Antonio Brown ruled out vs. Broncos

[Win TWINS!!!]

Oh, you mean because it means you might be wrong?

Nice. Move along.

Nope. I get it. You're a homer.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Nope. I get it. You're a homer.

Not at all.

I've even stated that there are lines, and he's crossed them. I just don't happen to think this was one of them. The rule is broken because if a WR lowers his head into a legal target area at the last second, the defender has no way to avoid the hit and yet the defender is still penalized.

I get it. You're ignorant. It's ok.

 

[Win TWINS!!!]

Also, I showed where brown lowers his head as he sees Burfict coming. Burfict barely makes contact if his head doens't go down, which you said was natural. The Vine shows it was more "reactive" to a hit coming than that of a natural progression. Keep trying though.

I don't care if the intent was "dirty," or not. That's irrelevant. BUT, Burfict is not innocent. He lowers his shoulder to make a hit. He doesn't even attempt to avoid Brown.

 

[Mondo Jay]

Brown lowers his head as he sees Burfict coming.

I've jumped many times without my head coming down like that. Especially in football.

The rule is broken, and even some current and former Steeler players agree that the hit wasn't dirty, nor should it have been penalized.

If he hadn't lowered his head, it would have been a helmet to helmet shot.

 

[Win TWINS!!!]

Not at all.

I've even stated that there are lines, and he's crossed them. I just don't happen to think this was one of them. The rule is broken because if a WR lowers his head into a legal target area at the last second, the defender has no way to avoid the hit and yet the defender is still penalized.

I get it. You're ignorant. It's ok.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I don't care if the intent was "dirty," or not. That's irrelevant. BUT, Burfict is not innocent. He lowers his shoulder to make a hit. He doesn't even attempt to avoid Brown.

Of course not. If Brown catches that ball, and Burfict had pulled up early because of that, instead of dislodging the ball (potentially) Brown breaks free for either a long gain, or even a TD.

As Ike Taylor said, you are going to where the WR is going, not where he's at. Most times defenders don't even know if the WR has the ball or not because that is not where their focus is.

The reason Burfict got the penalty is because Brown's head was clearly hit. The flag was the right call. I'm not arguing that at all. What I've said over and over is...the rule is broken. THAT is what needs to be fixed. You're so dense you can't see that I'm not arguing at all about him getting the flag. Per rules, he deserved the flag. My entire thought on the issue is that the rule itself is broken.

 

[Cincyfan78]

If he hadn't lowered his head, it would have been a helmet to helmet shot.

We'll never know, but it's not out of the realm of possibility with Burfict.

 

[Win TWINS!!!]

Of course not. If Brown catches that ball, and Burfict had pulled up early because of that, instead of dislodging the ball (potentially) Brown breaks free for either a long gain, or even a TD.

As Ike Taylor said, you are going to where the WR is going, not where he's at. Most times defenders don't even know if the WR has the ball or not because that is not where their focus is.

The reason Burfict got the penalty is because Brown's head was clearly hit. The flag was the right call. I'm not arguing that at all. What I've said over and over is...the rule is broken. THAT is what needs to be fixed. You're so dense you can't see that I'm not arguing at all about him getting the flag. Per rules, he deserved the flag. My entire thought on the issue is that the rule itself is broken.

I guess the multi-billion $$$ settlement disagrees with you.

 

[Mondo Jay]

We'll never know, but it's not out of the realm of possibility with Burfict.

Yeah, it really doesn't matter I guess.. It just looks like Brown lowers his head and drops it to the left.

 

[cdumler7]

Of course not. If Brown catches that ball, and Burfict had pulled up early because of that, instead of dislodging the ball (potentially) Brown breaks free for either a long gain, or even a TD.

As Ike Taylor said, you are going to where the WR is going, not where he's at. Most times defenders don't even know if the WR has the ball or not because that is not where their focus is.

The reason Burfict got the penalty is because Brown's head was clearly hit. The flag was the right call. I'm not arguing that at all. What I've said over and over is...the rule is broken. THAT is what needs to be fixed. You're so dense you can't see that I'm not arguing at all about him getting the flag. Per rules, he deserved the flag. My entire thought on the issue is that the rule itself is broken.

So how would you change the rule then? Because the rule was put in to help try to protect from those kind of hits and honestly we have seen those type of hits less since the rule was created. Now obviously it still happens as like what we just saw with Burfict but that to me is still more of a these guys are like human missiles and sometimes it is impossible to control the body from just hitting like it does. I don't think Burfict or Brown could have done a ton in the situation. Brown's reaction to me looks like a guy that his body is making that instant reaction to somewhat curl up which pushes his head down into the shoulder of Burfict and Burfict looks like a guy that just somewhat misjudged where the receiver was going to be and his should just happened to be right where Brown's head ended up. Again though how do you change that rule? I mean if you eliminate the rule that is in place then most likely those type of hits happen more often.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I guess the multi-billion $$$ settlement disagrees with you.

Wha?

Seriously, that has NOTHING to do with the rule.

Again, I get protecting players. I understand that 100%. You don't want guys just targeting the helmet-to-helmet hits. HOWEVER, in this instance, the WR dropped his head and put himself at risk. No one forced his head down into a LEGAL target area.

THIS is where the rule is broken. The defender should not be penalized when attempting to make a LEGAL hit, and a WR drops his head into a LEGAL target area. There is ZERO way to protect a WR who drops his head like that, and it's all on the WR and shouldn't be on the defender.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Yeah, it really doesn't matter I guess.. It just looks like Brown lowers his head and drops it to the left.

Yup, and defenders in a last second have no way to avoid this hit.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

Antonio Brown should have been penalized for lowering his helmet and leading with the crown of his helmet on a oncoming defender.

Cheating bastards! haha

 

[Cincyfan78]

So how would you change the rule then? Because the rule was put in to help try to protect from those kind of hits and honestly we have seen those type of hits less since the rule was created. Now obviously it still happens as like what we just saw with Burfict but that to me is still more of a these guys are like human missiles and sometimes it is impossible to control the body from just hitting like it does. I don't think Burfict or Brown could have done a ton in the situation. Brown's reaction to me looks like a guy that his body is making that instant reaction to somewhat curl up which pushes his head down into the shoulder of Burfict and Burfict looks like a guy that just somewhat misjudged where the receiver was going to be and his should just happened to be right where Brown's head ended up. Again though how do you change that rule? I mean if you eliminate the rule that is in place then most likely those type of hits happen more often.

I don't think there is any way to avoid it.

I think, maybe like in college, you could just review the play. Not for targeting to be ejected or anything like that, but to discern if A: Did the player make forceful contact with the head/neck area with the crown of the helmet or arm/forearm/shoulder OUTSIDE of a legal target area - B: Did the offensive player lower his head into a legal target zone.

If A, then it's a penalty. There's no doubt about it in my mind, and I have 0% problem with that.

If B, then I think it should NOT be a penalty, and really the onus is on the WR's to not duck.

I mean, for years and years, and decades and decades we've been teaching players to not lower their head when tackling. It causes neck injuries. We've taught RB's to try and not lower their heads, it can cause neck injuries. This is exactly along those same lines. The WR has to realize that after any potential catch, they simply can't just lower their head, or it's going to come into the legal target area. However, this is not the most effective way to tackle, especially bigger guys like Gronk. You have to put your helmet across their chest, shoulder into their armpit/chest area, and come completely across their body to make an effective tackle. The new rules prevent this to a degree that it is becoming detrimental to defenders trying to tackle.

As it stands now, the target area to tackle anyone is the ankles to the mid-thigh/waiste. Anything higher, especially for WR's going up to catch a ball, puts the defender at risk for hitting the WR in the head if he ducks down.

In reality, there is just no way to 100% protect anyone. It's a violent game. While I do agree there are many things that can be done to protect players (I personally would ban all cut-blocks, from any position, for any reason...block them straight up or get another job), there are many aspects of the game that is inherently violent and are going to cause problems no matter what. You have to walk a fine line between protecting players, and still allowing the game to be played as it is meant to be. You can protect defenseless WR's to a point, but like anything, they also have a role to play in protecting themselves, and that is a standard I think that should be looked at for instances such as this (and others) where the defender's target was clean.

 

[cdumler7]

I don't think there is any way to avoid it.

I think, maybe like in college, you could just review the play. Not for targeting to be ejected or anything like that, but to discern if A: Did the player make forceful contact with the head/neck area with the crown of the helmet or arm/forearm/shoulder and/or B: Did the offensive player lower his head into a legal target zone.

If A, then it's a penalty. There's no doubt about it in my mind, and I have 0% problem with that.

If B, then I think it should NOT be a penalty, and really the onus is on the WR's to not duck.

