bsartist618 said:How was it PI?
Tony C said:it's a good point. that wasn't a penalty on Browner (it was PI, not a personal foul) but it sure as hell hurt Green and maybe it should become a penalty. I saw the same thing last week on a shoulder hit that gave a guy a concussion (can't remember who/what -- some sort of redzone game).
Jnai said:First, on replay, I don't think that hit should be have been flagged. But in today's NFL, that hit is going to be called every time, because of the violence with which his head snapped back.
However, unpopular opinion: that hit probably would not have been overturned even if there was replay. He obviously doesn't go helmet-to-helmet, but he does catch under the chin. It wasn't the kind of obviously-not-an-illegal hit that would be likely to be overturned.
Disagree about not being overturned, as long as the refs are actually trying to enforce the rule as written. It's not illegal to catch the player under the chin. Browner clearly didn't hit him with his helmet, which is the key issue.Jnai said:First, on replay, I don't think that hit should be have been flagged. But in today's NFL, that hit is going to be called every time, because of the violence with which his head snapped back.
However, unpopular opinion: that hit probably would not have been overturned even if there was replay. He obviously doesn't go helmet-to-helmet, but he does catch under the chin. It wasn't the kind of obviously-not-an-illegal hit that would be likely to be overturned.
It was announced as 'personal foul: helmet-to-helmet' which explains why I was perplexed by your post. I think we're all in agreement though.Tony C said:
thought that's what the ref announced, or did I hear wrong?
Harry Hooper said:NFL should ban hits above the lower end of the sternum (mid-point of chest)
riboflav said:
GTFOOH. Just give them all flags to wear already.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:Disagree about not being overturned, as long as the refs are actually trying to enforce the rule as written. It's not illegal to catch the player under the chin. Browner clearly didn't hit him with his helmet, which is the key issue.
Actually I think you're right. The rule book says "head or neck area," which I didn't realize. And since he was a defenseless player, you can't hit that area with your shoulder.Jnai said:
It's illegal to hit receivers in the head as they come over the middle, so how is it not illegal to hit them in the chin? Serious question here.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:Actually I think you're right. The rule book says "head or neck area," which I didn't realize. And since he was a defenseless player, you can't hit that area with your shoulder.
I'm not even sure it was the wrong call at this point.
nomarshaus said:But was he a defenseless player? He took about 3 steps after the ball touched his hands before he got hit. Plenty of time to prepare yourself if you catch the ball cleanly. If you don't catch it cleanly, it should be treated like the D tipped the ball and everything is fair game. Not the D's fault he was bobbling it. What is the D player supposed to do?
edit: don't want them to go really low and take out the knees like pollard, is that agreed?
A player making a catch or who has made a catch but hasn't set himself yet is considered defenseless. I would assume that a bobble simply prolongs the catch process but who knows.nomarshaus said:But was he a defenseless player? He took about 3 steps after the ball touched his hands before he got hit. Plenty of time to prepare yourself if you catch the ball cleanly. If you don't catch it cleanly, it should be treated like the D tipped the ball and everything is fair game. Not the D's fault he was bobbling it. What is the D player supposed to do?
edit: don't want them to go really low and take out the knees like pollard, is that agreed?
Reluctantly agree. If the goal is to stop concussions, allowing hits to the upper shoulder area won't cut it as the area is too close to the chin and jaw which are vulnerable. Making a lower target gets the helmet further away and should stop most concussions. If they get this happening now and start influencing high school and college programs, maybe those programs will survive.Harry Hooper said:NFL should ban hits above the lower end of the sternum (mid-point of chest)
Thisnisnsorta where I'm at. I think it got called because it was so violent that it seemed like it must have been illegal, when in reality it was just a legal violent hit and the reality is,myths game really is that violent.GeorgeCostanza said:In my 20s I would have been out of my seat, fist pumping yelling about what an awesome hit that was. Now being closer to 40 than I am to 30 I sat in my chair silent, hand over my mouth. I think the penalty was bogus, there was no helmet to helmet, he went upper body because that's where the ball was being bobbled, but that was some scary shit.
I agree on the letter.genoasalami said:It was not a helmet to helmet hit, but more importantly, the receiver was defenseless and the hit was in the neck and chin area. The end result of the play was that Green suffered a probable concussion, which is why the NFL is penalizing and in some cases fining defenders for hits to defenseless receivers. If you go by the letter of the rule below, it is a penalty.
