In defense of Kearse on the last play

[TeamoftheCentury]

From NFL Rulebook:

A defensive player may not tackle or hold an opponent other than a runner. Otherwise, he may use his hands, arms, or body only:

(a) To defend or protect himself against an obstructing opponent.

Exception: An eligible receiver is considered to be an obstructing opponent ONLY to a point five yards beyond the line of scrimmage unless the player who receives the snap clearly demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball. Within this five-yard zone, a defensive player may chuck an eligible player in front of him. A defensive player is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone until a point when the receiver is even with the defender. The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops. Beyond this five-yard limitation, a defender may use his hands or arms ONLY to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. In such reaction, the defender may not contact a receiver who attempts to take a path to evade him.

I'm sorry, but you're looking at a different rule. Yes, we all know about the 5 yard rule. That is under (a) Keep reading further down under (f) in the exceptions. When Browner "admits" to something, he is doing so knowing it would be called probably in any other circumstance except for when the officials "let them play" with leniency toward the rulebook. The rule you should be interpreting is this:

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands
A defensive player may not contact an opponent above the shoulders with the palm of his hand except to ward (means "push") him off on the line. This exception is permitted only if it is not a repeated act against the same opponent during any one contact. In all other cases the palms may be used on head, neck, or face only to ward off or push an opponent in legal attempt to get at the ball.

In this case, Browner wasn't trying to "jam" Kearse from running a route, but rather to "hold" him from doing the job that the Patriot Defense knew was his assignment (and call it a "jam".)s

Well that's you saying what Browner was doing. The receiver clearly was running off the line. What determines a route? He could have bumped with Browner, then continued onward to make a play. That is a route. It doesn't matter if the receivers route had the sole purpose of trying to "pick" another defender. Browner was jamming him and trying to keep him in front at all times.

And that rule says he can use his palms to ward him off the line. Contact was made at the line, and the rule goes on to state he can use palms if it's not repeated during any one contact. So what constitutes one contact. He looks like he was with him, locked for a long contact.

The refs wouldn't have called this in the regular season, let alone the Super Bowl.

Thanks. Yeah, I don't think you understand the rule as well as Browner does. I'm just trying to help you understand the rule. I don't think you get it, though.

Ward means "push". How many DB's push "on top" of the shoulder? It would have taken some gonads for an official to call that. But, this no-call isn't really a big issue for me. But, you seem to want it to not be illegal?

Don't worry, man. Teams win all the time trying to get away with cheating as much as they can without getting caught or risking a call to make a play. That's football. This isn't the cheating that your team is being accused of. It's just the play on the field I'm talking about. So, I'm not calling every NFL team "cheaters".

 

[kearly]

Browner did nothing illegal on that play.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

Does anyone think Kearse can drive through Browner at anytime? It doesn't matter anyways. If Lockette ran a bad route. The ball was on the ½ yard line and Lockette was not even in the end zone when the point of contact was made. How is that for bad route running? The defender made a great play on top of things. Just a perfect storm of crap for us on one play.

 

[ivotuk]

From the douche's at PFT

"Even though Malcolm Butler made the interception that saved the game, Browner also recognized what was coming (he said he’d seen the play in practice during his time with the Seahawks), got Butler lined up in the right spot, anticipated the attempt to run a pick by the two receivers lined up to the right of the Seattle formation, and jammed Jermaine Kearse hard at the line, preventing him from getting through to Butler.

Browner also admitted to applying a hand to the top of Kearse’s shoulder pads as part of the effort to keep Kearse from getting away. The fight-fire-with-fire move worked; Kearse didn’t make the pick, Russell Wilson threw the ball, and Butler pounced."

I know we all talked about it earlier and how they never would call it in that spot but they definitely could have called holding on Browner. After he recognized the play and got Butler lined up properly.

ukeface:

cheaters.

I'm of the mindset that a post should be both intelligent and thought provoking. Yours sir is neither. I'll add your "cheaters" comment to the long list of other sourpusses lurking around the web, mostly in sports-related forums. Duh, winning!

I don't see why your comment is any different than his by your own standards. I see nothing in your comment that is either intelligent or thought provoking. Just a shot at low-hanging fruit...

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is just another facet of WHY this was the worst call (outside of punting or kicking a field goal) that they could have called here. You're calling a play that requires Kearse to defeat the jam of the biggest cornerback in the game. One whose entire game revolves around this particular tactic... AND one that you have intimate knowledge of, specifically in regards to his mastery of this tactic, since he was one of the original members of your own, vaunted, Legion of Boom!

Every time I think about that, I get furious all over again.

This.

Kearse had been getting bitch slapped around the entire day by Browner, so what made Pete and Bevell confident that all of a sudden he was going to be able to get off his block and pick Butler?

Everyone and their mom can over-analyze this place for the next 100 years and come up with 1,000 different reasons and scenarios as to why the slant wasn't a bad call, but no one will ever convince me that it wasn't the worst call in SB history.

