Brandon Browner Hit Shows Why Coaches Should Be Able to Challenge Penalties

As long as there are human beings in charge of officiating NFL games, the human element will always be a factor in the way it is officiated. 

With advances in technology, though, we certainly can't be too far from a game being officiated by robots. Whether C-3PO could do a better job of officiating than Ed Hochuli is a discussion for another day—probably another decade, or even century. 

But the league is doing itself, its players, its coaches and its fans a disservice by not fully utilizing the technology that is already at its disposal.

So many things can be reviewed, from whether a player had possession of the football before stepping out of bounds, to whether the tip of the football crossed the plane into the goal line for a touchdown, to whether a player was down by contact before committing a costly turnover.

So many minuscule elements of so many plays can be reviewed. Why not the blatantly obvious elements of some of the biggest, potentially game-changing penalties?

New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick has lobbied to make provisions in the NFL rulebook that would allow coaches to challenge penalties. The technology already exists, but the legislation does not.

On Sunday night, was another prime example of why it should.

Patriots cornerback Brandon Browner laid a highlight-reel hit on San Diego Chargers tight end Ladarius Green. Browner hit Green shoulder to shoulder while the tight end attempted to catch a pass. The ball was tipped into the air, intercepted by Patriots safety Devin McCourty and returned for a touchdown.

Fifteen yards for the offense and an automatic first down later, and Twitter nearly caved in on itself with viewers who were flabbergasted at why a clean (yet violent) hit was being penalized.

Usually when it comes to Twitter and the discussion of penalties, there are a range of views as fans try (sometimes in vain) to grasp the NFL's complicated rules. However, there appeared to be no disagreement or argument as to the lack of veracity of the penalty.

Head official Bill Leavy called Browner for a "helmet-to-helmet" hit on Green, which is self-explanatory. A close-up shot of the hit and a slow-motion replay reveals no such contact between the two players.

NBC analyst Cris Collinsworth's evolving take on the play is a good case study in why penalties should be reviewable. 

Here's Collinsworth before the replay: "[Green] was bobbling the football, and then it was Browner who came across and just went right to the head and neck area, as far as I could see."

Here's Collinsworth with the benefit of replay: "You could see Browner get his head out of there—or try to—[and] hits him with the shoulder in the chest area. ...You could see a little glancing blow of the helmet, but that wasn't the main thrust of that [hit]. ...That shoulder pad kind of gets up underneath [Green's] chin, and I think the action of that head snapping back as much as anything is what the official saw."

If Leavy had the opportunity to review this hit, he would have quickly realized there was no helmet-to-helmet contact and would have had the ability to overturn his own call. 

But even if there was no direct contact between the heads of the two players, might this constitute some kind of personal foul? We all know how complicated NFL rules can be, so the official rulebook seems like the best place to start. 

One may argue that the hit qualifies as a hit on a defenseless receiver. Rule 12, section 2, article 7 (a) and (b) discusses hits on defenseless players:

"

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

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.

"

Because Green was bobbling the ball, and had not yet caught it, he might qualify as a defenseless receiver. But that wasn't the penalty that was called on the field.

Here's more from the rulebook (emphasis appears in rulebook):

"

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

Forcibly hitting the defenseless player's head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet or facemask is lower than the passer's neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him.

"

Did Browner's shoulder initially make contact with Green's neck? No. Did it eventually make contact? That's not as clear. 

Browner's hit, while not a helmet-to-helmet hit, is quite possibly a shoulder-to-neck hit. So even if Belichick had the ability to challenge this penalty, there's no guarantee that Bill Leavy would have ruled that there was no penalty—he may have changed which penalty, but again, the lines are gray. 

"It's a close play," Belichick said on a teleconference with Patriots media on Monday. "We talked to the crew that called it. We coach whatever the rules are, and we coach within the rules so that's how we coach it. Can't lead with your head or hit above the shoulders. We coach what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. I think that's the way the players play it. Sometimes it doesn't always turn out that way but that's what we try to do."

It seems like the rulebook is intentionally gray at times, to allow the officials some margin for error in case they (inevitably) get a call wrong. In this case, the helmet-to-helmet hit was not present. We'll probably still see Dean Blandino—the NFL's Vice President of Officiating and resident referee guard dog—offer an explanation as to why Leavy's crew made the right call.

We can debate whether it was actually a penalty or not, but the officiating crew should have had the full breadth of tools at their disposal to make the right call. 

A lot of things happen that are too quick or too close to call. That's why sometimes, when an official comes out from under the hood after reviewing a play, he will say the ruling "stands" instead of saying it "is confirmed."

If there is insufficient evidence to overturn a penalty on the field, then it should stand. But allowing for review gives the officials the benefit of the same close-up camera angles and the same slow-motion as he sees every time he reviews a play. 

Most coaches don't use both of their challenges in a game. Allowing them to challenge penalties may help them make better use of their challenges.

Sunday night's penalty had the potential to be a game-changer. If that play had been the difference in a game with major playoff implications, the tenor of this column would be even harsher.

There is absolutely no reason that such a big play should not be subject to review. Practically every play is subject to review. Penalties are plays, too.

Unless otherwise noted, all quotes obtained first-hand.

Follow @ErikFrenz