Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

RayClay said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL.....Todd Pinkston......great example.....he did that crap all the time

RayClay said:

We're in dead parrot territory on this issue.

Click to expand...

you were there the moment you started

IllegalContact said:

nice drama......but irrelevant

you must prefer this

Click to expand...

If only there was something on the human body between the neck and the knee...

Marinlik said:

If only there was something on the human body between the neck and the knee...

Click to expand...

except that if the receiver has the right to protection, the defender has the right to his own self-preservation........going for the knees in that instance is perfectly legal.....have at it.....TJ Ward made a great play if that's the case...not only was it legal, but it made the pats easier to beat the rest of the season

Don't know if this was posted. I noticed that there was a certain player was hustling and running to block on DMAC's return. That player was #75!!!! anyone who thinks that Vince is just a tub of lard to clog the middle should watch him run on that play- and he's coming back from a serious leg injury.

PATSNUTme said:

Don't know if this was posted. I noticed that there was a certain player was hustling and running to block on DMAC's return. That player was #75!!!! anyone who thinks that Vince is just a tub of lard to clog the middle should watch him run on that play- and he's coming back from a serious leg injury.

Click to expand...

he loves the game.......and, he's got depth around him now and can take some more breathers......

IllegalContact said:

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

Click to expand...

Everyone on the planet has agreed its not helmet to helmet.
He said the receiver was defenseless and it was shoulder to facemask, which is illegal on a defenseless receiver.
At this point you are just clowning yourself, and not worth the time.

PATSNUTme said:

Don't know if this was posted. I noticed that there was a certain player was hustling and running to block on DMAC's return. That player was #75!!!! anyone who thinks that Vince is just a tub of lard to clog the middle should watch him run on that play- and he's coming back from a serious leg injury.

Click to expand...

His name may not get mentioned as much as Revis, Collins,etc. but he's the heart and soul of that defense.

AndyJohnson said:

Everyone on the planet has agreed its not helmet to helmet.
He said the receiver was defenseless and it was shoulder to facemask, which is illegal on a defenseless receiver.
At this point you are just clowning yourself, and not worth the time.

Click to expand...

he said nothing definitive about anything else......for you, at best he said was that 'it was close'

stop embellishing

UK_Pat37 said:

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.

Click to expand...

And the rule book says shoulder to neck area on a defenseless receiver is illegal.
I disagree with the rule as much as anyone, but I can't put cotton in my ears and throw a temper tantrum in order to ignore it exists and was violated on this play, like others appear to be doing.

AndyJohnson said:

And the rule book says shoulder to neck area on a defenseless receiver is illegal.
I disagree with the rule as much as anyone, but I can't put cotton in my ears and throw a temper tantrum in order to ignore it exists and was violated on this play, like others appear to be doing.

Click to expand...

but you do put cotton in your ears....at least when it comes to what Blandino has to say

mayoclinic said:

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

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with Rodney.

My take:
After watching up-close replay with league apologist Blandino on the NFLN, I begrudgingly agree
that the hit was technically a penalty; not helmet-to-helmet, but shoulder-to-facemask.
However, for some to claim that the receiver was defenseless - and therefore should be, like, allowed?!?
to catch the ball is absolutely preposterous. He needed to be de-cleated, but Browner just has to do a
better job of lowering his shoulder until it is below the opponent's neck, and of leading with his arms
in a more obvious wrapping-up motion.

captain stone said:

My take:
After watching up-close replay with league apologist Blandino on the NFLN, I begrudgingly agree
that the hit was technically a penalty; not helmet-to-helmet, but shoulder-to-facemask.
However, for some to claim that the receiver was defenseless - and therefore should be, like, allowed?!?
to catch the ball is absolutely preposterous. He needed to be de-cleated, but Browner just has to do a better job of lowering his shoulder until it is below the opponent's neck, and of leading with his arms
in a more obvious wrapping-up motion.

Click to expand...

