Dean Blandino says helmet to helmet hits may be reviewable in the future

[NortheasternPJ]

Almost all of the force of that hit was shoulder applied to chest.  The receiver took two full steps juggling the ball before contact.  Whether their helmets grazed a little is not relevant, nor is whether Browner was trying to "decleat" the receiver.  It's obvious that Browner was trying to avoid the head when he hit him, for God's sake.

 
According to the MNF football referee expert / former ref it was a textbook hit:
May be a slight hit to the neck area but Browner delivers a hit exactly like the League wants it done....didn't appear to be illegal
 
 
https://twitter.com/RefereeJimD/status/541799747863191553
 
Personally I'm much more with the comment above about 10 years ago I'd love it, now it does make me cringe a bit, but it was a good hit, legal and to the shoulder. It's no worse than taking out someone's knee and destroying it. It's part of the game and he did it cleanly. I don't have any problem with what Browner did, but wish the guy didn't get hurt. 
 
A QB and WR also need to make sure they are taking precautions and not sending guys into trouble or throwing Hospital Balls out there. 
 
My biggest problem with this whole debate is the "PLAYER SAFETY" flag that's constantly waved. NFL abuses on thinks like illegal contact, illegal hands to the face, pushing a lineman from behind, or whatever they want to make the game more offensively based this week. You can't push a lineman from behind in a kick situation because it's dangerous but they allow 5 offensive lineman to run into a running back in the pile and try to push him forward. It's just not consistent and doesn't make any sense..
 
If CBs were able to actually play defense and make contact, then the receivers would be less likely to run at full speed into someone coming the other way, they'd be slowed down and impact reduced. 
 
Also, as said above, if that was Gronk there would have been no flag. The whole thing is so subjective. Just because someone gets hurt doesn't mean it was a bad play, dirty or illegal.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Almost all of the force of that hit was shoulder applied to chest.  The receiver took two full steps juggling the ball before contact.  Whether their helmets grazed a little is not relevant, nor is whether Browner was trying to "decleat" the receiver.  It's obvious that Browner was trying to avoid the head when he hit him, for God's sake.

By the letter of the rules, it was an illegal hit. The rules very clearly say that you can't hit a defenseless player in the head or neck area with your helmet, arm, or shoulder. He qualifies as a defenseless player because he's in the process of making a catch (zero doubt about that, doesn't matter if he has taken two steps), Browner hit him with his shoulder (zero doubt about that), he hit him in the "neck area" (zero doubt about that too in my opinion although that term is very vague, the rules are clear that even if you hit another body part first with most of your impact, you still can't hit the head and neck area incidentally).

Argue if you want that the rules should be changed. But, if the question is whether or not the hit was illegal by the rules, then at least center the conversation on the actual rules.

 

[Jimbodandy]

By the letter of the rules, it was an illegal hit. The rules very clearly say that you can't hit a defenseless player in the head or neck area with your helmet, arm, or shoulder. He qualifies as a defenseless player because he's in the process of making a catch (zero doubt about that, doesn't matter if he has taken two steps), Browner hit him with his shoulder (zero doubt about that), he hit him in the "neck area" (zero doubt about that too in my opinion although that term is very vague, the rules are clear that even if you hit another body part first with most of your impact, you still can't hit the head and neck area incidentally).

Argue if you want that the rules should be changed. But, if the question is whether or not the hit was illegal by the rules, then at least center the conversation on the actual rules.

 
The hit wasn't to the neck or chin.  It was to the chest/shoulder.  I understand that the rule states that initial contact with an OK part of the body does not make later contact with the head fine.  They're trying to stop the shoulder/forarm-riding-up-chest-into-grill hits.   But if you watched that hit and saw an initial contact with the chest and then significant contact with the head/neck, I'm not sure what to say.  That's not what happened.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The hit wasn't to the neck or chin.  It was to the chest/shoulder.  I understand that the rule states that initial contact with an OK part of the body does not make later contact with the head fine.  They're trying to stop the shoulder/forarm-riding-up-chest-into-grill hits.   But if you watched that hit and saw an initial contact with the chest and then significant contact with the head/neck, I'm not sure what to say.  That's not what happened.

I've watched it like 30 times at this point. If you don't think there was "significant contact with the head/neck" then I do know what to say: You're dead fucking wrong. His shoulder very clearly hits below the neck and rides up into the right-side of Green's chin, which is why the head snaps back. You can see it clear as day on the replay here from the Browner-side perspective.

https://vine.co/v/Orn77zmTPIL

 

[Jimbodandy]

I've watched it like 30 times at this point. If you don't think there was "significant contact with the head/neck" then I do know what to say: You're dead fucking wrong. His shoulder very clearly hits below the neck and rides up into the right-side of Green's chin, which is why the head snaps back. You can see it clear as day on the replay here from the Browner-side perspective.

https://vine.co/v/Orn77zmTPIL

 
Yep, just not seeing the same thing as you bud.

