Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[Ring 6]

That was a clean hit,you can't play even play proper defense anymore.I remember Wilkfor saying to the ref it was shoulder to shoulder, everyone on TV saw the same thing.

I agree it was a clean hit.
I agree the rules say it was a penalty.
I hate the rules.

 

[Brit patriot]

It seems that it was a penalty for the reasons stated above.

The issue for me is that NFL is being made a game for wimps. That Browner hit was a thing of beauty and was in no way any more dangerous than any other big hit. For me a strong tackle is as good as the ODB catch.

Can't see what is wrong with 'hard but fair'. I'm not looking for the game to be like gladiators in the Colosseum!

Hopefully it goes back to normality in the next few years

 

[SacPete1]

Far from it. The fact that the ball was juggled is the reason the receiver was "defenseless", ergo it is the entire crux of your claim.

So had he caught cleanly, you think it would not have been called since he would not have been defenseless?
I mentioned the juggling wasn't relevent in response to another poster that claimed this is the equivalent of a tipped ball and therefore the receiver was no longer defenseless which I don' agree with.

 

[Ring 6]

It seems that it was a penalty for the reasons stated above.

The issue for me is that NFL is being made a game for wimps. That Browner hit was a thing of beauty and was in no way any more dangerous than any other big hit. For me a strong tackle is as good as the ODB catch.

Can't see what is wrong with 'hard but fair'. I'm not looking for the game to be like gladiators in the Colosseum!

Hopefully it goes back to normality in the next few years

Could not agree more.
The problem is that if the hit were even a foot lower, in the breastbone, I think it would get called, simply because of what happened to the receiver. In practice, what is called a high hit is very different based upon the violence of the hit, and as you said, it takes away one of the best aspects of football.

 

[crew1954]

That's funny stuff there, but here is the rule for what counts as hitting defenseless person:

Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him​

The rules are the rules. They might not be consistent in their application, but in this case a good argument could be made that they got the exact call wrong (helmet-helmet), but that is sort of nit picking. Either penalty is the same consequence.

But yes, that freaking sucked.

Browner's helmet/facemask didn't make contact.

 

[Ring 6]

Browner's helmet/facemask didn't make contact.

But his shoulder did.

 

[Oswlek]

So had he caught cleanly, you think it would not have been called since he would not have been defenseless?
I mentioned the juggling wasn't relevent in response to another poster that claimed this is the equivalent of a tipped ball and therefore the receiver was no longer defenseless which I don' agree with.

Yes, had he caught it cleanly, I don't think that's called a penalty. I also think it is tremendously unfair to expect a defense to avoid contact with a player during an extended juggling session.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, had he caught it cleanly, I don't think that's called a penalty. I also think it is tremendously unfair to expect a defense to avoid contact with a player during an extended juggling session.

Fair to the defense hasn't matter for years.
Consider that if a defender has committed to a tackling position, and the ball carrier lowers his head just before contract to make it helmet to helmet the league considers that a head to head hit and a penalty on the defender.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Browner's shoulder hit his helmet/neck. Just look at the picture. We should be objective folks. Yes, it sucked for us, but the call was not bad. Leave the whining to the Jets fans. The mistake was in calling it helmet-to-helmet, that's all.

that's a bad angle.....take the same moment from other angles and it is clear the shoulder is on shoulder/chest and there's space between his head and everything else

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Clean Hit, BB led with his shoulder. He probably wouldn't get benefit of doubt anyway bein flagged often. It was a CLEAN Bone Jarrin' Hit his nack & head snapped back because its a natural action. THIS needs to be reviewed and does not warrant a Defenseless Player or Helmet2Helmet Hit.

 

[yukon cornelius]

But his shoulder did.

i have yet to see a still shot or video angle that confirms his shoulder hit the head......just that one angle shown above that LOOKS like it, but was disproved by other angles

browners should contacted his shoulder, chest......you can see browner pulling his head out of there to avoid any helmet to helmet.....as soon as contact is made, the head snaps back hard, and mucho space is created


one could make the argument (and fall short imho) of applying the defenseless rule......one could make the (lame) argument about "neck area"....but his shoulder contacted shoulder.....the hit was so violent there was no follow through, no 'sliding up the body'

 

[SacPete1]

Yes, had he caught it cleanly, I don't think that's called a penalty. I also think it is tremendously unfair to expect a defense to avoid contact with a player during an extended juggling session.

I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on what move he makes prior to impact but as Andy points out, had he lowered his helmet on his own, Browner still may have been flagged.

Its a really tough position for the defender and if the head snaps, I think the refs are more likely to call it.

