Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[brdmaverick]

I think one thing that we can all agree on is the concern over the inconsistency of flags being thrown. A similar play will happen next week and not be called.

It frustrates me beyond belief when you see a ticky tack pass interference penalty being called (the one that Shane Vereen drew late in the game comes to mind) that gets flagged. Worst yet, upon replay it shows the slightest of contact and yet the announcers will still be like "yup, you can't do that. You can't put your hand on the receiver." When the reality is that this contact happens on EVERY PLAY. It just only seems to get called at critical junctures of the game. They are completely hampering the defenses ability to play defense.

The descrepancy between offensive and defensive pass intereference is also laughable. Just think back to the game against Green Bay. I hope I'm remembering this correctly, but do you remember the crowd begging for pass interference call against Revis when he went up for a jump ball in the end zone (I think against Nelson). The crown was begging for the call when the replay clearly showed if anything it was NELSON who comlpetely elbowed Revis in the head. Had that been Revis's elbow hitting Nelson's head that would have been a sure flag.

Sorry, now I'm digressing. Just had to get that off my chest.

 

[Ring 6]

I feel this is turning into an argument even though my posts have been in line with your thinking, for the most part. I will end it here. The games matter to these guys and, though I completely understand nobody will get every call right no the steps taken, there should still be safeguards in place to try to mitigate bad, and in a lot of cases, game-altering calls. I hope they do whatever is necessary to keep the game somewhat entertaining for the fans. We are how they make their money. No fans, no revenue. I will leave it at that no matter your response. With that said, however, I do have much respect for you.

Not sure why you think its turning into an argument. You are focussed on one side of the issue, and I am pointing out what the other side is.
It sounds like your argument is make penalties reviewable.
I don't think the league is ever going to do that, and I understand why, because you are re-refereeing the game.
What if this play was reviewed (even though it would have been upheld) but while reviewing they saw illegal contact beyond the 5 yard chuck zone. Or holding on the offense. What do they do then? You can't really say change one call and ignore the other one you discover in review. I think it would be a nightmare.
I agree a perfect system would be prefect, but I don't think there is one.

 

[Ring 6]

I think one thing that we can all agree on is the concern over the inconsistency of flags being thrown. A similar play will happen next week and not be called.

In fact on this very play, the wrong foul was called.
I think any play that makes a referee decide what exact body parts collided at high speed will always be flawed.

It frustrates me beyond belief when you see a ticky tack pass interference penalty being called (the one that Shane Vereen drew late in the game comes to mind) that gets flagged. Worst yet, upon replay it shows the slightest of contact and yet the announcers will still be like "yup, you can't do that. You can't put your hand on the receiver." When the reality is that this contact happens on EVERY PLAY. It just only seems to get called at critical junctures of the game. They are completely hampering the defenses ability to play defense.

THAT is the really frustrating part to me. (Although the contact with Vereen did disrupt the timing of the route) The rule book actually says if in doubt do not call PI. The refs haven't read that, or their version has the NOT whited out.

The descrepancy between offensive and defensive pass intereference is also laughable. Just think back to the game against Green Bay. I hope I'm remembering this correctly, but do you remember the crowd begging for pass interference call against Revis when he went up for a jump ball in the end zone (I think against Nelson). The crown was begging for the call when the replay clearly showed if anything it was NELSON who comlpetely elbowed Revis in the head. Had that been Revis's elbow hitting Nelson's head that would have been a sure flag.

Worst of all is that now after almost every pass play you have to look for a flag, and the fans (as you said) clamor for the call on any incomplete pass. I want to put my foot through the TV when a player makes the throw the flag motion, and then one comes in.

Sorry, now I'm digressing. Just had to get that off my chest.

Great topic though.

 

[IllegalContact]

The rule defines defenseless (in part) as a player in the process of making a catch or just completing the catch and not yet in position to defend himself (paraphrase). How can you possibly take that to mean that they are saying once he bobbles it, instead of completing the catch, he should stop so it become legal to hit him in the head or neck area? That is moronic.
The player does not have a responsiblity to make himself not defenseless by giving up on the catch.

What does fault have to do with it? The rule also states that a punter or kicker simply by being on the field is considered defenseless, as is the QB after a Int.
But what you seem to not realize is that the correct designation of Green being defenseless because he is still attempting to catch the ball does not prohibit Browner from laying him out, it just says that while he is focussed on making the catch, you can't hit him as high as the head or neck area, even leading with your shoulder.
You seem to just not like the rule, so you are trying to find a way to eliminate it.

he was in position to defend himself....chose not to

you're the one making up crap

 

[Ring 6]

he was in position to defend himself....chose not to

you're the one making up crap

Based upon what?
The rule says he is not in a position to defend himself until he has completed the catch and ALSO had an opportunity to brace himself for contact.
The NFL says that is what defenseless is. Your definition is meaningless in this case.

 

[IllegalContact]

Based upon what?
The rule says he is not in a position to defend himself until he has completed the catch and ALSO had an opportunity to brace himself for contact.
The NFL says that is what defenseless is. Your definition is meaningless in this case.

sorry.....this notion has already been blasted in this thread.....

If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

he was capable......he chose not to

bad call ..... case closed

 

[Ring 6]

he was in position to defend himself....chose not to

you're the one making up crap

Here it is again:
FROM THE RULEBOOK
Under when a player is defenseless.
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

Dude its the English language.
1) Was he attempting to catch a pass?
2) Has he COPMLETED the catch and had time to protect himself or clearly become a runner?

