Marinlik
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,390
- Reaction score
- 1,220
VP of officiating on the Browner hit http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap3000000441569/Was-this-
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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
You said many many times he isn't defenseless because he should ignore the football and defend himself.
The exact point of the rule is to protect him so hr doesn't have to do that.
You have taken a rule designed to protect a receiver while he is focused on catching the ball and said that it means he should ignore the ball and watch for and defend against the hit. It's moronic.
The argument that a player who is moving and trying to control a juggled ball doesn't count as defenseless is so absurd it's not worth arguing.
yup........he wasn't defenseless.
If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
it was a bad call.....case closed.......especially if you consider the fact that the call was 'helmet to helmet' (which it wasn't)
Stupid. The receiver isn't required to be tied up with a ball gag in his mouth to be considered defenseless.
But it is incredulous to say that a receiver should abandon a catch to avoid a hit that is illegal while he is making a catch.
Remember if the hit is a foot lower at the same moment it is legal and if it is the exact same hit after the attempt to catch the ball is over it's legal.
The league is protecting a player who is distracted by doing his job which is catching the football. It defies logic to say he should be watching for a hit while he is trying to catch the ball and be expected to give up on the catch to defend himself.
The receiver is defenseless because he is focused on the ball not because he chooses to be.
The rule is written in order to protect the receiver. It's idiotic to say he should stop being a receiver to protect himself against a hit that the rule book protects him from on order to allow him to concentrate on the catch.
You are saying he was in a position to defend himself which can only be the case if he abandons his attempt to catch the ball. The entire purpose of the rule is to consider him defenseless while he is catching the ball.Learn to read/comprehend. I didn't say he should do anything. Only the fact that he is capable to avoid/ward between the time he first touched the ball and the contact by Browner.
After re-watching numerous times I am resigned to the fact that he will probably get a fine because it is close enough to the neck and the NFL should be backing their referees whenever they can.
I didn't see that written in the rules anywhere. there are no requirements other than the receiver to be capable of avoiding/warding. he had opportunity to catch the ball......
'hold off everyone......let him secure the ball first!!!'
what's stupid is the notion of a rule meant to address technique dependent upon whether a player secures the ball quickly or it takes awhile.
Dean Blandino, who we can all agree is much more knowledgable about the rules than anyone on this board, said Green was defenseless. NOW Case closed.yup........he wasn't defenseless.
If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
it was a bad call.....case closed.......especially if you consider the fact that the call was 'helmet to helmet' (which it wasn't)
No he did not. He said it was not helmet to helmet but was shoulder to facemask, the receiver was defenseless. EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.and why would he get a fine?
head of officiating (Blandino) already stated that the call on the field lacked merit.
There is a majority opinion across all forms of media that there should not have been a flag.
You are saying he was in a position to defend himself which can only be the case if he abandons his attempt to catch the ball. The entire purpose of the rule is to consider him defenseless while he is catching the ball.
The NFL says while catching the ball you are defenseless. You are saying he was defenseless because he could have chosen to defend himself. By NFL definition that would mean he abandon his efforts to make the catch.
Its not reading comprehension, its writing comprehension. When you make a statement that requires something else to happen to be true, then you are saying the other thing must happen.
the rule doesn't address that one way or the other. the rule doesn't say 'as long as he is trying to catch the football' .... only that he is capable to avoid/ward.....
yes.....at some point the receiver does have a decision to make in the name of self preservation
and why would he get a fine?
head of officiating (Blandino) already stated that the call on the field lacked merit.
There is a majority opinion across all forms of media that there should not have been a flag.
Dean Blandino, who we can all agree is much more knowledgable about the rules than anyone on this board, said Green was defenseless. NOW Case closed.
No he did not. He said it was not helmet to helmet but was shoulder to facemask, the receiver was defenseless. EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.
It's not even close. That's an extreme example of a receiver being defenseless, it's text book.
You want football to be like this?
nice drama......but irrelevant