Nowhere in the rule book does it state anything about the head snapping back in response to a hit (a hit right to the sternum with the shoulder could cause the same thing but this is legal) so essentially the refs make an interpretation of a rule based on result and not action all within a split second.

And if that interpretation is wrong like it was yesterday (Leavy said it was helmet to helmet), why wouldn't this play be subject to review? I really hope next March, they use this as an example to promote extending the applicability of instant replay. I'm not saying it would have necessarily been overturned, but why not make sure that what the ref thinks he saw is fact.

I think BB's proposal for all plays to be subject to review but no more than the current 2 challenges will gain more momentum this off season or better yet passed I hope.

 

[Ring 6]

i have yet to see a still shot or video angle that confirms his shoulder hit the head......just that one angle shown above that LOOKS like it, but was disproved by other angles

browners should contacted his shoulder, chest......you can see browner pulling his head out of there to avoid any helmet to helmet.....as soon as contact is made, the head snaps back hard, and mucho space is created


one could make the argument (and fall short imho) of applying the defenseless rule......one could make the (lame) argument about "neck area"....but his shoulder contacted shoulder.....the hit was so violent there was no follow through, no 'sliding up the body'

I didnt say it made contact with the head.
How can there be a 'neck area' if the shoulder isn't part of it? They are connected.
If they didn't mean to included the area adjacent to the neck in the rule, it would have said neck, not neck area.
Rule stinks, but its application seems clear.

 

[IllegalContact]

If it was just demonstrated that the rule book states that hitting a defenseless receiver in the neck area with your shoulder is a penalty, then on what basis do you say this isn't a penalty?
Where do you think the contact was, and how are you defining 'neck area' because if it didn't include the area adjacent to the neck, the rule would say neck.

real simple....BECAUSE IT WASN'T DEMONSTRATED

neck area? what 'neck area?' everything above the nipples?

 

[shmessy]

This was my reaction:

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not so sure. I guess it depends on what move he makes prior to impact but as Andy points out, had he lowered his helmet on his own, Browner still may have been flagged.

Its a really tough position for the defender and if the head snaps, I think the refs are more likely to call it.

Nowhere in the rule book does it state anything about the head snapping back in response to a hit (a hit right to the sternum with the shoulder could cause the same thing but this is legal) so essentially the refs make an interpretation of a rule based on result and not action all within a split second.

No the refs thought they saw helmet to helmet contact. No interpretation, just something that happened to fast to have any certainty where the exact point of contract was. Ironically, while they made an incorrect call, it probably was a penalty anyway under the defenseless receiver rule.

And if that interpretation is wrong like it was yesterday (Leavy said it was helmet to helmet), why wouldn't this play be subject to review?

That penalty is not and never has been subject to review.

I really hope next March, they use this as an example to promote extending the applicability of instant replay. I'm not saying it would have necessarily been overturned, but why not make sure that what the ref thinks he saw is fact.

As I've said, I like the college rule for reviewing these.

I think BB's proposal for all plays to be subject to review but no more than the current 2 challenges will gain more momentum this off season or better yet passed I hope.

I don't think there will be ever be a time when everything is reveiwable.

 

[Ring 6]

real simple....BECAUSE IT WASN'T DEMONSTRATED

neck area? what 'neck area?' everything above the nipples?

What wasn't demonstrated? The exact rule was posted in this thread.

Neck area is in the rule. Define that however you wish, but I find it hard to accept that 'neck area' would not include the body part that is directly adjacent to it.
You have to either decide that for some reason they wrote neck area to only mean the neck, or that they meant to include what is connected to the neck, which is where the hit was.
Again, I hate the rule, but it is the rule.

 

[IllegalContact]

No the refs thought they saw helmet to helmet contact. No interpretation, just something that happened to fast to have any certainty where the exact point of contract was.

so the conclusion is that it was the wrong call

Ironically, while they made an incorrect call, it probably was a penalty anyway under the defenseless receiver rule.

whatever that means...next thing you know, pass catchers will learn to bobble the ball all the way down the field to be deemed 'defenseless' not the defenders fault he could not secure the ball in a timely manner

bad call ... case closed

 

[RobertWeathers]

I hope Green is ok but as long as players aren't using helmets and hitting helmets to take out receivers I have zero issue with BB's hit.

 

[SalemPats]

I'm pissed that this was a penalty. The penalties targeting the head worked. Browner made sure he hit with his shoulder and didn't lead in with his helmet. This was a perfect, clean hit and should be an example for every player making a hit. It is a shame that the ref flagged it and i hope they come out and say it was a bad call.