Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

It was not a head shot, but those crossing shot are still scary. I still remember the hit by Jack Tatum on Darryl Stingley, ugh

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...

I hear you, but that was not the call the refs made. The referee clearly said, "Personal Foul, helmet-to-helmet hit", which is was not. And it cost us 6 points. If we had lost, that call could have cost us home field in the playoffs.

That was an egregious error on the part of the refs.

Even the national TV announcers were denouncing it right on the broadcast, and Boomer Esiason criticized it on his nationally syndicated morning after segment on the radio this morning, so it's not like we're just talking about grumblings from the home town fan base.

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 4m4 minutes ago
@scottzolak @JPRBRL57 @CSNNE but hit was shoulder to shoulder/neck. Worded it wrong. Call was right. Bad job announcing it muddied water

Tom E. Curran @tomecurran · 39m39 minutes ago
.@chrisgauv @JPRBRL57 @CSNNE you can hit a defenseless receiver just not in the head or neck. So your scenario is incorrect.

I can't deal with what the rules actually are - I didn't become a lawyer for a reason, that stuff gives me a headache - but I know two things :

1) Watching it many times, it SHOULDN'T be a penalty (making no judgement on whether it was ruled correctly).

2) Browner may not be Harrison but penalties or not it's nice to have the receivers not knowing if a big hit is about to come again.

TheBostonStraggler said:

Btw, lost in the BS nature of the call (and proper due given to those who feel the call was not BS) is Browner getting it friggin! done!. Big TE coming across the middle, Browner does it right and uses his shoulder, does not go helmet to helmet or helmet to neck, lays the friggin wood to the TE, creates an incompletion/turnover. PERFECT! MAJOR kudos to Browner. It's that kind of football that could be the difference maker when playing the knife fight brawl known as the Playoffs.

Please don't stop doing it Browner. If the refs call it and some fans think those hits are wrong? Don't care, keep doing it....

Click to expand...

And honestly, to your point, I don't want Brandon Browner to let up one bit, either.

I will take every 15-yard penalty and fine they lay on him, as long he keeps putting receivers on notice that if you venture into the Pats secondary, your ass is on the menu!

I love this kind of football. Reminds me of when I had Miami Canes season tickets back in the late 80's and early 90's. Our boys used to knock the snot out of people as a rule of standard operating!

#HelloTamarickVanoverhaveyouwokenupyet?

kennyb said:

Rule says unnecessary hit. It wasn't unnessessary. Ball was live.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. The player was bobbling the ball with a chance at gathering possession so the hit WAS NECESSARY. These days it's almost like all big hits are penalties. Rodney Harrison must be thrilled he played before Goddell

And let's just keep in mind (as I know we all are doing), that "defenseless receiver" (also known as the Wes Welker rule! Lol!) was not the call the refs made.

The referee clearly said, "Personal Foul, helmet-to-helmet hit", which is was not. And it cost us 6 points. If we had lost, that call could have cost us home field in the playoffs.

This was an egregious error on the part of the refs.

Even the national TV announcers were denouncing it right on the broadcast, and Boomer Esiason criticized it on his nationally syndicated morning after segment on the radio this morning, so it's not like we're just talking about grumblings from the home town fan base.

IllegalContact said:

The play was a clean shoulder to shoulder hit.....



it was shoulder to shoulder

at no time does Browner's helmet make contact with Green. At no time does Browner make contact with Green's helmet.

It is logic like this that makes TJ Wards hit on Gronk last year a perfect tackle

the notion of being 'defenseless' while running and bobbling is garbage. There was plenty of time between when Green first touches the ball and contact by Browner.

Click to expand...

His helmet had nothing to do with it, he hit him in the neck area. there is no doubt.

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...

Funny thing is, BB already dismantled that argument: coaches would still have the same number of challenges to throw, so how would it make the game longer? He's not calling for reviews of such penalties to be automatic (that would make the game longer), just challengeable. It's a ridiculous argument that we should take down every chance we get.

If they make PI challengeable, that will wreak havoc. In a good way.

Armen Da Pats Fan said:

And honestly, to your point, I don't want Brandon Browner to let up one bit, either.

I will take every 15-yard penalty and fine they lay on him, as long he keeps putting receivers on notice that if you venture into the Pats secondary, your ass is on the menu.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Justice was partly served a couple plays later when Ayer intercepted Rivers (drive didn't resulted in a TD)

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? Let the guy catch it, give him a massage, then gently bring him to the ground?

Click to expand...

That's funny stuff there, but here is the rule for what counts as hitting defenseless person:
The rules are the rules. They might not be consistent in their application, but in this case a good argument could be made that they got the exact call wrong (helmet-helmet), but that is sort of nit picking. Either penalty is the same consequence.

But yes, that freaking sucked.

RayClay said:

Somebody better at looking up rules can chime in, since they don't seem to make them easily accessible.

Click to expand...

The relevant rule (direct quote from the official rulebook) is the 4th post in this thread.

The penalty call for was for a helmet to helmet hit, not hitting a defenseless receiver. Everyone including Collingsworth keeps mentioning defenseless, but that was not the call, had nothing to do with this call, and would have been called by the ref as "hitting a defenseless receiver" if that's what he intended to call. The call was strictly for a helmet to helmet hit, which was erroneous, it was shoulder to shoulder.

40yrpatsfan said:

The penalty call for was for a helmet to helmet hit, not hitting a defenseless receiver. Everyone including Collingsworth keeps mentioning defenseless, but that was not the call, had nothing to do with this call, and would have been called by the ref as "hitting a defenseless receiver". It was strictly for helmet to helmet call, which was erroneous, it was shoulder to shoulder.

Click to expand...

So what? Illegal hit to defenseless receiver and H2H hit have the same penalty. I can't get particularly worked up about the refs saying "helmet-to-helmet" when what did happen was still illegal (you can hate the rule, but it is the rule) and has the same penalty as what they did call.

rlcarr said:

So what? Illegal hit to defenseless receiver and H2H hit have the same penalty. I can't get particularly worked up about the refs saying "helmet-to-helmet" when what did happen was still illegal (you can hate the rule, but it is the rule) and has the same penalty as what they did call.

Click to expand...

Exactly. People are getting too hung up on pedantic linguistic points. Suddenly we have a bunch of schoolmarms on the board.

I enjoyed how the defense reacted. They played pissed off for the rest of the game.

7 points allowed away to a playoff contender. I'll take it.

RayClay said:

His helmet had nothing to do with it, he hit him in the neck area. there is no doubt.

Click to expand...

1. The call was a helmet to helmet hit.

2. Browner did not hit him in the neck area. Watch the .GIFs that show a looped replay of the hit over and over again.

If this happened to Gronk we'd be screaming for a penalty. In the new NFL that is unfortunately a penalty. Unless the rules committee clarifies it we have to live with it. Eugene Wilson had a similar hit on Wayne or Harrison in the 2003 playoffs and it was considered a good hit. Things have changed with the concussion protocols, etc. I don't think Browner will be fined, however. Just take the 15 yard penalty. Fortunately did not cost the Pats, but did hurt my darn fantasy team!!!

neuronet said:

That's funny stuff there, but here is the rule for what counts as hitting defenseless person:

Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him​

The rules are the rules. They might not be consistent in their application, but in this case a good argument could be made that they got the exact call wrong (helmet-helmet), but that is sort of nit picking. Either penalty is the same consequence.

But yes, that freaking sucked.

Click to expand...

I think that definitively means there was no penalty. He hit him in the shoulder, not the neck area. This was not a case where he hit his torso then their helmets hit.

I find it hard to believe the "neck area" means shoulder. When writing this rule why didn't they use the word "shoulder" if that's what they meant? Within the rule they used the term "shoulder" so they did not apply the term "neck area" to mean shoulder anywhere else in the rule. Obviously in the rule writers mind the terms shoulder and neck area had two distinct definitions.

Now we're going to say the the rule writer suddenly in the middle of writing the rule changed his definition for "shoulder" to "neck area."