 

[E5 Yaz]

ESPN play breakdown
 

With the aid of slow motion, you see Browner slide his head to the left, lead with his right shoulder and initiate contact to Green's right shoulder and chest area. Browner's shoulder glanced off Green's face mask, but there was minimal helmet-to-helmet contact. It's true that defenders can be penalized even if there is no hit to the head -- Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7b prohibits them from "forcibly" hitting a defenseless player's "head or neck area" with their "helmet, face mask, forearm or shoulder" -- but it's debatable whether Browner's contact met that standard.
 

 
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/153154/inside-slant-replay-would-have-helped-decipher-brandon-browners-hit

 

[MainerInExile]

If it had been McCourty and not Browner, is a flag still thrown?  Browner seems to get one BS call against him per game, his reputation precedes him.  Not sure what can be done about it, but it could very well cost us a game at some point.  It could have last night.

 

[soxfan121]

If it had been McCourty and not Browner, is a flag still thrown?  Browner seems to get one BS call against him per game, his reputation precedes him.  Not sure what can be done about it, but it could very well cost us a game at some point.  It could have last night.

 
Probably not, because McCourty is shorter and thus, there would have been no contact with the facemask.

 

[86spike]

I'd actually like to see a major rule change that required tacklers to wrap up the ball carrier with their arms and outlawed hits simply aimed at knocking a player off his feet.
 
If you made them lead with their arms and wrap up, the violent collisions would decrease significantly.
 
Sure, DBs would likely have their job made even harder, but both teams' offenses would benefit from that change equally.

 

[behindthepen]

It should be eliminated.

There's a fundamental tension between high and low hits in the NFL that doesn't exist in hockey. DBs are trying to knock the ball out first and bring the guy down second. To knock the ball out you have to aim at the chest, and sometimes you end up near the neck area.

I agree, and this is my problem with the play.  Browner is actually making no attempt to tackle, which he basically admitted on twitter.  His arms are pulled into his own body.  If he comes in 6-12 inches lower with his hit, he can still separate the player from the ball, and if he wraps the guy he can make a tackle.  Which last I heard, was one of the primary goals for defensive players in football.

 

[PBDWake]

I'd actually like to see a major rule change that required tacklers to wrap up the ball carrier with their arms and outlawed hits simply aimed at knocking a player off his feet.
 
If you made them lead with their arms and wrap up, the violent collisions would decrease significantly.
 
Sure, DBs would likely have their job made even harder, but both teams' offenses would benefit from that change equally.

 
If you could pair that with a loosening of restrictions on illegal contact, I personally think that it would go a long way towards helping. If Browner can't be physical because of the way refs call games, and can't slow down receivers, he's probably going to get beat by at least some amount. And if he gets beat by a decent amount and a quarterback doesn't hit the receiver in stride, you're probably going to have a full head of steam Browner sprinting at catch-up speed into the hit. Browner's hardly the only one like that, as well.
 
I will say that it was telling that not just among Patriot fandom, but nationally, among respected reporters covering the game, there was a near instantaneous wave of vocal disdain for the call. It tells me that even if the call was correct on a technicality, the rules need to be evaluated.

 

[DJnVa]

So, shoulder is legal, but head or neck "area" isn't? Kinda tough to parse that when the shoulder is clearly in the neck "area".

 

[DaughtersofDougMirabelli]

I agree, and this is my problem with the play.  Browner is actually making no attempt to tackle, which he basically admitted on twitter.  His arms are pulled into his own body.  If he comes in 6-12 inches lower with his hit, he can still separate the player from the ball, and if he wraps the guy he can make a tackle.  Which last I heard, was one of the primary goals for defensive players in football.

 
Since when is tacking the primary goal for defensive backs, especially on a 20 yard pass? Preventing a catch is #1, with tackling being secondary. 
 
Browner avoided a helmet to helmet hit, and broke up a big play. I think his primary goal was successful. 

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I'd actually like to see a major rule change that required tacklers to wrap up the ball carrier with their arms and outlawed hits simply aimed at knocking a player off his feet.
 
If you made them lead with their arms and wrap up, the violent collisions would decrease significantly.
 
Sure, DBs would likely have their job made even harder, but both teams' offenses would benefit from that change equally.

What about shots at the knee?

If you had to tackle everyone is there a player in the NFL who can wrap up gronk?

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

What about shots at the knee?
If you had to tackle everyone is there a player in the NFL who can wrap up gronk?

There was a play last night, not a huge gain, but he had 3 guys wrapping him up and he still didn't go down. They either dragged him out of bounds or the refs whistled forward progress, don't remember which. But three full grown manly football players had him wrapped up and could not bring him to the ground. Unreal.

 

[soxhop411]

Much of the last few days there has been a lot of talk of Brandon Browner’s hit on Ladarius Green in Sunday’s game in which Browner was flagged for a 15-yard personal foul penalty. Some people argue it was the right call to be flagged, while others say it was a clean hit.

