Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[RayClay]

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

There are no trumps. receivers that are stretched out trying to make a catch in traffic are defenseless period, as far as penalties like this go. It's so receivers don't get paralyzed.

 

[IllegalContact]

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.

LOL........projecting

 

[IllegalContact]

There are no trumps. receivers that are stretched out trying to make a catch in traffic are defenseless period, as far as penalties like this go. It's so receivers don't get paralyzed.

well....that's certainly your narrow interpretation of the situation

 

[Onedaful]

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.

You have yet to tell me why he couldn't? That's what the rule says, "If the receiver is capable of avoiding the impact..."

Why isn't choosing to defend himself a reasonable option when the rule, in writing, states exactly that.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Making a routine catch is considered defenseless until you can complete the catch and prepare to be hit.
This is the whole point. The reason their is a defenseless player rule is that a receiver in attempting to catch a pass gives up the right to protect himself from a hit in order to prioritize making the catch. His focus is taken away from the defender trying to tackle him because he is focussed on the ball. When the ball is tipped, of course his focus remains on it.
The league wants the receiver to worry about making a catch.

 

[IllegalContact]

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.

SAYS WHO? YOU?

LAYER OF WHAT?

where the hell do you come up with this garbage? where is the benefit of the doubt provided for receivers unable to make a clean catch?

 

[RayClay]

well....that's certainly your narrow interpretation of the situation

That would be the NFL's narrow interpretation. It isn't even borderline.

 

[Ring 6]

You have yet to tell me why he couldn't? That's what the rule says, "If the receiver is capable of avoiding the impact..."

Why isn't choosing to defend himself a reasonable option when the rule, in writing, states exactly that.

He isn't capable of defending himself because he is making the catch. His attention is on doing his job, catching the football. You cannot be capable of avoiding impact that you cannot see.
The rule does not say he has to make a choice. The rule grants him defenseless status while trying to make a catch.
Again, using your interpretation why wouldn't he be able to ignore the ball and defend himself on any pass?

 

[RayClay]

SAYS WHO? YOU?

LAYER OF WHAT?

where the hell do you come up with this garbage? where is the benefit of the doubt provided for receivers unable to make a clean catch?

Doubt of what? He was stretched out to catch a ball in traffic. In the NFL that's defenseless, it's textbook.

Do you think the NFL is going to overturn this because you don't like, or don't understand the penalty?

 

[Onedaful]

He isn't capable of defending himself because he is making the catch. His attention is on doing his job, catching the football. You cannot be capable of avoiding impact that you cannot see.
The rule does not say he has to make a choice. The rule grants him defenseless status while trying to make a catch.
Again, using your interpretation why wouldn't he be able to ignore the ball and defend himself on any pass?

Can you rephrase the question? Are you asking me why it's ok for him to ignore the ball and defend himself on any pass? If so, wouldn't that be the receiver's choice? No where in the rules says a receiver must try to catch every pass that comes his way.

 

[IllegalContact]

Making a routine catch is considered defenseless until you can complete the catch and prepare to be hit.
This is the whole point. The reason their is a defenseless player rule is that a receiver in attempting to catch a pass gives up the right to protect himself from a hit in order to prioritize making the catch. His focus is taken away from the defender trying to tackle him because he is focussed on the ball. When the ball is tipped, of course his focus remains on it.
The league wants the receiver to worry about making a catch.

bobbling the ball is not a routine catch.....love the way you and ray inject meaningless interpretation to a rule that is clear

 

[Ring 6]

You have yet to tell me why he couldn't? That's what the rule says, "If the receiver is capable of avoiding the impact..."

Why isn't choosing to defend himself a reasonable option when the rule, in writing, states exactly that.

Just so I understand, this is what your comments amount to.

1) In order to avoid injuries to a player who is distracted from the oncoming hit because he is focussing on the pass coming his way, the league considers him defenseless, and you cannot hit him in the head or neck area.
2) A player who can be prepared for the hit is not defenseless.
3) The offensive player is responsible for knowing the hit is coming while he is trying to catch the ball, and therefore has to choose between the ball and bracing himself for a hit to the head or neck, because the defender has every right to hit him in the head and neck so the receiver should be smart enough to forget about the football and choose to protect himself, because we wrote this rule to protect the receiver, but decided that we really don't want to.

 

[IllegalContact]

Doubt of what? He was stretched out to catch a ball in traffic. In the NFL that's defenseless, it's textbook.

Do you think the NFL is going to overturn this because you don't like, or don't understand the penalty?

he was stretched out?

it was a bad call......case closed......I don't expect anything to happen....why would I?

I don't think you understand the penalty

 

[RayClay]

Can you rephrase the question? Are you asking me why it's ok for him to ignore the ball and defend himself on any pass? If so, wouldn't that be the receiver's choice? No where in the rules says a receiver must try to catch every pass that comes his way.

You don't want receivers to try to catch balls over the middle? that's your solution?

 

[Onedaful]

Just so I understand, this is what your comments amount to.

1) In order to avoid injuries to a player who is distracted from the oncoming hit because he is focussing on the pass coming his way, the league considers him defenseless, and you cannot hit him in the head or neck area.
2) A player who can be prepared for the hit is not defenseless.
3) The offensive player is responsible for knowing the hit is coming while he is trying to catch the ball, and therefore has to choose between the ball and bracing himself for a hit to the head or neck, because the defender has every right to hit him in the head and neck so the receiver should be smart enough to forget about the football and choose to protect himself, because we wrote this rule to protect the receiver, but decided that we really don't want to.

2)A player who can be prepared for the hit is not defenseless.

That is literally what the rule says.

 

[Ring 6]

Can you rephrase the question? Are you asking me why it's ok for him to ignore the ball and defend himself on any pass? If so, wouldn't that be the receiver's choice? No where in the rules says a receiver must try to catch every pass that comes his way.

You are kidding right?
The exact reason for a defenseless receiver rule is that while the receiver is trying to catch the ball he is defenseless.
Are you really saying that the NFL wants a receiver to decide whether to catch the ball or ignore it and brace for the hit thats about to come?
Why would there be a defenseless receiver rule if the receiver is responsible for defending himself instead of catching the pass?

 

[Onedaful]

You don't want receivers to try to catch balls over the middle? that's your solution?

Quote me where I said exactly that

 

[RayClay]

he was stretched out?

it was a bad call......case closed......I don't expect anything to happen....why would I?

I don't think you understand the penalty

noun

1. 1.
   an act of stretching one's limbs or body.
   "I got up and had a stretch"
   synonyms:reach out, hold out, extend, outstretch, proffer;

 

[Ring 6]

2)A player who can be prepared for the hit is not defenseless.

That is literally what the rule says.

And when he is catching a pass he cannot be prepared.

 

[RayClay]

Quote me where I said exactly that

So you want them to take off every other play?