Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[Ring 6]

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...

You are just making things up

 

[Onedaful]

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.

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

Where in this rule does it state the receiver is required to catch the ball instead of trying to avoid or ward off the impending contact?

 

[neuronet]

Show me that picture....

It is in the rules that contact with head or neck area, even if with the shoulder, is illegal.

'That picture' has already been posted in the thread...he said he went for the numbers...he missed.

 

[Ring 6]

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

The rule states he is defenseless while trying to make the catch and until he can get in a position to defend himself. On this play he was obviously attempting to make the catch. He was not in a position to defend himself because he was in a position of trying to catch the ball.
To imply the league would write a rule that says a player must abandon the ball in order to protect himself from a high hit is dumb. Should a QB not be defenseless because he could have chosen to fall to the ground instead of throwing a pass?

 

[Ring 6]

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

Where in this rule does it state the receiver is required to catch the ball instead of trying to avoid or ward off the impending contact?

It doesn't say, "After a catch..." Or "During the process of a catch..."

Come on you are being purposely obtuse. That sentence follows the statement that he is defenseless until he completes the catch. The act of trying to make the catch makes him defenseless.
Your argument says any player at any time could just flop to the ground instead of catching a pass throwing a pass or catching a punt. It's ridiculous.

 

[Onedaful]

Come on you are being purposely obtuse. That sentence follows the statement that he is defenseless until he completes the catch. The act of trying to make the catch makes him defenseless.
Your argument says any player at any time could just flop to the ground instead of catching a pass throwing a pass or catching a punt. It's ridiculous.

It's just my interpretation of the rule. Instead of bobbling the ball why not try to protect yourself, no one said to flop to the ground. Different opinions at the end of the day, I respect yours, no reason to argue in a circle.

 

[Ring 6]

It's just my interpretation of the rule. Instead of bobbling the ball why not try to protect yourself, no one said to flop to the ground. Different opinions at the end of the day, I respect yours, no reason to argue in a circle.

But it is incredulous to say that a receiver should abandon a catch to avoid a hit that is illegal while he is making a catch.
Remember if the hit is a foot lower at the same moment it is legal and if it is the exact same hit after the attempt to catch the ball is over it's legal.
The league is protecting a player who is distracted by doing his job which is catching the football. It defies logic to say he should be watching for a hit while he is trying to catch the ball and be expected to give up on the catch to defend himself.
The receiver is defenseless because he is focused on the ball not because he chooses to be.

The rule is written in order to protect the receiver. It's idiotic to say he should stop being a receiver to protect himself against a hit that the rule book protects him from on order to allow him to concentrate on the catch.

 

[Onedaful]

But it is incredulous to say that a receiver should abandon a catch to avoid a hit that is illegal while he is making a catch.
Remember if the hit is a foot lower at the same moment it is legal and if it is the exact same hit after the attempt to catch the ball is over it's legal.
The league is protecting a player who is distracted by doing his job which is catching the football. It defies logic to say he should be watching for a hit while he is trying to catch the ball and be expected to give up on the catch to defend himself.
The receiver is defenseless because he is focused on the ball not because he chooses to be.

The rule is written in order to protect the receiver. It's idiotic to say he should stop being a receiver to protect himself against a hit that the rule book protects him from on order to allow him to concentrate on the catch.

So just curious, not arguing with you just want your opinion. If Browner lowered his shoulder, maybe, 3 inches, because if you look at the picture he, questionably hits part of his neck with more emphasis on his upper chest, would you be OK with the hit? Not sure why he would have to go a whole foot lower when it looks like he hits him in the upper chest anyways.

 

[Onedaful]

But it is incredulous to say that a receiver should abandon a catch to avoid a hit that is illegal while he is making a catch.
Remember if the hit is a foot lower at the same moment it is legal and if it is the exact same hit after the attempt to catch the ball is over it's legal.
The league is protecting a player who is distracted by doing his job which is catching the football. It defies logic to say he should be watching for a hit while he is trying to catch the ball and be expected to give up on the catch to defend himself.
The receiver is defenseless because he is focused on the ball not because he chooses to be.

