Browner's penalty negating McCourty TD

[QuantumMechanic]

If that is a defenseless player then defenders can no longer hit any offensive player in the act of making a play.

Silly (giving a charitable interpretation) exaggerations don't do anyone any good. Nowhere does the rule say defenseless players cannot be hit. It only says they can't be hit in the head or neck area by the helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Silly (giving a charitable interpretation) exaggerations don't do anyone any good. Nowhere does the rule say defenseless players cannot be hit. It only says they can't be hit in the head or neck area by the helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

If that wasn't a clean hit then nothing is.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Silly (giving a charitable interpretation) exaggerations don't do anyone any good. Nowhere does the rule say defenseless players cannot be hit. It only says they can't be hit in the head or neck area by the helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

Are you suggesting that was an illegal hit?

 

[Ring 6]

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.

What are you talking about?
You can hit a defenseless player.
You cannot hit a defenseless player in the head and neck are, even with your shoulder or forearm.

Once again.
If the hit was not to the neck area, it was legal while the receiver was defenseless.
If the receiver were not defenseless, the hit as it was would have been legal.

 

[Ring 6]

If that wasn't a clean hit then nothing is.

Yes, one that isn't to the head or neck are is perfectly fine, even when it is on a defenseless player.

 

[Ring 6]

this is why you're daft....... who said that?

Green was no longer defenseless, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

it was a bad call........it happens........which is why there are countless articles about this play bringing up a rules change on replay.

people much more qualified than you understand the play as I also see it.

you need to move on.......you've convinced yourself, that about it

Great. We agree. If the receiver was defenseless the hit is illegal. If the receiver was not the hit is fine.

All thats left is for you to accept that the catch was not complete.

 

[Ring 6]

it was a bad call........it happens........which is why there are countless articles about this play bringing up a rules change on replay.

It was a bad call because they called helmet to helmet, but it was an illegal hit.

people much more qualified than you understand the play as I also see it.

Please show me all of the 'qualified' people who called that a legal hit.
Tedy Bruschi, for one, agrees with me.

you need to move on.......you've convinced yourself, that about it

I don't need convincing, I can read, be unbiased and draw a very simple conclusion. The fact that you cannot be convinced how wrong you are should really concern you.

 

[IllegalContact]

Great. We agree. If the receiver was defenseless the hit is illegal. If the receiver was not the hit is fine.

All thats left is for you to accept that the catch was not complete.

except the receiver was not defenseless

you are wrong again

 

[IllegalContact]

It was a bad call because they called helmet to helmet, but it was an illegal hit.


Please show me all of the 'qualified' people who called that a legal hit.
Tedy Bruschi, for one, agrees with me.


I don't need convincing, I can read, be unbiased and draw a very simple conclusion. The fact that you cannot be convinced how wrong you are should really concern you.

except that you are incorrect.......run along...you'll learn

 

[SacPete1]

Not sure why you think its turning into an argument. You are focussed on one side of the issue, and I am pointing out what the other side is.
It sounds like your argument is make penalties reviewable.
I don't think the league is ever going to do that, and I understand why, because you are re-refereeing the game.
What if this play was reviewed (even though it would have been upheld) but while reviewing they saw illegal contact beyond the 5 yard chuck zone. Or holding on the offense. What do they do then? You can't really say change one call and ignore the other one you discover in review. I think it would be a nightmare.
I agree a perfect system would be prefect, but I don't think there is one.

I don't agree.

I believe every play should be subject to review.
I believe that each team should have 2 challenges to be used at their discretion and just like now they need to specify what part of the play is being challenged. So the refs are not looking for illegal contact if the challenge was for unnecessary roughness.

 

[Ring 6]

except the receiver was not defenseless

you are wrong again

yeah he is defenseless while trying to make the catch, its in plain English.

 

[Ring 6]

except that you are incorrect.......run along...you'll learn

In other words, you have no legitimate response

 

[IllegalContact]

In other words, you have no legitimate response

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

bad call.....case closed

 

[IllegalContact]

yeah he is defenseless while trying to make the catch, its in plain English.

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

bad call.......case closed

 

[Ring 6]

I don't agree.

I believe every play should be subject to review.
I believe that each team should have 2 challenges to be used at their discretion and just like now they need to specify what part of the play is being challenged. So the refs are not looking for illegal contact if the challenge was for unnecessary roughness.

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.

 

[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;

bad call.......case closed

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

 

[IllegalContact]

Andy.....it's like you're Dominic Raiola......diving at someones knees at the end of the game

 

[1960Pats]

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

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.

 

[IllegalContact]

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

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

 

[1960Pats]

I think one thing that we can all agree on is the concern over the inconsistency of flags being thrown. A similar play will happen next week and not be called.

It frustrates me beyond belief when you see a ticky tack pass interference penalty being called (the one that Shane Vereen drew late in the game comes to mind) that gets flagged. Worst yet, upon replay it shows the slightest of contact and yet the announcers will still be like "yup, you can't do that. You can't put your hand on the receiver." When the reality is that this contact happens on EVERY PLAY. It just only seems to get called at critical junctures of the game. They are completely hampering the defenses ability to play defense.

The descrepancy between offensive and defensive pass intereference is also laughable. Just think back to the game against Green Bay. I hope I'm remembering this correctly, but do you remember the crowd begging for pass interference call against Revis when he went up for a jump ball in the end zone (I think against Nelson). The crown was begging for the call when the replay clearly showed if anything it was NELSON who comlpetely elbowed Revis in the head. Had that been Revis's elbow hitting Nelson's head that would have been a sure flag.

Sorry, now I'm digressing. Just had to get that off my chest.

No need to apologize. It's right on topic and right on the mark.

All of the inconsistency really makes it difficult to enjoy any of the games, even those not involving the Pats. I end up sitting or standing around waiting to see what the result of the play is before I can enjoy what happened on the field.

I'm a firm believer in getting the call right. Always have been. The problem is the NFL can't seem to do that enough. Wait until the diving starts, then each game will be more of a flagfest than they are now. They better fix this and soon.