Breaking down the call: Did Brian Branch deserve an ejection?

Did Brian Branch deserve an ejection? A breakdown of the rules, what refs said, similar hits that went without ejections, and more.

The Detroit Lions game against the Green Bay Packers didn’t come without some controversy. Midway through the second quarter, Jordan Love targeted receiver Bo Melton on a deep shot. The ball went through Melton’s hands and shortly after, Lions safety Brian Branch came rushing in and crashed into Melton’s helmet, resulting in a violent collision.

The play was initially flagged for unnecessary roughness, but after a quick consultation with the Art McNally Gameday Central replay hub in New York , the infraction was deemed enough for an ejection.

Was that the right call? Did the NFL make an example out of Branch? What does the rulebook say, and why didn’t similar hits result in an ejection?

Let’s answer all of those questions.

The rulebook

No one seems to have any issue with the fact that it was a penalty. It’s pretty clear Branch hit Melton when he was a defenseless receiver, and he made forcible contact to the head/neck area.

So let’s focus on the ejection aspect of the rulebook, instead. Here’s the exact verbiage from the 2024 NFL rulebook (Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8):

For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

But what is considered “flagrant”? Is that fully by the official’s discretion? Yes and no. There is a definition of flagrant in the rulebook, but it is still highly subjective. Here’s how it reads:

The word “flagrant,” when used here to describe an action by a player, is meant to indicate that the degree of a violation of the rules—usually a personal foul or unnecessary roughness—is extremely objectionable, conspicuous, unnecessary, avoidable, or gratuitous. “Flagrant” in these rules does not necessarily imply malice on the part of the fouling player or an intention to injure an opponent.

It’s worth noting the use of the word “or” instead of “and.” If an official finds an act objectionable OR conspicuous OR unnecessary OR avoidable OR gratuitous, it could be considered flagrant and subject to an ejection.

What the NFL officials said

The call to eject Branch was not made by the officials on the field. Instead, it was called in via the hub in New York. Here’s what Senior Vice President of Officiating Perry Fewell said about their decision:

“We reviewed all the angles, and we clearly felt that he had time and space to make a different choice, as the act was a flagrant foul. And he clearly had the opportunity to avoid the head and neck area.”

So it’s clear they believe Branch’s foul was flagrant because it was both unnecessary and avoidable—two qualifiers as laid out in the rulebook as a flagrant and ejectionable offense.

What actually happened:

As the ball slips through Melton’s hands, Branch takes two more steps to the Packers receiver, lowers his head, and makes forcible contact. From this slo-mo angle, the hit certainly looks late-ish and Branch’s ducking off the head clearly happens after the ball had passed. But it’s a lot harder to say this was avoidable when watching the full-speed replay of the play.

Full-speed, it doesn’t look like Branch noticed that the ball was gone, and it certainly wouldn’t have been an easy feat to change course.

Has anyone ever been ejected for this?

Yes, several. Last year alone, there were at least three instances of a defender getting ejected for a hit on a defenseless receiver. Each instance is a little different, but the overall point here is that this in not an unprecedented ruling by any stretch. Here are some examples from last year with links to videos of the hits.

• Kyle Hamilton ejected
• Damontae Kazee ejected
• Kareem Jackson ejected

Now, these three ejections all seem to be more of the “launching” variety, where defenders are leaping from their feet and torpedoing toward the defender. That doesn’t appear to be what Branch is doing, but that’s also not what officials ejected him for. They ejected him because the hit came late and was avoidable, per their interpretation.

What about other hits from Sunday?

I’ve seen a lot of people point to other clear infractions from Week 9 that came with penalties, but not ejections.

The first was Jordan Poyer’s hit on Bills receiver Keon Coleman. Take a look:

Maybe this qualifies for an ejection based on the launching variety, but it’s not comparable to Branch’s hit. Poyer has already launched by the time the ball arrived. Branch was still two steps away when the ball went through Melton’s hands.

The other play that was commonly brought up was the scary hit that Saints receiver Chris Olave took that resulted in a trip to the hospital and a concussion. Obviously, given the damage of the hit, I understand why some fans may be confused why that hit didn’t receive an ejection. FOX didn’t provide a replay of the hit, though, likely due to the nature of the injury. Instead, we’re just left with the live broadcast angle, which doesn’t give us much.

It isn’t clear from the live shot whether it’s clear contact to the head, and the timing of the hit looks pretty instantaneous. It’s hard to compare this to the Branch situation without a better angle.

In short, you’re never going to get a full agreement on a call like this because, by nature, it’s a subjective call. Though I think it’s certainly worth pointing out that this was a decision made after investigation by the New York command center, not some impulsive, on-the-field reaction from the officials on the field. I think Branch’s hit came later than most of these kind of hits, but it’s also a reasonable to believe that the speed of the game is so fast that this wasn’t as avoidable as the officials suggest.

Let’s hear what you think: