Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[Ring 6]

Even in what you posted, Blandino never says there was *any* contact with the neck. Grazed the facemask, yes, but neck, no.

The rule standard is the head or neck area. Surely we aren't arguing that the facemask is not in the head or neck area right?
Grazing is not relevant to the NFL rule.

He says it was unclear at full speed whether the neck or body was hit and then later says at slow speed you can tell the difference between a neck and body hit, while still giving no answer.

But thats not what he said. I copied and pasted his exact words. He said:

"I think the first problem [was that ] we announced helmet-to-helmet and this is not a helmet-to-helmet hit. That's incorrect.

"When you watch the play, Browner actually does a good job trying to lead with the shoulder and get his head to the side. You can see his head is to the side and he does lead with the shoulder.

"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.

"This is close. It's a forcible hit. Is the contact, is that force to the head, or is it to the body? It is a very close play. But it's not a helmet-to-helmet hit and I think that's what confused a lot of people."

He states contact is to the facemask. The uncertainty is where the 'force' is delivered, but the rule does not state that this has anything to do with the rule. In fact it states that it does not matter if the initial point of contact is elsewhere, that a hit to the head or neck area is still a foul.

If there had been neck contact, he'd have said so.

Again, he clearly stated facemask, and he said that is where the foul is. He does not have to say the contact was with the neck because the facemask is obviously the neck area.

He carefully sidestepped saying that the call was incorrect, because he can't say that on national television.

No he didn't, his first comment was that helmet to helmet was an incorrect call.

You have to be able to read between the lines. He would never, ever publicly admit this was a bad call. This is the closest you'll get from him.

He did. He said the call was wrong. He also goes on to say the hit was a foul.

I still say the real problem is in the rule book. If this stuff was laid out more clearly, everyone would be on the same page. But the NFL probably prefers this so that they can wiggle out from under bad calls with misinformation and vague rules.

I really think it is perfectly clear. I don't understand what part is vague.

 

[Haley]

The rule standard is the head or neck area. Surely we aren't arguing that the facemask is not in the head or neck area right?
Grazing is not relevant to the NFL rule.




But thats not what he said. I copied and pasted his exact words. He said:

"I think the first problem [was that ] we announced helmet-to-helmet and this is not a helmet-to-helmet hit. That's incorrect.

"When you watch the play, Browner actually does a good job trying to lead with the shoulder and get his head to the side. You can see his head is to the side and he does lead with the shoulder.

"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.

"This is close. It's a forcible hit. Is the contact, is that force to the head, or is it to the body? It is a very close play. But it's not a helmet-to-helmet hit and I think that's what confused a lot of people."

He states contact is to the facemask. The uncertainty is where the 'force' is delivered, but the rule does not state that this has anything to do with the rule. In fact it states that it does not matter if the initial point of contact is elsewhere, that a hit to the head or neck area is still a foul.


Again, he clearly stated facemask, and he said that is where the foul is. He does not have to say the contact was with the neck because the facemask is obviously the neck area.


No he didn't, his first comment was that helmet to helmet was an incorrect call.


He did. He said the call was wrong. He also goes on to say the hit was a foul.


I really think it is perfectly clear. I don't understand what part is vague.

Like I said, I'm not really in this for the argument. However, I will provide you with a new source since your transcript is clearly flawed/incomplete. This is the actual video from which all transcripts would have been made. It is from this video that I was paraphrasing.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...l-unnecessary?campaign=Twitter_video_Blandino

 

[IllegalContact]

You don't know if the facemask is in the head and neck area?
This explains a lot.

Lol....there was a brush by greens face mask on browners shoulder, but that was due to the lurching forward of greens head as a counter motion to the hit on the shoulder.....it is quite clear in the video

There's no limit to what you will suppose as fact

I am here for you as a tether to the real world for you

 

[IllegalContact]

Like I said, I'm not really in this for the argument. However, I will provide you with a new source since your transcript is clearly flawed/incomplete. This is the actual video from which all transcripts would have been made. It is from this video that I was paraphrasing.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...l-unnecessary?campaign=Twitter_video_Blandino

He has a tendency to leave out the contrary parts

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Look at the video of the Blandino piece.

Does or does not Browner's shoulder make contact with his facemask?

Yes, it does.

That makes the call consistent with the rule as written. The call was, however, incorrectly DESCRIBED by the ref after it was made. That doesn't make the call wrong, it just makes the immediate description of the call wrong.

I was angry after the call, like most everyone else, because of the bogus /improper/wrong description, but now I can take off my homer glasses and understand why is was called.

 

[Deus Irae]

Look at the video of the Blandino piece.

Does or does not Browner's shoulder make contact with his facemask?

Yes, it does.

That makes the call consistent with the rule as written. The call was, however, incorrectly DESCRIBED by the ref after it was made. That doesn't make the call wrong, it just makes the immediate description of the call wrong.

I was angry after the call, like most everyone else, because of the bogus /improper/wrong description, but now I can take off my homer glasses and understand why is was called.

