Rocket
Active member
Shoulder to Shoulder is fine. RTFR.
GO BB.
EDIT: see rule, above.
GO BB.
EDIT: see rule, above.
irocdave":rhcykpkv said:Man I miss the original member of the LOB. He is toughening up the Pats D, just like he did here. Pats fans view him the same as the Hawk fans did, half seem to think he just gets penalties while the other half appreciate the badassness he brings to a D. Penalties be dammed.
I had the game on in the one of the living rooms and was dinking around in my computer room. My 11 YO son runs in and said " I think Browner broke a Charger receiver, it was AWESOME!!!) By the time I get to the TV it had gone to a commercial break. My son kept saying "you watch, that guy will still be laying there when the game comes back on". He was right. It was a bad call, similar to Kam doing what Kam has done to VD over the last couple years.
hawknation2014":1079v2e1 said:Brahn":1079v2e1 said:They probably called it on Browner because he left his feet for the hit, thus "Springing into the WR". Not saying the call was correct.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ing-rules/
Still a great hit that 15 years ago gets you on talk shows.
Nah, read the rule. Unnecessary roughness for "launching" still requires making contact with your helmet. Browner led with his shoulder and made contact with the defenseless receiver's shoulder.
(j) if a player illegally launches into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves
both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his
helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any
part of his opponent’s body.
But Blandino said it was a good call!KitsapGuy":2ej46r47 said:[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/543495905950048257[/tweet]
Scottemojo":ennxmeiq said:But Blandino said it was a good call!KitsapGuy":ennxmeiq said:[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/543495905950048257[/tweet]
hawknation2014":349ue6bk said:Kam's hit was better because he hit Davis a little lower in the chest, which is closer to the "strike zone." After slowing down both plays, neither Kam not Browner appear to make any contact with the facemask. Rather, both facemasks appear to ricochet backward due to the force of the shoulder-to-chest contact. Of course, reasonable minds can disagree, which is why neither was fined for their hits.
Basis4day":8y8yzt7n said:hawknation2014":8y8yzt7n said:Kam's hit was better because he hit Davis a little lower in the chest, which is closer to the "strike zone." After slowing down both plays, neither Kam not Browner appear to make any contact with the facemask. Rather, both facemasks appear to ricochet backward due to the force of the shoulder-to-chest contact. Of course, reasonable minds can disagree, which is why neither was fined for their hits.
At the angle around 1:13 in the Browner vid i think he does make contact with the facemask at the same. On the All-22 the ref who through the flag was a good 15 yards away, but his angle does make it more likely he only saw the facemask contact only. Then again, he works with Bill Leavy.
This should be reviewable, though Pete would disagree. He hates replay and wishes they would do away with it and let the football gods work it out. Doesn't mean he would never throw a challenge flag since it's in the rule book. He just wishes it didn't exist.