Brandon Harris Penalty on Punt

[Mean Machine]

Texans vs Lions game is on NFL instant Classic Replay on NFL Network right now!

Question, what was the reasoning behind the penalty on Brandon Harris when he hit the punt returner right after he caught the ball.
They called defenseless receiver.
I dont understand the call.
It caused a fumble!
thanks for any input.

[TheEastwood]

Yeah, I don't get this call. Since when can a returner be "defensless"? Isn't that the whole reason for a fair catch? Oh well, the Texans didn't get the ball anyways so it's irrelavent. Still a wierd call though. I've never seen that before

[dream_team]

Originally Posted by Mean Machine

Texans vs Lions game is on NFL instant Classic Replay on NFL Network right now!

Question, what was the reasoning behind the penalty on Brandon Harris when he hit the punt returner right after he caught the ball.
They called defenseless receiver.
I dont understand the call.
It caused a fumble!
thanks for any input.

I think they said he was a defenseless receiver. But this is another rule that needs to be revisited. Punt returners have the fair catch option, so they aren't defenseless.

[dream_team]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

Yeah, I don't get this call. Since when can a returner be "defensless"? Isn't that the whole reason for a fair catch? Oh well, the Texans didn't get the ball anyways so it's irrelavent. Still a wierd call though. I've never seen that before

I forgot who it was, but there was a Texan there ready to scoop it up and run it in for a TD. I think this call seriously cost us a TD.

[Allstar]

My bet is it wouldn't have been a penalty if it wasn't such a hard hit. He might have led with his helmet as well, I don't remember.

[CloakNNNdagger]

Originally Posted by TheEastwood

Yeah, I don't get this call. Since when can a returner be "defensless"? Isn't that the whole reason for a fair catch? Oh well, the Texans didn't get the ball anyways so it's irrelavent. Still a wierd call though. I've never seen that before

He didn't call for a fair catch as I remember it. Once he makes the decision not to call it, and to catch the ball, he must be given the opportunity to catch the ball and "set" before he can be hit..........just like a defenseless receiver.

[dream_team]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

He didn't call for a fair catch as I remember it. Once he makes the decision not to call it, and to catch the ball, he must be given the opportunity to catch the ball and "set" before he can be hit..........just like a defenseless receiver.

I think you are correct in regards to the calling on the field. But I think this is a rule that needs to be changed as well. PRs shouldn't be considered defenseless, because they can always call a fair catch to protect themselves.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by dream_team

I think you are correct in regards to the calling on the field. But I think this is a rule that needs to be changed as well. PRs shouldn't be considered defenseless, because they can always call a fair catch to protect themselves.

It's not about "not hitting" him. You can hit him just like any other receiver in the act of catching the ball.

You can not hit a player in the head if he is in the act of catching the ball.

Hits to the head are illegal to defenseless players.

Had he caught the ball and took a step, there would have been no penalty on Brandon Harris, because the "runner" has the opportunity to brace himself, tuck his head, or roll with the blow.

[76Texan]

A kick or punt returner in the act of fielding the ball is considered a defenseless player.

The rule forbid a hit to the head or neck area either with a helmet or with a forearm.

It was bang bang, but it sure looks like Harris led high with his helmet.
I believe it was unintentionally, but that's the rule.

[infantrycak]

In the act of fielding a kick or punt is #4 on the list of definitions of a defenseless receiver. As fiddler said you don't have to wait for him to catch it, you just can't hit him in the head and he did. If he had come in 8 inches lower with exactly the same timing it would have been a clean play.

[EllisUnit]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

He didn't call for a fair catch as I remember it. Once he makes the decision not to call it, and to catch the ball, he must be given the opportunity to catch the ball and "set" before he can be hit..........just like a defenseless receiver.

That rule is kinda iffy to me,,,,the PR caught the ball, i mean is this just a personal opinon rule or they need to change it to where they have to take 1 step before you hit them.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

That rule is kinda iffy to me,,,,the PR caught the ball, i mean is this just a personal opinon rule or they need to change it to where they have to take 1 step before you hit them.

Steps have nothing to do with it. The penalty was hitting a defenseless player in the head.

[CloakNNNdagger]

per the rule:

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]
(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) 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.

For the rule in its entirety: http://nflcommunications.com/2011/12...seless-player/

[EllisUnit]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

Steps have nothing to do with it. The penalty was hitting a defenseless player in the head.

i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

[76Texan]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

It's ironic that you just complain about the education system

[badboy]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

Like it or not the NFL is trying to reduce head injuries and concussions. Tacklers just need to hit lower.

[dream_team]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

It's not about "not hitting" him. You can hit him just like any other receiver in the act of catching the ball.

You can not hit a player in the head if he is in the act of catching the ball.

Hits to the head are illegal to defenseless players.

Had he caught the ball and took a step, there would have been no penalty on Brandon Harris, because the "runner" has the opportunity to brace himself, tuck his head, or roll with the blow.

I get what you're saying and the refs got the call right on the field. But I'm just saying I think they should change this rule because PRs in actuality are not "defenseless". They can call a fair catch to avoid a hit. They can protect themselves if they want to.

[dream_team]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

I agree with you there. Wish there was a way to rep from Tapatalk.

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by EllisUnit

i know that but he had time to call fair catch. IMO its a dumb rule simply for that reason, the guy has enough balls not to call fair catch then i think he should be able to take a hit regardless of if its helmet to helmet. Just my opinion.

I agree with '76

That player probably doesn't see it as an issue either. He probably thinks just like you. He could have called fair catch. He didn't, so the play is still live. He can juke & return the ball, or a defender could come in & decleat him.

However, this has nothing to do with that. This is about the NFL covering their butts. They are currently being sued by a couple hundred former players. In truth, the NFL should probably ban all hits to the head. However, I think they've reached what should be an acceptable compromise by only banning hits to the heads of defenseless players. A player who is not preparing to get hit. He's either catching a ball, or throwing a ball.

Once that player secures the ball & begins to advance the ball by dodging danger, hit him in the head. Well, you can't use the crown of your helmet as a weapon and launch yourself into him, but other than that, it's still football.

[EllisUnit]

Originally Posted by Fiddler

I agree with '76

That player probably doesn't see it as an issue either. He probably thinks just like you. He could have called fair catch. He didn't, so the play is still live. He can juke & return the ball, or a defender could come in & decleat him.

However, this has nothing to do with that. This is about the NFL covering their butts. They are currently being sued by a couple hundred former players. In truth, the NFL should probably ban all hits to the head. However, I think they've reached what should be an acceptable compromise by only banning hits to the heads of defenseless players. A player who is not preparing to get hit. He's either catching a ball, or throwing a ball.

Once that player secures the ball & begins to advance the ball by dodging danger, hit him in the head. Well, you can't use the crown of your helmet as a weapon and launch yourself into him, but other than that, it's still football.

Wish i could say i'm surprised

Dude this is powderpuff league. Heaven for bid players used to play with no face masks and made maybe 5K a year. The NFL is going to run the game into the ground, fans will lose interest in the game. The game will go under eventually with all these new girl football rules.

I mean really dude we have everyday Americans that barely skim by and put there selves at a greater risk everyday to feed their families. I have worked in the oilfield for 6 years now, have seen a guy catapicated, seen a guy lose both legs, seen a rack of drill pipe break the stands and fall on 4 guys killing all of them instantly while on their lunch break. And for what 80,000 a year ??? Give me a break give me a job making 1 million dollars a year with the risk that NFL players take compared to all the guys i work with daily and they would take it in an instant.

Infact you have to sign a waiver before working here AND most places in the oilfield saying if you lose your life while on the job that the company is not liable. Lose a leg or a limb and they will give you 10K but lose ur life and ur family is Fuc***.

Safety my ass