 

[brimsalabim]

I've never blamed Kearse or Lockette but this article illustrates exactly why this was the worst play call of all time. It's not just that we chose not to run it but more importantly we tried to run this gimmick play against Browner!

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Browner did nothing illegal on that play.

Hmmm. How so? Here you go. (sorry, I had deleted the photos after posting them not knowing they had to remain in Photobucket in order to show up. Probably wont leave these up permanently.)





http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands
"A defensive player may not contact an opponent above the shoulders with the palm of his hand except to ward him off on the line." "ward" means push (not pull or grab)

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

I've never blamed Kearse or Lockette but this article illustrates exactly why this was the worst play call of all time. It's not just that we chose not to run it but more importantly we tried to run this gimmick play against Browner!

Yup

 

[Sgt. Largent]

^^^^^^^^^

Again! Reason #2,591 that it was HORRIFIC play call, the refs aren't going to call holding or PI on the one yard line with 40 seconds left in the SB.......and Browner knows that!

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

^^^^^^^^^

Again! Reason #2,591 that it was HORRIFIC play call, the refs aren't going to call holding or PI on the one yard line with 40 seconds left in the SB.......and Browner knows that!

Yup. Or, at least he thought it was well worth taking that risk.

 

[12thManNorth]

Watched that play about 20 times yesterday. Haven't heard many people talk about it, but watch how Lockette's route just seems to be a leisurely jog in the park. I bet the timing of that play is setup for Lockette to be to that spot quicker, which the placement of the throw would also suggest (so long as that's where Russ meant to put it). I'd have to see a bunch of other slant routes on film in order to see exactly how they should be ran, but Lockette jogging instead of sprinting didn't seem to do any favours on the play

 

[jlwaters1]

Bottom Line is... You don't call quick slants against a goalline defense that has inside leverage in coverage with an empty backfield with 3 downs left on the field, regardless if a player is supposed to pick for the slant or not. Throw it to the corner, outs or backside of the endzone, so a receiver catches it or it goes out of bounds. We're doomed to repeat the mistake because the guy that called it won't take responsibility for the call and half the fans want to blame the players for not making an absolutely retarded play work.

Bevell did take responsibility as did PC, but it's ludicrous to NOT put any blame on the players. After all it's the player's who make the plays. Play calling means crap If you don't execute. Executions ALWAYS trumps playcalling.

So You can blame PC and Bevell all you want, but equally as responsible is Kearse, Lockette and Wilson. All 3 failed on this play and so all 3 should bear the blame.

You could say Russell lead the WR to much, which if the ball is 1 foot to the right it's either a TD or a incompletion. However, in the context of the play Russell had to put the ball out in front because he's relying on Kearse getting in the way of the DB, thus leaving Browner as being the guy able to make a play.

You could also say pretty easily that Locktte need to attach the football and go get it. Instead he didn't and allowed the DB an opportunity to get their. (Even though the DB ran "through" the WR for the pick, there was no chance they would call that )

With all that being said, I wish we would have handed it off and see what happens. There's a good chance it's a TD, also we've seen just as much a loss of 2-3 yards. I wish that final play would have been a play action that utilized Lynch and allowed Russell a run/pass option.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Bottom Line is... You don't call quick slants against a goalline defense that has inside leverage in coverage with an empty backfield with 3 downs left on the field, regardless if a player is supposed to pick for the slant or not. Throw it to the corner, outs or backside of the endzone, so a receiver catches it or it goes out of bounds. We're doomed to repeat the mistake because the guy that called it won't take responsibility for the call and half the fans want to blame the players for not making an absolutely retarded play work.

Bevell did take responsibility as did PC, but it's ludicrous to NOT put any blame on the players. After all it's the player's who make the plays. Play calling means crap If you don't execute. Executions ALWAYS trumps playcalling.

So You can blame PC and Bevell all you want, but equally as responsible is Kearse, Lockette and Wilson. All 3 failed on this play and so all 3 should bear the blame.

You could say Russell lead the WR to much, which if the ball is 1 foot to the right it's either a TD or a incompletion. However, in the context of the play Russell had to put the ball out in front because he's relying on Kearse getting in the way of the DB, thus leaving Browner as being the guy able to make a play.

You could also say pretty easily that Locktte need to attach the football and go get it. Instead he didn't and allowed the DB an opportunity to get their. (Even though the DB ran "through" the WR for the pick, there was no chance they would call that )

With all that being said, I wish we would have handed it off and see what happens. There's a good chance it's a TD, also we've seen just as much a loss of 2-3 yards. I wish that final play would have been a play action that utilized Lynch and allowed Russell a run/pass option.

Great post jl. Sums up my feelings on the play precisely.
It was very difficult to come up short that way, but let's view it as a burning memory that players and coaches can look back upon next year to fuel a Super Bowl outcome that more closely resembles that game not so long ago in New York.

