Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

AndyJohnson said:

Of course there is, it has been posted in this thread many times.
A receiver ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A CATCH is judged as defenseless.
This results in one sole consequence. If the defender chooses to hit him in the head and neck area with his shoulder or forearm, a penalty will result.

Click to expand...

IllegalContact said:

so let me get this straight.....he gets a perfect pass but can't make the clean catch.....why is that on the defense? no that there is an actual point because he had 4 steps to avoid/ward.....he chose to stay with the ball for way too long and failed to brace himself....he had plenty of time....he just chose to ignore the inevitable.....

how long should they give him? his career would be over if browner chose to go lower.....at the moment of contact, green's right leg would have done a joe theismann

Click to expand...

Blandino said that the helmet-to-helmet call was incorrect. However, he said that there is a provision in the rules that bars forcible hits to a defenseless receiver in the head and neck area. He said that Browner could have been called for unnecessary roughness on the play because his shoulder made contact with Green's face mask before striking Green's shoulder.

Blandino said that there has been discussion of making such plays reviewable through instant replay, and that it might happen in the future. However, league rules currently have no provision for instant replay of hits that are ruled helmet-to-helmet collisions.

Click to expand...

“I think the first problem [was that] we announced helmet-to-helmet and this is not a helmet-to-helmet hit,” Blandino said. “That’s incorrect. When you watch the play, Browner actually does a good job trying to lead with the shoulder and get his head to the side. You can see his head is to the side and he does lead with the shoulder. The rule does protect the receiver who is trying to catch a pass; it does protect him from hits with the shoulder and the forearm to the head and neck area. When you watch this replay coming up, you can see there is some initial contact to the facemask … That’s really where the foul is. This is close. It’s a forcible hit. Is the contact, is that force to the head, or is it to the body? It is a very close play. But it’s not a helmet-to-helmet hit and I think that’s what confused a lot of people.”

Blandino also added plays like the Browner hit may be reviewable in the future, which is something Browner advocated for after the game.

“I would anticipate at some point this may be reviewable,” Blandino said. “It was discussed last year and I think it will be on the agenda because, like you said, at full speed, it’€™s tough to make those calls. But when you’€™re able to slow it down, you can discern between contact to the head and contact to the shoulder.”

Click to expand...

Onedaful said:

Watching this gif, you people are really going to argue that he didn't have enough time to avoid or ward off contact?

Click to expand...

The Brandon Five said:

League weighs in:

http://www.providencejournal.com/sp...ing-head-browner-hit-not-helmet-to-helmet.ece


Relief on the way, perhaps?

http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports...don-browners-hit-may-be-reviewable-in-future/

Click to expand...

1960Pats said:

Some of you are missing the point of demarcation on when the WR/Runner is vulnerable. It came up in the first handful of posts. He's DEFENSELESS until he COMPLETES the catch. That's why if the ball hit the ground on that play it would be ruled an incomplete pass and not a fumble.

Glad that's settled.

Now I think we need to go back and review how close Browner was to violating the launching rule. In one of the videos shown here earlier it showed Browner just barely on his toes and still going upward as he made the hit. That was borderline too.

He better clean it up before the playoffs. That penalty was avoidable

Click to expand...

IllegalContact said:

and a player who is capable of avoiding/warding is not defenseless.......and he was....he made the choice to completely ignore the inevitable

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

I've heard otherwise all over the place. Belichick, Rodney, Amani Toomer, Bob Papa, and almost every single other host on Sirius XM from the Opening Kickoff to Late Hits have all said this was a clean hit. And those are all people that are just coming off the top of my head. I understand that you don't make the rules, just try to understand them and what you're looking at. For one, that wasn't a helmet to helmet hit (as was called on the field). For another, it wasn't a dirty hit. That was clean shoulder to shoulder contact to separate receiver from ball and, if called properly, was a beautiful play that would have led to a turnover and a TD. So if you and the other putz that I have on ignore that just disliked my last post wish to dig your heels in on this one (sort of like the Bengals punter that got lit up last year), have fun. But there was nothing wrong with this hit and refs **** the bed on the field.

Click to expand...

pazrul72 said:

At what point does it become ok to just say I do not think he was defenseless but by the NFL rules he was and that is a ****ty rule? He had his eye on the ball he was bobbling that makes him attempting to catch a pass and the rule states that while they are attempting to catch a pass they can not be hit in the "neck area." Browner hit him 6 inches high and while bull$hit and ticky tacky as f%*$ it was an illegal hit.

Click to expand...

RayClay said:

Do any of them write the rules?

I know I don't, yet I'm jumped on like I do.

Click to expand...

RayClay said:

Do any of them write the rules?

I know I don't, yet I'm jumped on like I do.

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

No. They just have an understanding of it and can see how the zebra kicked the **** out of the call.

Click to expand...

IllegalContact said:

as I said....there's a few here whose 'superior football intellect' has painted them into a corner and far be it for them to admit they're wrong

Click to expand...

KontradictioN said:

That's exactly why one of them is a permanent fixture on my ignore list.

Click to expand...

1960Pats said:

Some of you are missing the point of demarcation on when the WR/Runner is vulnerable. It came up in the first handful of posts. He's DEFENSELESS until he COMPLETES the catch. That's why if the ball hit the ground on that play it would be ruled an incomplete pass and not a fumble.

Glad that's settled.

Now I think we need to go back and review how close Browner was to violating the launching rule. In one of the videos shown here earlier it showed Browner just barely on his toes and still going upward as he made the hit. That was borderline too.

He better clean it up before the playoffs. That penalty was avoidable

Click to expand...

1960Pats said:

Some of you are missing the point of demarcation on when the WR/Runner is vulnerable. It came up in the first handful of posts. He's DEFENSELESS until he COMPLETES the catch. That's why if the ball hit the ground on that play it would be ruled an incomplete pass and not a fumble.

Glad that's settled.

Now I think we need to go back and review how close Browner was to violating the launching rule. In one of the videos shown here earlier it showed Browner just barely on his toes and still going upward as he made the hit. That was borderline too.

He better clean it up before the playoffs. That penalty was avoidable

Click to expand...

Onedaful said:

So if a players can be prepared for a hit, your logic states he shouldn't protect himself?

Click to expand...

Onedaful said:

Watching this gif, you people are really going to argue that he didn't have enough time to avoid or ward off contact?

Click to expand...

DaBruinz said:

No. You are missing the point of demarcation. Once the bobble occurs, the rules of being a "defenseless receiver" go out the window. Just like the rules on defensive pass interference.

.

Click to expand...