Can Someone Explain How It Wasn't a Penalty?

^^^ Totally Jiks. Watch Sports Center right now. They are covering the Brooks hit after the commercial break and are now using it as the catalyst for QB penalties in the NFL.

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
I'm getting a lot of slack for this, but refs are being told to call this. Many of you have made valid points, but at the same time I completely understand them calling it. Does that make it right for them not to do the same for Kaep? No not at all. Can't argue that, but I can argue that the hit was "close" at the very least and that refs are going to call it. Maybe not 100% of the time, and maybe more or less depending on the name of the player, but it's not like it was the worst call ever made. Again it was close and with all the former players forcing lawsuits down the NFL's throat what is the NFL supposed to do? That's the thing people don't put into context. They have to call it.

I guess it goes a little more in depth than what I've presented. Me I totally understand the call. Should they be more consistent with it? Yeah, but it was a call they have to make.

Looking at it from the officials POV on the field in real time, it's easy to understand why it was called. I agree with your post, it's spot on IMO.



This picture makes the hit look a little worse than what it was, but if you see this in real time as an official, likelihood is you throw your flag because you are taught that "forcible contact with the head OR neck area" is a penalty and the league prefers to err on the side of caution.

Originally posted by NCommand:
^^^ Totally Jiks. Watch Sports Center right now. They are covering the Brooks hit after the commercial break and are now using it as the catalyst for QB penalties in the NFL.

Let me know what was said please. At work

Originally posted by pdizo916:
There's little to no doubt that the nfl will call that a penalty. Whether or not that it should be a penalty would be debated on this board for years to come. I personally don't think this should be a penalty. The game is played WAY too fast for a player to tackle in a small zone of the body. Football in itself is a violent game and the NFL is going full retard on these penalties. Although it will never happen, the nfl needs to let the players play. Also, if the other happened to Kap, i wouldn't scream for a penalty. Even though I am a niner fan, i am very objective. During the aftermath of the game.....it was PROBABLY the right call but it's a byproduct of the nfl's stupid rules.

I don't agree that the hit was a violation of ANY rule. Brooks hit Brees in the shoulder and upper chest area. Those latter still pictures are misleading because Brooks actually was letting up when his arm looks like it's at the neck area. The problem with the NFL is not necessarily the rules, but how the officials interpret these rules and the bias with which they interpret them depending on the player. If they're going to call these penalties everytime then why don't they just come out and make a clear rule that you are NOT allowed to hit the QB at all. But if you touch the QB then he is down. But you can't expect defensive players flying at 100 MPH trying to get around offensive tackles and hitting a moving QB target to hit the QB in the exact allowable window every single time. Drew Brees' head snapped back because that's part of the laws of physics, not because Brooks hit him anywhere that was illegal. And Drew Brees lowered his body as Brooks was making contact with him, so to expect Brooks to then make sure that he lowers himself even further and cradle Brees to the ground is total nonsense. The last time I checked this was tackle football and players get hit. He didn't hit him in the head, he didn't hit him in the knee, and he didn't do anything to otherwise injure him. Brooks made a clean hit within the rules in a critical situation in the game, and the officials gave the Saints a cop out.

And I don't want to hear that our offense played terribly and we deserved to lose. I know our offense played like crap. But this game is played with offense, defense, and special teams. Just because an offense plays poorly doesn't mean that a team doesn't deserve to win. Look at many of the wins Seattle got with their offense playing like total crap. Yet everyone credits them for "finding a way to win." Well it's pretty difficult to find a way to win if the officials are going put their handprints on the game. That penalty should never have been called unless there was a blatant roughing the passer infraction. Otherwise, the official is clearly trying to affect the outcome of the game.

In all honesty I just think game altering penalties like this at the end of the game need to be a able to be booth reviewed by another ref sitting in the booth basically just calling down and being like you f**ked up this call you have to look at it again and change the ruling on the field

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

Originally posted by NCommand:
^^^ Totally Jiks. Watch Sports Center right now. They are covering the Brooks hit after the commercial break and are now using it as the catalyst for QB penalties in the NFL.

Let me know what was said please. At work

OK, they had Adam S and Eric Allen representing.

Adam S said, "The league is happy with this call. It's exactly what the league wanted. You heard Drew Brees say, as soon as he got hit he KNEW that a penalty was coming. You can not touch the head....but the league is determined to protect the QB."

They showed the interview with Bowman, Brooks and Brees and Brees was saying he got hit in the chin and obviously, we know the Niner's take on it. As Brooks said, "...they (NFL) try to protect all players around the NFL as much as possible but I just think they protect the offensive players a little too much...I felt like I hit him with my chest. I basically bear-hugged him. I'm just mad b/c that was a big play in the game and we lost the game and that's probably the reason why." Bowman, "A guy's momentum takes him to a 5' QB and the only way to get him down is let him raise his arm...I don't get it, man. I just feel like we're playing so hard for nothing."

Ouch! Absolutely deflating. People underestimate the DAMAGE these critical calls do to players at critical moments of the game (during their war/battle). That point about Brooks feeling he hit him with his chest is critical...the arm really had nothing to do with the play other than securing the tackle (balance) and it ensured Brees couldn't just spin out of it. It was dead...but the HIT was the chest on Brees' shoulder. This is where everyone is not focusing their attention enough, IMHO. That chest-to-the-shoulder hit was what shot Brees to the ground and made the ball fly upwards.

