Patradomous
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,552
- Reaction score
- 298
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.he actually said, its one of the 2 challenges in the game and if the coach chooses to use it nothing wrong with it. The argument against it wasnt the length of the game. Its because other coaches are scared to take responsibility of not challenging critical holding and PI calls and then getting called out after the game. Basically coaches dont know how they will use it. ITs easy to blame the refs after a loss instead of thinking on their feet and challenge critical calls. Heck , coaches even now dont know to challenge correctly sometimes.This adds fuel to BB's advocacy of all calls on the field being reviewable. I find the argument against it (it lengthens the game) to be nonsensical when the NFL is shoving commercials down our throats every chance they can.
You can disagree with the rule as written (and that's a fair thing to do), but given that the rule as written says it's illegal to among other things contact a "player attempting to make a catch" in the "neck area", even with "the shoulder", I don't think the call is as outrageous as many are making it out to be.
He clearly lead with the shoulder. One of the worst calls this year.
I'm glad it didn't cost them the game.
It's outrageous to expect Browner to just stand there and not hit him. Otherwise, he was going to catch it.
What's Browner supposed to do? Tippy toe up to the guy and poke the ball away with his finger?
You can disagree with the rule as written (and that's a fair thing to do), but given that the rule as written says it's illegal to among other things contact a "player attempting to make a catch" in the "neck area", even with "the shoulder", I don't think the call is as outrageous as many are making it out to be.
But if we're going to define "the neck area" as the shoulder than half the tackles in the NFL are penalties. I'd call that definition pretty weak, never used, and not the intent of the rule.Leading with the shoulder on a receiver "attempting to make a catch" is still illegal if contact is made even as low as "the neck area". One may not like it (I don't particularly), but that's what the rule says.
But if we're going to define "the neck area" as the shoulder than half the tackles in the NFL are penalties. I'd call that definition pretty weak, never used, and not the intent of the rule.
For reference in this thread, here's the defenseless player rule since that has at least a chance of being legitimately applied to the Browner play. (I do think a H2H call was indefensible):
Regardless of his defenseless status he was not hit in the head or neck area. If the neck area is the shoulder, why didn't the rule say shoulder. The omission leaves us one possibility. The rule makers did not intend the neck area to be the shoulder.If a player isn't in a "defenseless posture" you can hit the neck area all you want. And once you've completed the catch you're basically not defenseless anymore. As the rule defining defenseless says, "If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player".
You can disagree with the rule as written (and that's a fair thing to do), but given that the rule as written says it's illegal to among other things contact a "player attempting to make a catch" in the "neck area", even with "the shoulder", I don't think the call is as outrageous as many are making it out to be.
How many penalties on the Lafell fumble for a touchdown went uncalled. I saw a few block in the backs and at least one block that should have been a crack back.
That applies to us lately. The patriots challenge process seems a bit off, I was surprised they didn't challenge the clear catch the announcers were arguing...he actually said, its one of the 2 challenges in the game and if the coach chooses to use it nothing wrong with it. The argument against it wasnt the length of the game. Its because other coaches are scared to take responsibility of not challenging critical holding and PI calls and then getting called out after the game. Basically coaches dont know how they will use it. ITs easy to blame the refs after a loss instead of thinking on their feet and challenge critical calls. Heck , coaches even now dont know to challenge correctly sometimes.