No one said he should be allowed to catch the ball.
What is being said is that he is by definition a defenseless receiver and that rule says he must not be hit in the head or neck area.
As I have said repeatedly:
1) The hit was illegal
2) If the hit were a little bit lower, and in the exact same circumstances, it would be legal
3) If the hit were in the exact same spot, but after he had caught the ball and been able to 'brace himself' it would also have been legal
4) I love the play by Browner, even if it does get called and I would rather have him drill the guy than take his time to worry about whether he is contracting the neck or pectoral.

This whole argument boils down to how you view the defenseless receiver rule. IMO I do not want to see the disgustingly poor play of Todd pinkston league wide. I want tough guys who go over the middle and make catches where they know they are gonna get lit up but come down with it anyway. At the same time I don't want players living shortened lives with brains of mush so a balance needs to be found. Thus the defenseless receiver rule which is simply while in the process of making a catch (bobbling or otherwise) they can not be hit in the neck or head. I agree with AJ in that I hate the rule and in this case the wrong call was made (no helmet to helmet contact) but the hit itself based on the rule was illegal. Much like spygate it's a minor thing on a technicality...make the exact same hit same time 6 inches lower no penalty and everyone loves browner for making a HUGE play. Its also like the tuck rule. Hate the rule and think it's stupid but as written it was called correctly. IC at some point you have to be able to agree to disagree and not just say bad call case closed. You are entitled to your opinion that bobbling it means he is no longer defenseless. I, and I think Andy, think because he is concentrating on catching the ball he deserves to not be hit in the head. Light him up and make him lose the catch? Hell yeah! Just not by hitting him in the "neck area" which browner unfortunately came to close to.

Something tells me he will have the biggest impact in the Playoffs - and i mean in a good way

meatface said:

I don't think that they should review flags because of how long it would take...

Click to expand...

Why do people keep saying this?

It would NOT delay the game anymore than challenges do right now.

You have two challenges a game and all plays//calls should be subject to review with those 2 challenges.

They only get a 3rd challenge if their first two were successful, in which case it shouldn't matter one iota I'd it slows the game down another 2 minutes because refs were making incincorrect calls and teams used their challenges successfully to make them right.

JarOfMayo51 said:

Why do people keep saying this?

It would NOT delay the game anymore than challenges do right now.

You have two challenges a game and all plays//calls should be subject to review with those 2 challenges.

They only get a 3rd challenge if their first two were successful, in which case it shouldn't matter one iota I'd it slows the game down another 2 minutes because refs were making incincorrect calls and teams used their challenges successfully to make them right.

Click to expand...

I agree with this and would even go so far as to say if they are right coaches get to keep winning challenges just like the third one. You get two chances to be wrong but truly horrific refereeing like that Seahawks-Steeler debacle would have a better chance of being fixed.

I hate how vague the NFL rules are. Why don't they clarify these discrepancies? It's not like this is the first time this has come up as an issue in the NFL. Why can't they add something that plainly states what the rule is when the receiver is bobbling the ball? Why can't they clearly define the neck region? Why can't they state whether grazing an area counts as a hit to the area? Wouldn't that make this so much more consistent?

I swear to god, if I did my engineering logic like they do their rule logic, I'd be SO fired. Can you imagine if computer software ran on vague logic like this? We have the capacity to lock this down because highly specific logic does exist. So what's the problem? ...oh, right. That guy.

Haley said:

I hate how vague the NFL rules are. Why don't they clarify these discrepancies? It's not like this is the first time this has come up as an issue in the NFL. Why can't they add something that plainly states what the rule is when the receiver is bobbling the ball? Why can't they clearly define the neck region? Why can't they state whether grazing an area counts as a hit to the area? Wouldn't that make this so much more consistent?

I swear to god, if I did my engineering logic like they do their rule logic, I'd be SO fired. Can you imagine if computer software ran on vague logic like this? We have the capacity to lock this down because highly specific logic does exist. So what's the problem? ...oh, right. That guy.

Click to expand...

Exactly how I feel. They do not define anything and keep things very vague, its frustrating. People wonder why there is so much disparity with these calls.