The NFL’s Vice President of officiating Dean Blandino weighed in on the play in his appearance on the NFL Network [1] for his weekly segment.

“I think the first problem [was that] we announced helmet-to-helmet and this is not a helmet-to-helmet hit,” Blandino said. “That’s incorrect. When you watch the play, Browner actually does a good job trying to lead with the shoulder and get his head to the side. You can see his head is to the side and he does lead with the shoulder. The rule does protect the receiver who is trying to catch a pass; it does protect him from hits with the shoulder and the forearm to the head and neck area. When you watch this replay coming up, you can see there is some initial contact to the facemask … That’s really where the foul is. This is close. It’s a forcible hit. Is the contact, is that force to the head, or is it to the body? It is a very close play. But it’s not a helmet-to-helmet hit and I think that’s what confused a lot of people.”

Blandino also added plays like the Browner hit may be reviewable in the future, which is something Browner advocated for after the game [2].

“I would anticipate at some point this may be reviewable,” Blandino said. “It was discussed last year and I think it will be on the agenda because, like you said, at full speed, it’s tough to make those calls. But when you’re able to slow it down, you can discern between contact to the head and contact to the shoulder.”

http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2014/12/10/nfl-vp-of-officiating-says-plays-like-brandon-browners-hit-may-be-reviewable-in-future/print/

 

[dcmissle]

Really hard hits are now de facto illegal in the NFL.  That's from the lawyers.  It has become institutionalized by making it clear to the refs that they won't be downgraded if they throw the flag, and may be downgraded if they don't.  Between helmet-to-helmet and unnecessary roughness, you have a quilt sufficient to throw over 95% of clean, legitimate hits.
 
Let's not pretend this isn't the case, and let's not chew up any more time in replay, because reversals of penalties will be few and far between.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

So in short 'Yeah it was the wrong call, but we're not going to say that straight up'
 
Thank god the Pats didn't lose the game else this would be a shit show.
 
I'm all for replay on these types of hits.

 

[Reggie's Racquet]

 
ding ding ding
 
in the game thread, people were screaming that the hit shouldn't have been called.
 
Emotions were running high, and I didn't want to troll, but the first thing I thought of was the thread last year where people were very upset and wanted to enact extremely strict rules against knee hits - because of what happened to Gronk.
 
If I could have $1 for every poster who wanted stricter enforcement last year when Gronk was hit, but thought last night's enforcement was too strict when it cost the Pats a TD, I could probably take my wife out for steak at Peter Luger.
 
There are two things that you have to accept about football:
 
1. It's really fucking violent and guys are going to get maimed.
2. It moves very fast and it's difficult to enforce rules with exactitude.
 
Improving safety should always be a goal, but anything that requires hairsplitting is a non-starter.  A "do not hit above here" line on the uniform?  Really?

For me its about consistency in the calls.
Gronk was blatantly the recipient of a late cheap shot on his last touchdown catch and he could have easily been seriously hurt on the play.
It wasn't called.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

I was absolutely pissed off when I saw this live, but now that I've had a chance to sit and reflect I'm a little less inclined to be angry for one reason - even though I think it was a completely clean hit and the flag was thrown incorrectly, there was absolutely no reason for Browner to go high on that hit and for that reason alone, I'm ok with the flag. He actually raises up and launches (for lack of a better word) upwards into the receiver. If he had continued on his original path and wrapped up the receiver around his chest/abdomen, there would not have been a flag.
 
I get that he was trying to dislodge the ball and prevent the guy from catching it, but I'm ok with a flag there if he's going to launch himself upwards like that. It would have been just as effective if he had kept his legs moving and run through the guy instead of jumping at him (though the art of tackling is a dying art these days).

 

[crystalline]

Really hard hits are now de facto illegal in the NFL.  That's from the lawyers.  It has become institutionalized by making it clear to the refs that they won't be downgraded if they throw the flag, and may be downgraded if they don't.  Between helmet-to-helmet and unnecessary roughness, you have a quilt sufficient to throw over 95% of clean, legitimate hits.
 
Let's not pretend this isn't the case, and let's not chew up any more time in replay, because reversals of penalties will be few and far between.

Exactly. The NFL wants hits that hurt players's brains to be illegal. They can't tell the refs that, because you can't have post hoc enforcement. The whole dance around defenseless receivers and helmet to helmet is just a way to find some objective rule that effectively makes those hits illegal.

 

[tims4wins]

My problem with the call - and not sure this has been addressed yet - is that, when watching it, I feel as though the receiver was not at all "defenseless". He clearly sees Browner coming, yet keeps making an effort for the ball after already tipping it. He has time to get out of the way if he doesn't want to get hit. Doesn't at least a little physicality have to remain in the game? Otherwise it is truly flag football.