Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[Ring 6]

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.

I think the bobbling ball issue is clearly defined. The defenseless player definition says while attempting to make a catch up until he has a chance to prepare himself for the hit (paraphrasing).
I can't imagine anyone would genuinely think that a rule invented in order to protect a receiver while he is focussed on making a catch would not included continuing to attempt a catch that isn't clean.
Remember, while people in this thread are making it out to be otherwise, this is not a protection against hitting him, only against hitting in the neck area and above.

 

[Haley]

I think the bobbling ball issue is clearly defined. The defenseless player definition says while attempting to make a catch up until he has a chance to prepare himself for the hit (paraphrasing).
I can't imagine anyone would genuinely think that a rule invented in order to protect a receiver while he is focussed on making a catch would not included continuing to attempt a catch that isn't clean.
Remember, while people in this thread are making it out to be otherwise, this is not a protection against hitting him, only against hitting in the neck area and above.

But your interpretation fails to include the subsequent verbiage detailing when a receiver can protect himself. That is the part that is unclear. What happens when the receiver is in process of the catch BUT can protect himself? Is the receiver required to give up on the catch and protect himself? Or is the defender somehow supposed to just wait around?

In my opinion, the rules don't clearly state what the outcome should be, which leads to disagreements in refereeing just like there are differences of opinion in this thread. I can see both sides of this argument and come to no conclusion other than the NFL rule book is to blame.

 

[neuronet]

Is that the exact wording of the rule?

Shoulder to shoulder with the receivers head lurching forward from contact is what I see in that picture.....a perfect hit with contact in shoulder and arm to break up the pass.

Yes, it is explicit that hit to neck area / helmet, even if with shoulder, is penalty. See thread for multiple exact quotes from rule.

 

[Onedaful]

But your interpretation fails to include the subsequent verbiage detailing when a receiver can protect himself. That is the part that is unclear. What happens when the receiver is in process of the catch BUT can protect himself? Is the receiver required to give up on the catch and protect himself? Or is the defender somehow supposed to just wait around?

In my opinion, the rules don't clearly state what the outcome should be, which leads to disagreements in refereeing just like there are differences of opinion in this thread. I can see both sides of this argument and come to no conclusion other than the NFL rule book is to blame.

Exactly.

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 does not state that there is a necessary condition for the player to make the catch as opposed to protecting himself. I think you summed it up perfect on how vague the rule is.

 

[Ring 6]

But your interpretation fails to include the subsequent verbiage detailing when a receiver can protect himself. That is the part that is unclear. What happens when the receiver is in process of the catch BUT can protect himself? Is the receiver required to give up on the catch and protect himself? Or is the defender somehow supposed to just wait around?

I don't think that is vague at all. The receiver is defenseless while attempting to make the catch, therefore he can't protect himself because he is occupied with the catch. If the catch attempt ended when it hit his hands, it would say so. To interpret it your way, he is able to protect himself at all times, he would just need to not try to catch the ball.
Again, it is so frustrating that people make comment like the bolded one. The rule doesn't say he cannot hit the receiver, it says he cannot hit him in the head or neck area. So at worst the rule is telling the defender if he really wants to deliver a blow to the head and neck area, he has to wait until the defender can be ready for it, otherwise deliver the blow lower while the reciever is distracted with, you know, receiving.

In my opinion, the rules don't clearly state what the outcome should be, which leads to disagreements in refereeing just like there are differences of opinion in this thread. I can see both sides of this argument and come to no conclusion other than the NFL rule book is to blame.

I think it is only vague because people in this thread are trying to find a way to make it so.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly.

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 does not state that there is a necessary condition for the player to make the catch as opposed to protecting himself. I think you summed it up perfect on how vague the rule is.

OK so lets go with this.
A pass is thrown and the defender arrives at EXACTLY the same time as the ball and delivers a blow to the neck.
In your view this is not a penalty because the receiver is not defenseless because instead of trying to catch the ball he should protect himself from the contact.
If that were the case no one is ever defenseless and there would be no need for the rule.

 

[RayClay]

The neck is in between the head and the shoulder.

When a receiver has to concentrate on a juggled ball while he's running with a huge CB bearing down on him, unless he is a super hero acrobat, he is in a defenseless position.

 

[IllegalContact]

Yes, it is explicit that hit to neck area / helmet, even if with shoulder, is penalty. See thread for multiple exact quotes from rule.