Eric Allen said, "It's an interpretation and the referee decided it was a hit that was around the neck. When you look at the play you see that he is coming through with his arm...and there is no way he can either go lower or now you're talking about...around the knees. I thought it was a good hit. It's just a situation where he's 6'5 and Brees is barely 6'. So again, you get a situation where you have a markable player in this position...they are so valuable...but as far as defense is concerned, it's very difficult to play defense and be physical these days."

Adam S said, "If you watch that play, I don't know WHAT he would have done any different (Eric agreed)...he came around the corner, he stuck his arm out...hit him in the head, penalty!"

"Welcome to the new NFL."

PS: They do keep harping on the hitting to the head/neck area but I'm personally, still not seeing that. I saw a hit to the chest/shoulder area and the aftermath of two bodies colliding/connected towards the ground (one fell all the way and one was able to somehow stay upright).

Eric Allen also went on to say the same thing I said. To paraphrase, he said that the offensive player needs to be taken into account on these plays (if the QB or RB ducks his head, turns his body, etc.) THAT needs to be written into the rule book on these judgments. He went on to say as long as the defender is targeting the stike zone and is not LAUNCHING himself into the player (a malicious act with intent to injure) the defensive player should be given the benefit of the doubt here esp. in the case where no helmet-hitting was involved here. And there is no doubt Brooks was aiming for (and hit) the strike zone initially and had zero intent to injury.

...you want to see launching of the helmet with the intent to injure? Go rewatch the Superbowl, 2nd to last play, where their DB launched the crown of his helmet up into the face mask of Crabtree, giving him a mild concussion. We all know what happened after that...

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:
I'm getting a lot of slack for this, but refs are being told to call this. Many of you have made valid points, but at the same time I completely understand them calling it. Does that make it right for them not to do the same for Kaep? No not at all. Can't argue that, but I can argue that the hit was "close" at the very least and that refs are going to call it. Maybe not 100% of the time, and maybe more or less depending on the name of the player, but it's not like it was the worst call ever made. Again it was close and with all the former players forcing lawsuits down the NFL's throat what is the NFL supposed to do? That's the thing people don't put into context. They have to call it.

I guess it goes a little more in depth than what I've presented. Me I totally understand the call. Should they be more consistent with it? Yeah, but it was a call they have to make.

Looking at it from the officials POV on the field in real time, it's easy to understand why it was called. I agree with your post, it's spot on IMO.



This picture makes the hit look a little worse than what it was, but if you see this in real time as an official, likelihood is you throw your flag because you are taught that "forcible contact with the head OR neck area" is a penalty and the league prefers to err on the side of caution.

Should be based on initial contact..and this pic is not the initial contact.

f**kin NFL refs. I hate games decided by horses**t calls like that agsinst a team who used to pay players for injurng qbs. f**k peyton, f**k refs, f**k the nfl and f**k p***y ass 5'11 qbs who survive in this league only because the nfl puts pink spandex on their lover boys

God damnit.

Say what you want but if hit was on rg3 or vick no flag

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

I just don't see how this is not a penalty? The initial hit was fine, but the fact that his arms slid up to the neck and head(even a facemask) make this 100% a penalty. I just see so many people blaming the refs when I think it's the correct call.

This looks like a clean hit here. But...

How is this not a penalty? He gets part the facemask and clearly has his hand right on the neck and head area. He also somewhat forces the head down. Even if it was "close" refs are going to call this.

I'm not trying to be anti 49ers here but I don't understand all the complaining on this. I personally feel it was the right call. This is something you cannot do period refs are pretty much forced to call this weather he actually got the head and neck... Especially with the name Brees on the backyard.

We had many other chances to win this game. I just don't feel the refs had anything to do with the loss.

This.
And if it said "Brady" the entire Niners defense would have been ejected from the game.

It is a penalty because the NFL doesn't like their premiere players nearly being decapitated.

New Orleans got lucky on those two PIs that weren't called. I've seen flags thrown for less.

Originally posted by belldogg32:
Say what you want but if hit was on rg3 or vick no flag

i know i am going to f**king hate myself but what would you say that? oh it was the right call, brooks clotheslined him and its just another thing some find easier to accept than the fact our team and coaches are not good against good teams

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by JiksJuicy:

I'm getting a lot of slack for this, but refs are being told to call this. Many of you have made valid points, but at the same time I completely understand them calling it. Does that make it right for them not to do the same for Kaep? No not at all. Can't argue that, but I can argue that the hit was "close" at the very least and that refs are going to call it. Maybe not 100% of the time, and maybe more or less depending on the name of the player, but it's not like it was the worst call ever made. Again it was close and with all the former players forcing lawsuits down the NFL's throat what is the NFL supposed to do? That's the thing people don't put into context. They have to call it.

I guess it goes a little more in depth than what I've presented. Me I totally understand the call. Should they be more consistent with it? Yeah, but it was a call they have to make.

Looking at it from the officials POV on the field in real time, it's easy to understand why it was called. I agree with your post, it's spot on IMO.



This picture makes the hit look a little worse than what it was, but if you see this in real time as an official, likelihood is you throw your flag because you are taught that "forcible contact with the head OR neck area" is a penalty and the league prefers to err on the side of caution.

Should be based on initial contact..and this pic is not the initial contact.

Exactly. No different than ankle tackling him, and on the wY down, Brees hits his helmet against the defenders. Now the defense is not only responsible for the location of the hot, but also the direction of the tackle.

Originally posted by boast:

Enough said.

If saints fans think that hit was illegal then they never would of won a superbowl with all thise dirty shots on favre against the vikings. TAke a look at thise bounty hits and how many times they wrecked favre illegaly. This hit was nothing compared to the cheap shots they got away with that day.