The fishy thing I don't get about "The Play"

[Reaneypark]

We ran that play on third down on our side of the field to get a first down in the second half of the NFC championship. They recognized it from the film and drilling in practice. Tip of the cap to them. I don't buy the conspiracy theory. And yeah, if our execution was better it wouldn't have been picked. Sometimes you eat, sometimes you're eaten.

 

[BASF]

Lawyer Milloy was at both Seahawk practices and Patriot practices leading up to the Super Bowl. I half expected the cameras to cut to a shot of Milloy coming down to the sidelines and hugging Belichick with a cut away to Carroll looking befuddled and betrayed a la the WWE.

 

[olyfan63]

I started a similar thread months ago, wondering "how did the Patriots know??!!" (that play was coming), asking how we could rule out the "stealing signals" aspect, what the logistics would have to be for the Patriots to intercept the call (signals or electronics) and relay it to players on the field, who then have to implement the covert intelligence in real time.
Mostly, .NETters called called me a conspiracy theorist, told me to get over it, etc. I asked people to humor me and supply *Football answers*, and several did.

Out of all that, to me, it came out that Browner was the key to that play. Browner was the one who recognized it, based on the formation and on Seattle tendencies, which he would well know, having practiced for years vs. that offense and Bevell. Browner somehow then communicated to Butler what was coming, for him to know to jump the slant. Browner then uttterly defeated Kearse's pick attempt, leaving a clear path for Butler to jump the route. Also, only Browner, out of nearly all CB's in the NFL, was physical enough to do that to Kearse.

Wilson did throw the ball in a place that allowed the pick to occur, but it wasn't really off-target. In the other examples of this play, vs. the Rams (Tate TD) and Saints (Miller TD), Wilson throws the ball in a similar place, within a foot or two. In this example, the throw was about a foot, foot-and-a-half out front of Lockette, and shoulder-high. It's hard to fault the throw that much; all 3 throws were roughly similar, within a normal variance range. The difference was, no defender jumped the route on the other 2 plays, no defender was within 2 yards when the ball arrived.

The most similar play was the Golden Tate TD vs. the Rams, where the Rams defended it well, and Tate barely got the ball over the goal line. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-high ... -touchdown

This was one time Wilson *was* "TOO SHORT" and couldn't see Butler lurking behind the clump of players, otherwise he throws a different ball. However, that's on Bevell, for choosing this play in this crowded situation, instead of a play that uses Wilson's mobility and decision-making.

Even if the Patriots "did" somehow steal signals, getting the intel onto the field and implemented by the right players, as to what to do about it, and then having their players execute, would still be pretty remarkable. I choose to go with the "Browner-diagnosed-it" explanation, plus Bevell's predictability, as the most likely explanation of how the Patriots knew this was coming.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Butler had said when they practice it, he had failed every single time, because it was a undefendable play, not my words but the words they used. Even Ricardo Lockette had stated that they ran it alot and that they were successful with it.

I had stated that it was because of Browner's hold (should of been flagged) that was able to get Kearse off course just enough for Malcom to go through.

Within 5 yards.. you can do whatever to a WR basically. Browner did nothing wrong. Actually he did everything right to blow up the pick and give Butler a free shot at the slant.

Hmmmm. I don't think so. I could be wrong, but technically it was illegal and even Browner admitted to it after the game. Someone else posted about that. I agree that Browner was wise to do all he could because they had nothing to lose. Risk a no-call or get beat.

If a DB can do ANYTHING to a WR there... why not just tackle them at the line? Take their legs out? It's within 5 years- so, why not? There is contact that remains illegal. For example, no shots to the face. The gist of this rule is to allow DB's to be physical at the line - to bump them off their intended route line. But, the hands cannot maintain contact. So, they can be more PHYSICAL - certain allowances - but, they cannot GRAB the player - especially above the shoulder - and restrict them from progress. That's still holding.
"In the NFL, a defensive back is allowed any sort of contact within the 5 yard bump zone except for holding the receiver, otherwise the defensive back can be called for an illegal contact penalty, costing 5 yards and an automatic first down, enforced since 1978, and known colloquially as the Mel Blount Rule."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_and_run_coverage