Article 7: Players in a Defenseless Posture. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in
a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
...
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
...
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless players head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defenders helmet or facemask is lower than the passers neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;
This sums it up perfectly.There is no Rev said:I agree on the letter.
But on the letter, I think well over 60% of pass plays broken up by a hit during the act of catching the ball would qualify as penalties under a serious enforcement of this rule. But only visibly super-violent hits get penalized, which makes this a crappy rule; the application is basically bs.
Rules uneven in application are bad rules, or, at least, badly done rules.
Oppo said:Is sacking a qb from the blind side a defenseless player? Is tackling someone from behind? Is contact after a tipped ball illegal?
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:This sums it up perfectly.
I think it was actually the right call. But the rule still sucks as it's pretty hard to avoid contacting the head/neck when hitting a guy, especially if the receiver ducks. Honestly, though, this was a case where Browner probably could have done so.
Meh. He's lining the guy up for a while and is clearly trying to decleat him. It's not like he's going for the ball and he's not trying to wrap his arms and make a tackle either.DrewDawg said:
I don't know. Browner doesn't know the guy is going to continue to bobble the ball. Browner sees the ball go to Green, moves to make a play--if Green had caught it cleanly, he likely lowers he shoulder and Browner and Green collide and that's that. Green bobbled the ball, which means his head is still up and looking for it. Browner can't know that's going to happen and certainly can't (in my mind) react to that.
Ok fair enough. If he had caught it clean and established himself as a runner, it's definitely legal.DrewDawg said:Oh, I agree he wants to decleat him. My point was more that he likely wasn't assuming the dude was going to bobble the ball so much. That hit on a guy that secures the catch is a nice big hit, but not anything that draws a flag.
E5 Yaz said:It was so damn close. The head snapping back was the eye-test, probably, for the official. If that hit had been on Gronk and a penalty not called, most of us would be livid
cornwalls@6 said:Absolutely. I'm in the BB camp: everything should be reviewable, but keep the challenge system as is. These are potentially game altering plays. Get them right if possible. Specific to head hits/targeting, I also think the rule works very well in CFB. I would also have no problem if the NFL increased the penalty to ejection, per the college rule. Under that system, I think the call on Browner would have almost certainly been over turned.
To clarify, I would favor adapting the college targeting rule in its entirety. Under that standard, I don't think that hit be would be grounds for a penalty, as Browner clearly made the effort to lead with his shoulder, and was not, in my view, targeting the head. But you may be very well be right, under the current NFL defenseless players standard, the call would be harder to overturn. Will be interesting to see if/how much Browner is fined.TheMoralBully said:I doubt it would have been overturned. The guy was bobbling the ball so by the rule you can't spring yourself into him, even with a shoulder, like Browner did. The problem here is Browner can't really stop and check if the guy bobbles the ball and still make the big hit, which would have been perfectly legal on a clean catch. If the rule is put in place for player safety though they're not going to care about that.
cornwalls@6 said:To clarify, I would favor adapting the college targeting rule in its entirety. Under that standard, I don't think that hit be would be grounds for a penalty, as Browner clearly made the effort to lead with his shoulder, and was not, in my view, targeting the head. But you may be very well be right, under the current NFL defenseless players standard, the call would be harder to overturn. Will be interesting to see if/how much Browner is fined.
Fair enough. But what you are really talking about is proposing a new rule, or at least further revision of the existing rule. As it stands now, defenseless player is the key element in determining if a penalty is called. If the receiver had clear possession of the ball, and was making his football move to advance the ball, Browner would not, and should not, be flagged for the hit. I understand the player safety concerns, but flagging all hard contact north of the numbers would an enforcement shit-storm.behindthepen said:I don't know what the different rules are, but to me that's a hit that should be eliminated. Browner was coming in too high, defenseless receiver or not, and that is still way too common in the NFL today. In the NHL, that's probably a suspension.
It should be eliminated.behindthepen said:I don't know what the different rules are, but to me that's a hit that should be eliminated. Browner was coming in too high, defenseless receiver or not, and that is still way too common in the NFL today. In the NHL, that's probably a suspension.