Week 14: SNF New England Patriots (9-3) @ San Diego Chargers (8-4)

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by darkknightrises

I have seen it like a million times already. He hit him in the shoulders not the chin or the head clean hit.

So no part of his body touched anything but the shoulder? And the rule is the "area".

As I've said, the rule is stupid, but that hit was against the rule.

[areobee401]

Dean Blandino on the Browner hit.

"I think the first problem [was that ] we announced helmet-to-helmet and this is not a helmet-to-helmet hit. 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."

[darkknightrises]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

So no part of his body touched anything but the shoulder? And the rule is the "area". As I've said, the rule is stupid, but that hit was against the rule.

The rule is head neck and he got hit in the shoulder there for bad call.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by areobee401

Dean Blandino on the Browner hit. "I think the first problem [was that ] we announced helmet-to-helmet and this is not a helmet-to-helmet hit. 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."

I agree... and honestly, this should be enough for them to change the language of the rule. I don't like things being left up to the judgement of the refs (I'm glad that got rid of the force out rule, for example) but this is a case I think it's needed. A forearm to the head/neck of a defenseless receiver should be like helmet to helmet (as it currently is), but a hit like this shouldn't be.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by darkknightrises

The rule is head neck and he got hit in the shoulder there for bad call.

Read the post right above you.

[darkknightrises]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Read the post right above you.

I did but he did not get hit in the head or neck. His shoulders got hit so a bad call.

[mestevo]

You can actually see the helmet shift on his head from contact to the side/facemask, unless you really think his helmet is so loose that it would move when he turns his head or something.

Look at this picture, you can even see the white of Browner's jersey through the facemask opening.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by darkknightrises

I did but he did not get hit in the head or neck. His shoulders got hit so a bad call.

I said it.
A pats fan posted a quote from the Vice President of Officiating saying it.
There is a picture showing it.

But okay, it didn't happen.