Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[Deus Irae]

What makes a penalty "dumb"? A bad call by the Ref as it was in this case? A bad DPI call?

A dumb penalty is one where you have a perfect chance to hit a guy who's not looking, and you hit him high enough to give the ref an excuse to throw the flag.

What you're talking about is identified by your own words. A bad call.[/QUOTE]


A clean hit, as in this case, means it wasn't a "dumb penalty".



Because it wasn't a penalty.


"Bad call" and "dumb penalty"are not the same thing.

 

[1960Pats]

still trying to make the catch means jack ****..........he was capable of avoiding or warding the contact

He was concentrating on the ball and never saw Browner coming. If you look up defenseless receiver in the dictionary you'll see a picture of that play next to it.

It was the perfect chance for Browner to do what he did, put out a vicious hit, make a big play and maybe cause a turnover or INT. If he had hit him in the chest and not around the head, it was the perfect play without any chance for a penalty. Maybe he'll learn his lesson for the next time.

 

[SacPete1]

But penalties are currently not reviewable.
If you make them reveiwable you open a can of worms.
Thats the reason they have never made penalties reveiwable.

I realize they are not currently reviewable but I think they like any other play should be subject to review but a coach would still only have 2 challenges.
So if coach doesn't think it was PI, he should be able to challenge the call knowing that it is a subjective call and the video may not support an overturn but at least he gets the refs to look at it again.

I'm not seeing how its much different than say a pass being ruled incomplete on the field but the replay suggests that the QB's arm was not going forward. This type of play is subject to review.

Am I looking at this with too simple a perspective? What can of worms does it open?

When Belichick proposed this in the offseason and it was tabled, I know it didn't have the support of enough teams but I never read anything concrete for the reasons. I'd be curious to find out what those were.

 

[Deus Irae]

The easy solution is to review all personal fouls. It can be done "upstairs", in real time, and it would hardly make any time difference at all.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Bruschi says there is no chance this becomes reviewable...i beg to differ

 

[1960Pats]

A dumb penalty is one where you have a perfect chance to hit a guy who's not looking, and you hit him high enough to give the ref an excuse to throw the flag.

What you're talking about is identified by your own words. A bad call.

A clean hit, as in this case, means it wasn't a "dumb penalty".

Because it wasn't a penalty.

"Bad call" and "dumb penalty"are not the same thing.[/QUOTE]

The rule states that it was a penalty.

Browner had all the time in the world (by NFL time) and could have easily taken away any doubt and hit him lower. Not saying it was a dirty play, but it could have been cleaner too.

 

[IllegalContact]

He was concentrating on the ball and never saw Browner coming. If you look up defenseless receiver in the dictionary you'll see a picture of that play next to it.

It was the perfect chance for Browner to do what he did, put out a vicious hit, make a big play and maybe cause a turnover or INT. If he had hit him in the chest and not around the head, it was the perfect play without any chance for a penalty. Maybe he'll learn his lesson for the next time.

Show me that picture....

What lesson? The hit was perfect

 

[IllegalContact]

Bruschi says there is no chance this becomes reviewable...i beg to differ

When the 'wrong' team wins because of the wrong call, they'll fix it

 

[Onedaful]

Which he is not capable of because he is still in the process of trying to make the catch.

Where in the rules does it say that a reciever is required to make the catch instead of defending himself from an incoming hit?

 

[IllegalContact]

A clean hit, as in this case, means it wasn't a "dumb penalty".

Because it wasn't a penalty.

"Bad call" and "dumb penalty"are not the same thing.

The rule states that it was a penalty.

Browner had all the time in the world (by NFL time) and could have easily taken away any doubt and hit him lower. Not saying it was a dirty play, but it could have been cleaner too.[/QUOTE]

Which part of the rule exactly?

You are incorrect.....Green had all the time in the world to make the catch. He had the time to catch secure and avoid or ward.....anyone bobbling a ball that long is going to get crushed

 

[mb6592]

If that is a defenseless player then defenders can no longer hit any offensive player in the act of making a play. I think refs are using defenseless player and helmet to helmet to flag defender s for legal hits that are simply too hard.

Exactly. And Andy has it exactly right. In today's NFL any player in the act of catching a ball (to include a moment after the catch) will be deemed defenseless if the hit is perceived as too violent and is anywhere near the "neck area" (i.e. a high hit). I suppose you could use two hands to push the receiver in the shoulder area and attempt to dislodge the ball, but a good hit? 15 yards almost every time with most of these ****ty refs. To imply a receiver is not defenseless if he could choose to just not go for the ball (as a defender is closing in) is just ignoring the obvious in today's NFL.

 

[Deus Irae]

The rule states that it was a penalty.

No, it doesn't.

Browner had all the time in the world (by NFL time) and could have easily taken away any doubt and hit him lower. Not saying it was a dirty play, but it could have been cleaner too.

Browner's hit was clean. Therefore, it wasn't a dumb penalty.

 

[yukon cornelius]

a) the hit wasn't to the head or neck......shoulder to shoulder

b) the defenseless receiver/making the catch goes out the window once the ball is bobbled.....he had his chance to complete the catch....he couldn't.....now it's anyone's game, just like a tipped pass...

 

[mb6592]

No, it doesn't.



Browner's hit was clean. Therefore, it wasn't a dumb penalty.

It was clean and it was a penalty. Does that make sense? Welcome to the NFL circa 2014.

 

[IllegalContact]

Where in the rules does it say that a reciever is required to make the catch instead of defending himself from an incoming hit?

It doesnt

 

[Onedaful]

It doesnt

My point exactly

 

[RayClay]

Kneck...area.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

the defenseless receiver/making the catch goes out the window once the ball is bobbled.....he had his chance to complete the catch....he couldn't.....now it's anyone's game, just like a tipped pass...

Can you point out the rule that says that? I don't see anything in the definition of a defenseless player that provides for a "bobbled ball" or "tipped ball" exception to the rule. By contrast, there is an explicit sentence in the rules that says pass interference cannot be called once the ball is touched by anyone.

 

[IllegalContact]

Can you point out the rule that says that? I don't see anything in the definition of a defenseless player that provides for a "bobbled ball" or "tipped ball" exception to the rule. By contrast, there is an explicit sentence in the rules that says pass interference cannot be called once the ball is touched by anyone.

If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

Rather than continuing to bobble, he is capable of avoiding and warding therefore is not defenseless

 

[Ring 6]

Where in the rules does it say that a reciever is required to make the catch instead of defending himself from an incoming hit?

Wait. Are you really saying that if a defender is in the area they wrote the rule to say the receiver should not try to catch the ball but defend himself from a hit to the head and neck area? There wound be no such thing as a defenseless receiver. What makes him defenseless is the fact that he is focused on catching the ball. It's really just common sense.