I mean, for years and years, and decades and decades we've been teaching players to not lower their head when tackling. It causes neck injuries. We've taught RB's to try and not lower their heads, it can cause neck injuries. This is exactly along those same lines. The WR has to realize that after any potential catch, they simply can't just lower their head, or it's going to come into the legal target area.

As it stands now, the target area to tackle anyone is the ankles to the mid-thigh/waiste. Anything higher, especially for WR's going up to catch a ball, puts the defender at risk for hitting the WR in the head if he ducks down.

In reality, there is just no way to 100% protect anyone. It's a violent game. While I do agree there are many things that can be done to protect players (I personally would ban all cut-blocks, from any position, for any reason...block them straight up or get another job), there are many aspects of the game that is inherently violent and are going to cause problems no matter what. You have to walk a fine line between protecting players, and still allowing the game to be played as it is meant to be. You can protect defenseless WR's to a point, but like anything, they also have a role to play in protecting themselves, and that is a standard I think that should be looked at for instances such as this (and others) where the defender's target was clean.

What you are asking though is for players to go against natural instinct. It is the human body's natural instinct to lower and go towards the fetal position when it looks like a collision is going to happen. The body is trying to protect the major organs like the heart, lungs, and such. Yes the head injury part of it stinks but it is just what the human body does. So I don't blame Brown for lowering his head in that situation. Everybody does it no matter how much you try to coach that out of the player.

Now I guess you can make it not be a penalty but to me it is such a boom/boom play that it would just another gray area of the NFL that everybody gets pissed about the officials deciding things in the game. I thought most fans were wanting less gray area yet here you are suggesting lets just add more to what is an already very confusing playbook.

 

[DanBengalfan]

regardless, unfortunate hit. I don't really think Burfict was trying to kill the man, but can't read his mind either.

 

[Cincyfan78]

What you are asking though is for players to go against natural instinct. It is the human body's natural instinct to lower and go towards the fetal position when it looks like a collision is going to happen. The body is trying to protect the major organs like the heart, lungs, and such. Yes the head injury part of it stinks but it is just what the human body does. So I don't blame Brown for lowering his head in that situation. Everybody does it no matter how much you try to coach that out of the player.

Now I guess you can make it not be a penalty but to me it is such a boom/boom play that it would just another gray area of the NFL that everybody gets pissed about the officials deciding things in the game. I thought most fans were wanting less gray area yet here you are suggesting lets just add more to what is an already very confusing playbook.

For the first part, it's also natural reaction to lower the head when tackling, yet no one seems to have any issues teaching kids to keep their heads up when tackling, or when a RB has the ball. I don't see any difference here. WR's have to be taught to keep their heads up.

Actually, I'm removing the gray area of the bang-bang play by allowing it to be reviewed. Call the call on the field, and then review it. You are going to get more right than you are wrong, as they already do when making reviews. It's pretty clear when a WR lowers his head, or when a defender is clearly targeting outside of a legal zone.

Like I said, there's no perfect answer, but they've already removed so much from the defenses side of the ball that eventually it's going to just be 2-hand touch. Even if you do everything perfectly as a defender, you can still get a flag. That being the case, it tells me that the rule should be looked at. Not to change the rule so much as to remove protection, but to give the defender the benefit of the doubt that when he does things 100% correctly, he doesn't get penalized.

 

[Cincyfan78]

regardless, unfortunate hit. I don't really think Burfict was trying to kill the man, but can't read his mind either.

Right.

And per the rules as they are currently, he got the flag he deserved. I don't have any issue with that at all.

 

[Cincyfan78]

What you are asking though is for players to go against natural instinct. It is the human body's natural instinct to lower and go towards the fetal position when it looks like a collision is going to happen. The body is trying to protect the major organs like the heart, lungs, and such. Yes the head injury part of it stinks but it is just what the human body does. So I don't blame Brown for lowering his head in that situation. Everybody does it no matter how much you try to coach that out of the player.

Now I guess you can make it not be a penalty but to me it is such a boom/boom play that it would just another gray area of the NFL that everybody gets pissed about the officials deciding things in the game. I thought most fans were wanting less gray area yet here you are suggesting lets just add more to what is an already very confusing playbook.

Oh, and go Broncos!

 

[cincygrad]

Brown didn't "lower" his head. Have you ever jumped making any kind of an athletic play? Your body goes through a natural process as it comes back in contact with the ground. Even if Brown had made the catch - he was still in a defenseless position.

Oh good.... We have an athlete in the house.

Gentlemen, if you ever wanted to interact with an athlete on the internet, now is your chance!