The rule is written in order to protect the receiver. It's idiotic to say he should stop being a receiver to protect himself against a hit that the rule book protects him from on order to allow him to concentrate on the catch.

By the way I don't think it's idiotic to think that. Catching a football in the middle of the field like that is an inherent risk that a reciever has a choice to make. Yes he could go for the bobble or he could protect himself knowing a big impact is likely.

 

[Ring 6]

By the way I don't think it's idiotic to think that. Catching a football in the middle of the field like that is an inherent risk that a reciever has a choice to make. Yes he could go for the bobble or he could protect himself knowing a big impact is likely.

That is why they made this rule.

 

[Ring 6]

So just curious, not arguing with you just want your opinion. If Browner lowered his shoulder, maybe, 3 inches, because if you look at the picture he, questionably hits part of his neck with more emphasis on his upper chest, would you be OK with the hit? Not sure why he would have to go a whole foot lower when it looks like he hits him in the upper chest anyways.

I am ok with the hit anyway but the NFL isn't. And yes if he goes lower and is not in the "head and neck area" then it's not a penalty.
It's not a matter of what I think is right or wrong it's a matter of what the the is. I say a foot because he made contact at the neck so a foot lower would safely not be the "neck area".

 

[IllegalContact]

The rule states he is defenseless while trying to make the catch and until he can get in a position to defend himself. On this play he was obviously attempting to make the catch. He was not in a position to defend himself because he was in a position of trying to catch the ball.
To imply the league would write a rule that says a player must abandon the ball in order to protect himself from a high hit is dumb. Should a QB not be defenseless because he could have chosen to fall to the ground instead of throwing a pass?

He was in a position where he could defend himself......and chose not to.

 

[IllegalContact]

But it is incredulous to say that a receiver should abandon a catch to avoid a hit that is illegal while he is making a catch.

Nobody says he should do any thing. Just what he is capable of.

The rest of your post was one long paraphrase of little tangible value

 

[IllegalContact]

It is in the rules that contact with head or neck area, even if with the shoulder, is illegal.

'That picture' has already been posted in the thread...he said he went for the numbers...he missed.

Is that the exact wording of the rule?

Shoulder to shoulder with the receivers head lurching forward from contact is what I see in that picture.....a perfect hit with contact in shoulder and arm to break up the pass.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I am ok with the hit anyway but the NFL isn't. And yes if he goes lower and is not in the "head and neck area" then it's not a penalty.
It's not a matter of what I think is right or wrong it's a matter of what the the is. I say a foot because he made contact at the neck so a foot lower would safely not be the "neck area".

I'm confused by neck "area". The area of the neck is in fact the neck. The area outside of the neck is not the neck area. The only time (that I could find) the term "area" has a loose/undefined boundary is when it speaks to an abstract such as a "farming area" -- meaning a generality that doesn't have specific boundaries, it speaks to an abstract (credit to dictionary.com). So is the paved highway not capable of being farmed, one at the edge of a farming area, is that part of the farming area? I guess maybe -- if the term area is being used as an abstract, one without logically deduced boundaries.
So if the competition committee intended "neck area" to mean an undefined boundary outside of the neck, why wouldn't the "competition" committee (who has been trying hard to take undefined judgement calls out of the hands of the referees) simply say in the rule "the neck area will include the neck and any immediate area outside of the neck up to 1 foot? That would be an ultra super simple way for them to define what hit is and is not legal. And yet, if some are to be believed, the "competition" committee specifically left a highly vague, undefinable term ("neck area") in a rule, completely leaving it up to the referees to decide what is an area? That's appalling for something called a "compeition" committee, one that is committed to reducing 'on field referee judgment calls' by providing specific and definable words for referees to work off of.