The rule does not say that doing a bad job of making the catch and 'choosing to catch the ball instead of giving up so you can defend yourself against an otherwise illegal hit' has anything to do with it.

You do realize the rule was put in to PROTECT the defenseless player, not to give him the responsibility to give up on a pass in order to protect himself, right?

Its OK to just say you were wrong. The grief you experience by admitting that will not last as long as your obsession with trying to argue something you know you are wrong about.

 

[Ring 6]

sorry.....this notion has already been blasted in this thread.....



he was capable......he chose not to

bad call ..... case closed

You are joking right?

 

[IllegalContact]

Here it is again:
FROM THE RULEBOOK
Under when a player is defenseless.
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

Dude its the English language.
1) Was he attempting to catch a pass?
2) Has he COPMLETED the catch and had time to protect himself or clearly become a runner?

The rule does not say that doing a bad job of making the catch and 'choosing to catch the ball instead of giving up so you can defend yourself against an otherwise illegal hit' has anything to do with it.

You do realize the rule was put in to PROTECT the defenseless player, not to give him the responsibility to give up on a pass in order to protect himself, right?

Its OK to just say you were wrong. The grief you experience by admitting that will not last as long as your obsession with trying to argue something you know you are wrong about.

read the crap that you post

If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

he was capable.....he chose not to

 

[IllegalContact]

You are joking right?

nope........you must be daft

 

[Ivan]

If they want to call this a penalty they should call it for what it is--HITTING TOO HARD. When I saw t his call I immediately thought of the Broncos \Rams game when a Rams DB hit Sanders with a textbook hit and got the same call. He was flagged for hitting to hard and they made the flag fit the call. Refs have been told to protect players at all costs and are simply making up penalties when a player gets his bell rung by a big hit.

 

[Ring 6]

read the crap that you post

If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

he was capable.....he chose not to

No he wasn't because he was a receiver trying to catch a pass.

The 'crap' is the rulebook.

Look I think I am looking at this totally wrong.
I am going to adopt your position.
It happened to the Patriots, I don't like it so it has to be wrong and we got screwed.
Now I can put my fingers in my ears and not have to listen to anyone tell me I am wrong.
Better?

 

[Ring 6]

nope........you must be daft

The rule is to protect a receiver while making a catch.
By your argument on every pass play the receiver could choose to ward of the tackler instead of making the catch.
You know you are wrong.
But hey, Go Pats!!! Yeah they screwed us, I bet games are fixed.

 

[IllegalContact]

No he wasn't because he was a receiver trying to catch a pass.

The 'crap' is the rulebook.

Look I think I am looking at this totally wrong.
I am going to adopt your position.
It happened to the Patriots, I don't like it so it has to be wrong and we got screwed.
Now I can put my fingers in my ears and not have to listen to anyone tell me I am wrong.
Better?

that's exactly what you're doing.....you're simply wrong.....and are having great difficulty coping

he wasn't defenseless......bad call .... case closed

 

[IllegalContact]

The rule is to protect a receiver while making a catch.
By your argument on every pass play the receiver could choose to ward of the tackler instead of making the catch.
You know you are wrong.
But hey, Go Pats!!! Yeah they screwed us, I bet games are fixed.

Nope....you are wrong

 

[Ring 6]

If they want to call this a penalty they should call it for what it is--HITTING TOO HARD. When I saw t his call I immediately thought of the Broncos \Rams game when a Rams DB hit Sanders with a textbook hit and got the same call. He was flagged for hitting to hard and they made the flag fit the call. Refs have been told to protect players at all costs and are simply making up penalties when a player gets his bell rung by a big hit.

You are probably right.
They made a wrong call because it wasn't helmet to helmet.
None of that changes the fact though, that the hit was not legal based upon the actual rule book and the defenseless player rule.

 

[Ring 6]

that's exactly what you're doing.....you're simply wrong.....and are having great difficulty coping

he wasn't defenseless......bad call .... case closed

1) Of course he was defenseless, he was trying to catch the ball. You know better than to even try to argue that.
2) It was a bad call because they called helmet to helmet
3) It was an illegal hit because he went to high while the receiver was occupied with catching the football (therefore defenseless)
4) If he stayed away from the head and neck area the hit, and the timing would have been fine
5) If he made the exact same hit after the attempt to catch the ball was complete and the receiver has time ot protect himself, then the hit is legal.

 

[Ring 6]

Nope....you are wrong

So the rule isn't to protect the defenseless players, its to help the defender have a better opportunity to hit him high?

 

[IllegalContact]

So the rule isn't to protect the defenseless players, its to help the defender have a better opportunity to hit him high?

this is why you're daft....... who said that?

Green was no longer defenseless, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

it was a bad call........it happens........which is why there are countless articles about this play bringing up a rules change on replay.

people much more qualified than you understand the play as I also see it.

you need to move on.......you've convinced yourself, that about it

 

[Ivan]

You are probably right.
They made a wrong call because it wasn't helmet to helmet.
None of that changes the fact though, that the hit was not legal based upon the actual rule book and the defenseless player rule.

If that is a defenseless player then defenders can no longer hit any offensive player in the act of making a play. I think refs are using defenseless player and helmet to helmet to flag defender s for legal hits that are simply too hard.