I know the actual wording of the actual rule........it doesn't even get to that wording since he wasn't defenseless by definition, having been capable of avoiding/warding

Blandino was hesitant to call any of it a penalty.......I'll take that as an eloquent side-stepping of the acknowledgement that the wrong call was made. It still does have to do with player safety, so I can see the hesitation to flat out call it clean....which it was

 

[Ring 6]

The neck is in between the head and the shoulder.

When a receiver has to concentrate on a juggled ball while he's running with a huge CB bearing down on him, unless he is a super hero acrobat, he is in a defenseless position.

And with that, I am done. I can't believe this is even a discussion.
I guess losing a TD clouds vision.

 

[RayClay]

Since a couple years after Darryl Stingley got paralyzed, this type of hit has been illegal. It was legal before. It's likely our team pushed it, so write the league if you want it changed back.

 

[RayClay]

I know the actual wording of the actual rule........it doesn't even get to that wording since he wasn't defenseless by definition, having been capable of avoiding/warding

Blandino was hesitant to call any of it a penalty.......I'll take that as an eloquent side-stepping of the acknowledgement that the wrong call was made. It still does have to do with player safety, so I can see the hesitation to flat out call it clean....which it was

If concentrating on a juggled ball trying to make a catch while moving doesn't count as defenseless, what else would he need to be doing?

 

[IllegalContact]

The neck is in between the head and the shoulder.

When a receiver has to concentrate on a juggled ball while he's running with a huge CB bearing down on him, unless here is a super hero acrobat, he is in a defenseless position.

The receiver does not have to concentrate on juggling......fact is the moment it is touched, it is live until it hits the ground.

There is no benefit of the doubt built in for a receiver unable to make a clean catch. It would say so if there was.

the neck is between the head and chest

 

[RayClay]

And with that, I am done. I can't believe this is even a discussion.
I guess losing a TD clouds vision.

It's what I call a dead parrot argument. There are no words, pictures or videos in the world that would convince those that want to believe they're right.

 

[RayClay]

The receiver does not have to concentrate on juggling......fact is the moment it is touched, it is live until it hits the ground.

There is no benefit of the doubt built in for a receiver unable to make a clean catch. It would say so if there was.

the neck is between the head and chest

Well, at least we're clear on the anatomy.

It's a football game. Is job is to catch the football. He's trying to catch the ball, not trying to juggle it. I do not understand your point at all.

 

[Onedaful]

If concentrating on a juggled ball trying to make a catch while moving doesn't count as defenseless, what else would he need to be doing?

Why is concentrating on juggling the ball trumping the fact that he could defend himself from impeding contact? These are two inferences from both sides of the argument that could be cleared up if the rule was more easily defined. The receiver has two jobs according to his position and the rule: catch the ball and protect himself from impeding contact. So why is one valued over the other if it is not defined in the rules?

 

[Ring 6]

The receiver does not have to concentrate on juggling......fact is the moment it is touched, it is live until it hits the ground.

There is no benefit of the doubt built in for a receiver unable to make a clean catch. It would say so if there was.

the neck is between the head and chest

Then there is no benefit of doubt for the player trying to make the catch clean, because he does not have to concentrate on catching the the ball. So there is no such thing as a defenseless receiver because at any point he is in a position to choose to defend himself instead of catching the ball.
That is your argument. That argument is terrible.

 

[RayClay]

Why is concentrating on juggling the ball trumping the fact that he could defend himself from impeding contact? These are two inferences from both sides of the argument that could be cleared up if the rule was more easily defined. The receiver has two jobs according to his position and the rule: catch the ball and protect himself from impeding contact. So why is one valued over the other if it is not defined in the rules?

You could run at full speed and catch a ball after juggling it while defending yourself?

You are quite a man.

 

[Onedaful]

You could run at full speed and catch a ball after juggling it while defending yourself?

You are quite a man.

I'm asking you why one trumps the other. Please re-read the post.

 

[RayClay]

By the way, just reaching that high for a ball would be considered defenseless on a football field. Concentrating on pulling in a juggled ball just adds another layer.

 

[Ring 6]

Why is concentrating on juggling the ball trumping the fact that he could defend himself from impeding contact? These are two inferences from both sides of the argument that could be cleared up if the rule was more easily defined. The receiver has two jobs according to his position and the rule: catch the ball and protect himself from impeding contact. So why is one valued over the other if it is not defined in the rules?

Then explain why he is defenseless on any catch? He could choose to ignore the football and defend himself.
Therefore no one is ever defenseless because you are saying they are obligated to make themsleves not defenseless even though there is a rule awarding them defenseless treatment. The bobbling is part of the process of completing the catch.