As mentioned before, someone please find any press releases from the NFL/Comp Committee regarding this rule, and any pronouncements that this rule would protect player from being hit in the head, neck, and shoulders? Further, please point to games where referees have previously flagged/interpreted this rule to say a hit to the shoulder is a hit to the "neck area"?

If I see that then the call was right. However, intil I see that then the term "neck area" is and should mean the area that encompasses the next. It's really that simple..........

 

[supafly]

Sure would be nice to have the ability to review/challenge personal foul penalties. That's really all I have on this subject, other than I think the hit was a lot cleaner than initially appeared--maybe even totally clean.

That said, I still think they call this about 9/10 times anyway. Just the way it is. Maybe they'll "fix" things by allowing coaches the option to challenge in the future.

 

[AzorianPats]

Sure would be nice to have the ability to review/challenge personal foul penalties. That's really all I have on this subject, other than I think the hit was a lot cleaner than initially appeared--maybe even totally clean.

That said, I still think they call this about 9/10 times anyway. Just the way it is. Maybe they'll "fix" things by allowing coaches the option to challenge in the future.

I think the main reasons they threw a flag was because of the way the head snapped back, and because Green got hurt. Considering the speed of the game, I can see why they did that, but the replay was shown quite a few times. I dunno, I thought it was a great hit, but the player getting hurt is the exact reason why the league wants that hit out the game.

 

[DarrylS]

I do not favor any more reviews, instead they should consider adding a couple of more officials to the crew to provide better visuals on this call... also think they should confer before they make a decision, see some of this but not enough...

In the past the idea of more eyes on the play has been rejected by the owners, as they do not want to pay more referees... the current system lends itself to injustices such as this.

 

[Ring 6]

Nobody says he should do any thing. Just what he is capable of.

The rest of your post was one long paraphrase of little tangible value

You said many many times he isn't defenseless because he should ignore the football and defend himself.
The exact point of the rule is to protect him so hr doesn't have to do that.
You have taken a rule designed to protect a receiver while he is focused on catching the ball and said that it means he should ignore the ball and watch for and defend against the hit. It's moronic.

 

[mayoclinic]

Rodney Harrison predictable likes Browner's hit, and his aggressiveness in general:

“I thought it was a good hit, and if I’m coaching him as a defensive backs coach, I’d tell him don’t change the way you play,” Harrison said. “Because once you take away his aggressive style, he’s no longer Brandon Browner. He has to play smarter in certain situations, but that’s what makes him who he is. So you’re going to have to take some of the illegal contacts, and the facemasks, a couple holding penalties here and there. That just comes with the territory of having him on your team.

“But he sets the tone, and (his play) ignites the team. When you have someone making plays like that, it motivates your team. After that hit, the whole bench jumped up and got pumped up. And guess what? Even when they called the penalty, everyone got (ticked) off, and that propelled them to play even harder.”

“I don’t think his aggressiveness is a bad thing at all. I think when they brought him in, that’s one of the things you take along with him,” Harrison said Monday. “It was kind of like with me. You’re going to get a guy that brings a certain personality, and a certain aggression to the team. There’s going to be some backlash. There’s going to be some late hits, or some penalties here or there. You just have to accept that.

“When I watch, I love the fact that he’s aggressive because when you look at No.?39, he’s going to hit you. When you come across the middle, you better be ready because he’s going to be out there fighting with you and clawing with you.

“And that’s the personality you need. That’s what you need in that secondary.”

“Let me tell you something: The hardest thing in the world is to get someone to play aggressive. That’s hard to do. You can’t teach toughness,” Harrison said. “Either you’re a tough guy or you’re a freakin’ wimp. That’s the bottom line. So if I have a cornerback who’s 6-foot-3, 6-4, 220 pounds, and he wants to knock the (stuffing) out of somebody, I’m going to encourage it, bottom line.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...on_browner_s_style_perfect_for_pats_d_penalty