 

[brettb3]

This is just another facet of WHY this was the worst call (outside of punting or kicking a field goal) that they could have called here. You're calling a play that requires Kearse to defeat the jam of the biggest cornerback in the game. One whose entire game revolves around this particular tactic... AND one that you have intimate knowledge of, specifically in regards to his mastery of this tactic, since he was one of the original members of your own, vaunted, Legion of Boom!

Every time I think about that, I get furious all over again.

Dumbest play of all time, and it won't go away because well, it was dumb.

Kearse's job was to run a slant inside, not take Browner head on. Obviously he failed to execute. I agree with Hugh Millen. It was NOT the worst play call of all time. Not even close.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is just another facet of WHY this was the worst call (outside of punting or kicking a field goal) that they could have called here. You're calling a play that requires Kearse to defeat the jam of the biggest cornerback in the game. One whose entire game revolves around this particular tactic... AND one that you have intimate knowledge of, specifically in regards to his mastery of this tactic, since he was one of the original members of your own, vaunted, Legion of Boom!

Every time I think about that, I get furious all over again.

Dumbest play of all time, and it won't go away because well, it was dumb.

Kearse's job was to run a slant inside, not take Browner head on. Obviously he failed to execute. I agree with Hugh Millen. It was NOT the worst play call of all time. Not even close.

Kearse's job was to pick Butler so that Lockette would be open, so his job was to take on Browner first so he could pick Butler. He failed at both.

Millen, like Carroll and Bevell are looking at the play from an X's and O's standpoint, instead of looking at it from a practical and momentum standpoint like the rest of us.

Is a slant on the 1 yard line overall a dumb play to call? No. Is a slant on the goal line when you have 40 seconds, one time out and have two below average WR's, one of which hasn't shed a a block all day and one that doesn't play regularly because he can't run routes..................AND MARSHAWN FREAKING LYNCH IN YOUR BACKFIELD??!!! HELL YES.

So people like Millen need to knock this crap off, it WAS a stupid play call, and it will ALWAYS be a stupid play call.

 

[hawkfan68]

I don't blame the players because they were put in a position that doesn't play to their strengths. Both Kearse and Lockette were asked to do things on that play they are unable to. That's on Bevell and the coaches. It was the wrong call any way you slice it. If he wanted to run that play, why not use Willson in Lockette's spot or Matthews for that matter. Why not put Lynch there? Does anyone think that if Willson, Matthews, or Lynch were playing in Lockette's role that they would be knocked off by Butler? No they wouldn't. Awful personnel grouping and play design. Bevell brainfarted in crunch time and it cost the organization another ring. My 8 year old nephew knew that was a bad call. If an 8 year old who doesn't watch a lot of football recognizes that, it's pretty obvious.

Red zone offense sputters because of Bevell's play calls. He's the common denominator is the sporadic redzone offense for the Seahawks and having tall receiver won't help that. The Seahawks have TE's that are tall but he can't seem to use their size as an advantage.

 

[bandiger]

I don't blame the players because they were put in a position that doesn't play to their strengths. Both Kearse and Lockette were asked to do things on that play they are unable to. That's on Bevell and the coaches. It was the wrong call any way you slice it. If he wanted to run that play, why not use Willson in Lockette's spot or Matthews for that matter. Why not put Lynch there? Does anyone think that if Willson, Matthews, or Lynch were playing in Lockette's role that they would be knocked off by Butler? No they wouldn't. Awful personnel grouping and play design. Bevell brainfarted in crunch time and it cost the organization another ring. My 8 year old nephew knew that was a bad call. If an 8 year old who doesn't watch a lot of football recognizes that, it's pretty obvious.

Red zone offense sputters because of Bevell's play calls. He's the common denominator is the sporadic redzone offense for the Seahawks and having tall receiver won't help that. The Seahawks have TE's that are tall but he can't seem to use their size as an advantage.

Yep, if your gonna run a slant at least a big body or the best offensive player to be the catcher but Bevell called a crappy play then goes into my hate for awhile category when he puts Lockette on notice.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Browner did nothing illegal on that play.

Kearly,
I had posted the photos for you to comment. I don't know if you cared to further comment on that play looking at the photos I posted in this thread. I just don't get your comment in light of the visual evidence. You can watch it on video as well and see the same thing. Again, I'm not arguing it gets called in that situation. (Further reason they should have run. Know that those plays will allow them to play more physical to bend or break the rules. I guess the reason for that is that officials don't want to be part of big moment calls like that, I suppose.)

However, according to the rulebook, Browner's contact was illegal. The first 5 yards rule does not apply in such an instance... otherwise you would have guys ripped down by the back of the shoulder pads continually. You can even see Browner pulling Kearse's jersey before letting go. That wasn't just incidental contact. unno: