terrible potentially game changing call.

I agree it was a bad call...in a vacuum. Not surprised it was called on the road though. If that's the Razor, the TD stands and the rout is on. This was a road game. Good teams will overcome adverse decisions on the road. The Pats ARE a good team. They need to continue to turn up the heat, continue to make these hits...everything will even out, especially if they STAY on their home field. IMO of course...

Looks like the rule is more garbage than the call. If Browner gets fined then the rule looks even more garbage and the call would be right.

rlcarr said:

If a player isn't in a "defenseless posture" you can hit the neck area all you want. And once you've completed the catch you're basically not defenseless anymore. As the rule defining defenseless says, "If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player".

Click to expand...

Regardless of his defenseless status he was not hit in the head or neck area. If the neck area is the shoulder, why didn't the rule say shoulder. The omission leaves us one possibility. The rule makers did not intend the neck area to be the shoulder.

It's the Bill Leavy crew...I warned everybody pregame to expect some real head scratchers.

rlcarr said:

You can disagree with the rule as written (and that's a fair thing to do), but given that the rule as written says it's illegal to among other things contact a "player attempting to make a catch" in the "neck area", even with "the shoulder", I don't think the call is as outrageous as many are making it out to be.

Click to expand...

Only it was shoulder to shoulder.

woolster22 said:

How many penalties on the Lafell fumble for a touchdown went uncalled. I saw a few block in the backs and at least one block that should have been a crack back.

Click to expand...

Hell, how about the way late hit on Gronk on his TD?

Even the chargers and broncos fans in the Reddit game day thread agree it was a bad call

SVN said:

he actually said, its one of the 2 challenges in the game and if the coach chooses to use it nothing wrong with it. The argument against it wasnt the length of the game. Its because other coaches are scared to take responsibility of not challenging critical holding and PI calls and then getting called out after the game. Basically coaches dont know how they will use it. ITs easy to blame the refs after a loss instead of thinking on their feet and challenge critical calls. Heck , coaches even now dont know to challenge correctly sometimes.

Click to expand...

That applies to us lately. The patriots challenge process seems a bit off, I was surprised they didn't challenge the clear catch the announcers were arguing...
Edit: I'm being sarcastic.