was that REALLY a penalty on Ron Brooks in 4th quarter for roughness?

[BrycePaup4ever]

I was watching the game with family and the game was on mute. i got very mad at that call as it appeared clean to me but everyone there laughed at me and thought it was a penalty. was it a clean hit?

[Heels20X6]

It was the definition of a clean hit. Shoulder to the chest. You may have called it "Hitting a defenseless receiver" but the point of football is to prevent the other guy from catching the ball. Brooks did it perfectly.

 

Refs also called a chintzy Roughing the QB penalty on Orton so it evened out in the end.

[GunnerBill]

I was 50/50 on that call. Could see why it was made but thought it was harsh. The one for a late hit on Orton in our last drive was a bad call too....

[4merper4mer]

It was the definition of a clean hit. Shoulder to the chest. You may have called it "Hitting a defenseless receiver" but the point of football is to prevent the other guy from catching the ball. Brooks did it perfectly.

 

Refs also called a chintzy Roughing the QB penalty on Orton so it evened out in the end.

 

Agreed on all counts. Both calls were awful.

[mchammer]

1+

[Freddie's Dead]

It was the definition of a clean hit. Shoulder to the chest. You may have called it "Hitting a defenseless receiver" but the point of football is to prevent the other guy from catching the ball. Brooks did it perfectly.

 

Refs also called a chintzy Roughing the QB penalty on Orton so it evened out in the end.

 

If you watch the replay, the receiver could still have caught the ball, so I thought it was a clean hit. The RTP on Orton was laughable.

[Roger Goodell]

If you watch the replay, the receiver could still have caught the ball, so I thought it was a clean hit. The RTP on Orton was laughable.

 

Both calls were excellent interpretations of the rules designed to enhance player safety.

[MarkAF43]

Both calls were excellent interpretations of the rules designed to enhance player safety.

 

blow it out your @ss Commish

[boyst]

it was not a pretty hit, it was a mean nasty football hit. but you have to hit guys in football in order to stop them. the hit was unavoidable and all brooks could have done was to keep his head up. he lead with his head down even though it didn't make contact. that's a football 101 no-no.

[peterpan]

There was nothing wrong with the hit but the refs throw that flag all the time. It's calle hitting hard and it's illegal in football now.

 

They need to fix the rules to allow that type of hit to be normal with no flags.

[34-78-83]

Brooks should have known that even though the WR had a chance to catch the deflected ball, he should have gone to "patty cake" mode or arm-wrestled the guy and refrained from the hit.

[Mark80]

There was also a non-PI call against our D late in the game that helped make up for it. I think it was also Brooks who clearly grabbed the WRs arm well before the pass was there. This was by far the most fair game I've seen the refs call against the Pats in a long, long time.

[Kelly the Dog]

Brooks didn't need to lower his head to pop the receiver with his shoulder. To the refs it looked like a helmet first hit. I don't blame them for that one because it took several slo mo replays to see he probably hit with shoulder first. You can't lower your head first like he did.

[dave mcbride]

Brooks didn't need to lower his head to pop the receiver with his shoulder. To the refs it looked like a helmet first hit. I don't blame them for that one because it took several slo mo replays to see he probably hit with shoulder first. You can't lower your head first like he did.

I thought he was penalized for sucking all day in coverage. He made a nice stop on that 4th down run, but he was otherwise awful. I don't think he knows how to cover. The Pats clearly knew this, which is why they went after him repeatedly all day. Gilmore's absence was really notable.

[devldog131]

It was the definition of a clean hit. Shoulder to the chest. You may have called it "Hitting a defenseless receiver" but the point of football is to prevent the other guy from catching the ball. Brooks did it perfectly.

 

Refs also called a chintzy Roughing the QB penalty on Orton so it evened out in the end.

 

The rule doesn't prohibit hitting a defenseless receiver. The rule prohibits hitting a defenseless receiver "in the head or neck area."

 

This is widely misinterpreted by media and fans alike. This hit made no contact to the head or neck area, therefore it should not have penalty. Unfortunately, officials have become overly sensitive to this particular rule and throw the flag every time they see a big hit on a receiver that is above the abdominal area.

 

These calls need to be reviewable and I believe that, as a result of many bad calls this season, we may be headed in that direction.

[John in Jax]

Somewhat off topic, but some of the defensive PI calls against the Bengals in last night's Cinn/Pit game were horrid. Wasn't too much of a surprise though; the consistency of PI and Holding calls from game to game is pathetic. And as noted many times in this forum, they *seem* to go to league-favored teams more often than not.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

I thought he was penalized for sucking all day in coverage. He made a nice stop on that 4th down run, but he was otherwise awful. I don't think he knows how to cover. The Pats clearly knew this, which is why they went after him repeatedly all day. Gilmore's absence was really notable.

He is awful in coverage. Just awful. He may not make the team next year.

[Beef Jerky]

Hopefully Brooks isn't on the team next year.

[CodeMonkey]

The rule doesn't prohibit hitting a defenseless receiver. The rule prohibits hitting a defenseless receiver "in the head or neck area."

 

This is widely misinterpreted by media and fans alike. This hit made no contact to the head or neck area, therefore it should not have penalty. Unfortunately, officials have become overly sensitive to this particular rule and throw the flag every time they see a big hit on a receiver that is above the abdominal area.

 

These calls need to be reviewable and I believe that, as a result of many bad calls this season, we may be headed in that direction.

 

The Brooks hit was high and he lowered his head. The refs don't have the benefit of slow motion replays to see if there was head or neck contact. And in fact, contact to the opponents head or neck is not even required for a penalty.

 

http://nflcommunicat...nseless-player/

 

Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

 

Correct call in my opinion. The roughing call on Orton was not. They must have been confused by the fact that Brady wasn't in the game anymore

Edited December 29, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[Talley56]

I don't know how it could have possibly been a penalty. He clearly lowered his shoulder into the shoulder of the receiver. No helmet/neck, or lowering head into him at all. We were arguing this at the bar I was at. I'd say we were split 50/50 but I'm sorry after watching the replay it looked clear as day that it was shoulder to shoulder.

 

But I'd say the roughing the passer on the next drive was a definite make-up call as the hit on Orton looked clean.