Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

AndyJohnson said:

What was Green attempting to do at the moment Browner hit him in the neck?

Click to expand...

I don't know.......not trying to avoid/ward ... which he could have......the catching the ball train had already left the station......the ball looked like it was filled with helium floating away

AndyJohnson said:

So, here are Blandino's words:

"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.

Blandino cited the exact circumstances that ONLY apply to a defenseless receiver and called it a foul.
Obviously Blandino considers the receiver defenseless.
Please tell me you understand this.

Click to expand...

he did not call anything a fouls....he said it was close.....

I'll tell you what......put together a transcript of the Blandino video....then we'll discuss

AndyJohnson said:

We understand that you want the receiver to quit on the ball sometime before he takes 4 steps trying to make the catch.
But you didn't answer the question.
In your bizarre interpretation, exactly what would constitute a defenseless receiver?

Click to expand...

well....that's the point.....you use the word should or want when the rule when it comes to avoiding/warding only implies if he could ...... and he could .... which automatically disqualifies from being defenseless

AndyJohnson said:

You dont have to hit a receiver in the head or neck area to separate him from the ball.
Of course it is a bad rule, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the rule.

Click to expand...

which is irrelevant since it was clear he was capable of avoiding......which automatically disqualifies him from the neck are portion of the rule as it pertains to being defenseless......

IllegalContact said:

well....that's the point.....you use the word should or want when the rule when it comes to avoiding/warding only implies if he could ...... and he could .... which automatically disqualifies from being defenseless

Click to expand...

This is the whole point that has turned this into a 30 page thread. You believe because he should have caught it cleanly that he was not defenseless due to taking 4-5 steps. According to the rule until he catches it he is still "Attempting to make a catch" and thus is a defenseless receiver. Defenseless receivers can not be hit in the head or "neck area" and Browner made his head snap back as if he had hit a brick wall. In the split second a ref has to look at that he is going to be like whoa something is fishy there. In real time it looked a lot worse then it really was.
This is just going in circles, at least AJ has pictures and the rules and asks questions you never respond to just "bad call case closed" when it really isn't. It was a awfully ticky tacky bull$hit call but by the letter of the law, the correct one.

neuronet said:

He was obviously making tea, not trying to catch a football.

Click to expand...

it really doesn't matter since he was capable of avoiding rendering him not defenseless

keep trying

IllegalContact said:

I don't know.......not trying to avoid/ward ...

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm sure that's what Green would say he was trying to do.

pazrul72 said:

This is the whole point that has turned this into a 30 page thread. You believe because he should have caught it cleanly that he was not defenseless due to taking 4-5 steps. According to the rule until he catches it he is still "Attempting to make a catch" and thus is a defenseless receiver. Defenseless receivers can not be hit in the head or "neck area" and Browner made his head snap back as if he had hit a brick wall. In the split second a ref has to look at that he is going to be like whoa something is fishy there. In real time it looked a lot worse then it really was.
This is just going in circles, at least AJ has pictures and the rules and asks questions you never respond to just "bad call case closed" when it really isn't. It was a awfully ticky tacky bull$hit call but by the letter of the law, the correct one.

Click to expand...

well....that's your take on it.....guess it boils down to what constitutes an attempt which is not specified.

based on your thinking, the bobbling could go on indefinitely since it isn't specified.

the problem is that over that entire time, the receiver is technically capable of avoiding/warding.......it doesn't matter whether he should or wants to....it only matters that he could. the wording on this is clear that is he is capable (and he was) that it automatically renders him not defenseless

I've produced plenty of point and the fact is that at every level of knowledge, there are many more people calling it a bad call

it is an amazingly simple concept and is clear that it is not a matter of you being unable to understand......you are refusing to understand

neuronet said:

Yeah I'm sure that's what Green would say he was trying to do.

Click to expand...

why are you still here? can't let it go? kind of hypocritical , don't you think?

keep at it though

IllegalContact said:

it really doesn't matter since he was capable of avoiding rendering him not defenseless

keep trying

Click to expand...

He was trying to catch the ball. No matter how long it takes that makes him defenseless.

Marinlik said:

He was trying to catch the ball. No matter how long it takes that makes him defenseless.

Click to expand...

him continuing his effort to catch the ball does not make him incapable of avoiding......completely separate.

hey look!!! neck area!!! and he led with the helmet!!! or was it his shoulder?

IllegalContact said:

I don't know.......not trying to avoid/ward ... which he could have......the catching the ball train had already left the station......the ball looked like it was filled with helium floating away

Click to expand...

His hands were on it.
He was ATTEMPTING TO CATCH THE BALL.

IllegalContact said:

him continuing his effort to catch the ball does not make him incapable of avoiding......completely separate.

Click to expand...

Thats exactly why you keep saying over and over and over again, the wrong thing.
The only reason a receiver is defenseless is because he has to focus on the catch. There is no rule that tells him to ignore the ball after bobbling.
Of course you STILL haven't explained when a receiver could be considered defenseless in your interpretation. I wonder why?

AndyJohnson said:

His hands were on it.
He was ATTEMPTING TO CATCH THE BALL.

Click to expand...

attempting to catch the ball does not preclude one from being capable to avoid......the man process the situation poorly both in execution and decision making.

AndyJohnson said:

Thats exactly why you keep saying over and over and over again, the wrong thing.
The only reason a receiver is defenseless is because he has to focus on the catch. There is no rule that tells him to ignore the ball after bobbling.
Of course you STILL haven't explained when a receiver could be considered defenseless in your interpretation. I wonder why?

Click to expand...

it's not the wrong thing.......he simply failed to avoid.......it's not that he couldn't avoid....he CHOSE not to....his CHOICE.....there was no SHOULD or WANT in the face of the rule.

IllegalContact said:

he did not call anything a fouls....he said it was close.....

Click to expand...

What? Those are his words, not mine. He said THAT IS WHERE THEV FOUL IS

I'll tell you what......put together a transcript of the Blandino video....then we'll discuss

Click to expand...

What do you think I just posted? That is the transcript.

I can't believe this is still going. Man you all have some endurance.

IllegalContact said:

attempting to catch the ball does not preclude one from being capable to avoid......the man process the situation poorly both in execution and decision making.

Click to expand...

Of course it does. He is trying to catch the ball, that conflicts with getting out of the way of a hit.
Until you answer the question of what would constitute a defenseless receiver you are never going to learn anything.
What you would find if you were honest and listened is that your definition of why he is not defenseless would make every receiver in every situation on every play not defenseless and therefore there wouldn't be a rule.
Its really ok to discover you are wrong, that way you learn something.

I thought it was a legal hit and i was pissed off about it until I researched it with an open mind and learned something. You too, can learn. You just have to try.

Even the guy who's job is to spin everything in favor of the officials, publicly....

you can see there is some initial contact to the facemask right there. And that’s really where the foul is This is close. It’s a forcible hit. Is that contact ot the head or to the body? It’s a very close play, but it’s not a helmet-to-helmet hit."

Click to expand...

Again, this is the biggest referee defender on the planet, and even he knows, without actually stating it. Clean hit. The back and forth still going on here is just meaningless babble.

IllegalContact said:

it's not the wrong thing.......he simply failed to avoid.......it's not that he couldn't avoid....he CHOSE not to....his CHOICE.....there was no SHOULD or WANT in the face of the rule.

Click to expand...

Once again, describe an UNAVOIDABLE hit then.