It was a clean hit, by the rules.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

98.5 The Sports Hub ‏@985TheSportsHub 7m7 minutes ago
NFL VP of Officiating Dean Blandino says Browner hit was NOT helmet-to-helmet, @Greshandzo discuss: http://cbsloc.al/1yQwhvr

probably already posted but lost in this cluster ****

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It was a clean hit, by the rules.

Contact to the facemask of a defenseless receiver, even with a shoulder, is not a clean hit, by the rules, because the facemask is in the head and neck area.

If the contact had ONLY been in the chest, it would have been clean.

I thought it was legal until I saw the video review with Blandino. The contact with the facemask is obvious from one of the angles that was not shown on gameday

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...l-unnecessary?campaign=Twitter_video_Blandino

 

[Deus Irae]

Contact to the facemask of a defenseless receiver, even with a shoulder, is not a clean hit, by the rules, because the facemask is in the head and neck area.

If the contact had ONLY been in the chest, it would have been clean.

I thought it was legal until I saw the video review with Blandino. The contact with the facemask is obvious from one of the angles that was not shown on gameday

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...l-unnecessary?campaign=Twitter_video_Blandino

I'm not rehashing the obvious on this. You're ignoring the text of the rule, just as so many here have already done. Blandino already pointed out the key term with regards to contact in 'unapproved' areas. The key word is not the word contact.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

"Forcibly hitting" doesn't mean contact. Is anyone trying to say Browner forcibly hit the facemask?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I am not ignoring the rule, as written, at all:

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/p...ge/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf



-------
The only wiggle room is the judgement of whether the contact of the shoulder with the face mask in this instance constituted a "forcible hit"

 

[oldrover]

 

[Deus Irae]

I am not ignoring the rule, as written, at all:

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/p...ge/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf



-------
The only wiggle room is the judgement of whether the contact of the shoulder with the face mask in this instance constituted a "forcible hit"

What you call "wiggle room" is, in the eyes of Blandino himself, the crux of the issue. And, yes, you were ignoring it. That's obvious from what you did, and did not, quote.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The only wiggle room is the judgement of whether the contact of the shoulder with the face mask in this instance constituted a "forcible hit"

So you think the contact with the facemask constitutes a forcible hit?

 

[AzorianPats]

I am not ignoring the rule, as written, at all:

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/p...ge/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf



-------
The only wiggle room is the judgement of whether the contact of the shoulder with the face mask in this instance constituted a "forcible hit"

Bladino himself, already said it was the incorrect call. What else is there to argue?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Bladino himself, already said it was the incorrect call. What else is there to argue?

LOL

Did you see his video? He said that the call was not explained right, and that it was close, but that it was a a legit call due to it being a forcible hit to the face mask.

verbatim:

This was not a helmet to helmet hit, so that (the explanation on the field) was incorrect….When you watch this replay coming up, you can see there is some initial contact to the face mask right there, and that is really where the foul is. It is close. It is a forcible hit… It was not a helmet-to-helmet hit, so that (the incorrect explanation on the field) is what confused a lot of people.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...l-unnecessary?campaign=Twitter_video_Blandino

 

[doesntmatter1]

I wish Browner had hit him with a flying knee to the midsection. Don't quote me, but I think this potential death blow is more legal than what Browner did. I'm just kidding, but we were clearly screwed over on that play and the league knows it.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL

Did you see his video? He said that the call was not explained right, and that it was close, but that it was a a legit call due to it being a forcible hit to the face mask.

verbatim:

This was not a helmet to helmet hit, so that (the explanation on the field) was incorrect….When you watch this replay coming up, you can see there is some initial contact to the face mask right there, and that is really where the foul is. It is close. It is a forcible hit… It was not a helmet-to-helmet hit, so that (the incorrect explanation on the field) is what confused a lot of people.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...l-unnecessary?campaign=Twitter_video_Blandino

Actually, he's not saying that it was a legit call. That's part of the point. Even Blandino wouldn't say the call was correct. He's telling you what the foul call was about, since it wasn't about helmet-to-helmet, and he's claiming that it was "close".

Regarding whether or not it's actually a foul, his statement was

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.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

LOL

Did you see his video? He said that the call was not explained right, and that it was close, but that it was a a legit call due to it being a forcible hit to the face mask.

verbatim:

This was not a helmet to helmet hit, so that (the explanation on the field) was incorrect….When you watch this replay coming up, you can see there is some initial contact to the face mask right there, and that is really where the foul is. It is close. It is a forcible hit… It was not a helmet-to-helmet hit, so that (the incorrect explanation on the field) is what confused a lot of people.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...l-unnecessary?campaign=Twitter_video_Blandino

He's purposely vague. That can be interpreted your way or as Browner got incorrectly flagged based on the contact with the facemask from the forcible hit, but it was close.

Game speed it's an understandable call. It should be reviewable. This case shouldn't be upheld.

 

[Bledsoe_Fan]

Clean hit, nothing else to be said. Just another bad call by the officiating crew.