I believe it should have been called just like a hold should have been called on their Center (Stork) for taking a chance he wouldn't get called when he grabbed Bennett (unstoppable up to that point) and tackled him so that Brady could step up into the pocket and deliver to Edelman on that 3rd and 14. Should have been flagged and been a 3rd and 24. But, the Patriots played it well to essentially cheat and hope to not get the penalty. I think they didn't call it because it was a 10 point lead and the Patriots were going nowhere unless they allowed it. To make the game more "exciting" as they say.
Yes, I'm a tad sour. But, not overly so. Losing sucks... especially how it unfolded. Can't take anything away from the Patriots and overall I have no complaints other than not running a back that is referred to as a Beast. Still, there are plays that were obvious that make you scratch your head why no call... esp with where certain officials are positioned. The Umpire should have easily caught that hold on the Center. The Browner hold doesn't get called because the time in the game. But, illegal is illegal.

That's the way I feel about it and I'm sticking to it. I don't go around complaining (waste of time / not going to change anything). But, if it gets brought up, there are discussion points.

 

[QuickLightning]

Holding is allowed as long as you are in front of the guy being held. Offensive lines, defensive lines, WRs and DBs hold almost every play. As long as the player isn't running away from the hold, it is not called.

The last image is iffy, but if he immediately releases him, it's never called.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Holding is allowed as long as you are in front of the guy being held. Offensive lines, defensive lines, WRs and DBs hold almost every play. As long as the player isn't running away from the hold, it is not called.

The last image is iffy, but if he immediately releases him, it's never called.

These images serve a purpose in this thread. What happens is that Browner grabs at the back of the jersey (near typical horsecollar area) and then as he is moving to the inside of Kearse, he is pulling the jersey. He held on and did not let go until after the play was impacted. I'd say that's plenty long enough.

I do understand there's mention in the rulebook of when the player is in front for consideration. But, where does it say in that rule book that a player may hold? (link and copy the text - perhaps you're closer to correct than how I've seen this officiated overall.) I see "contact" but never "hold." I understand that holding could be called more often. But, the spirit of these rules is about HOW you go about being physical. The rules do not encourage nor intend to allow for holding. Again, you may knock them off the line, etc. But, your hands must not stay connected. That sort of thing and anything other than what is explicitly allowed in the rule book constitutes "illegal use of hands".

Yes, interpretations of rules, how will a particular officiating crew call the game, etc. All those are factors. Sure thing. I get that. That's why I have no real complaint. But, there is definitely room for discussion on a couple of key plays that I think impacted the game. I'm not upset about this particular no call. Like I said before... I think it could have been called, but shouldn't have had to come to that.

Rules are (supposed to be) what help make a game great. It's about how a team is able to skillfully perform within those rules. Unfortunately, teams also focus on what they can get away with. If something doesn't get called... the rule loses it's effect. I see it in youth football all the time, too. D-lineman love to grab kids on the OL BY THEIR FACEMASKS and pull them down to the ground by their helmets. So much for skill and what the game is really supposed to be about. It's about circumventing the rules whenever possible. It happens on all levels. The NFL officials are much better, of course. But, certainly the business side of the product affects calls on the field at times. (I don't think the NFL had it in for the Pats to win. But, I do think they were interested in having a "close game" after the 43-8 bludgeoning the year before. That 10 point lead in the 4th quarter wasn't exciting enough. It felt like a bigger lead than that esp with Michael Bennett dominating until...)

Like it or not... all that is the game of Football. I may not like it. But, tough cookies.

 

[theincrediblesok]

The image I posted shows Browner had his hands on the back of Kearse's Jersey as well as in the front collar, you can see that Kearse was trying to pull Browner's hands off of his collar, he even let go of it in the 4th frame to show "hey look ref" but nothing. I'm not complaining just wanted to point out the reason why Butler was able to get a good angle and Browner was the key to disrupting the play.

Browner knew it was coming, here he is pointing to Ricardo

 

[Willyeye]

I haven't ever been able to re-watch the actual play; just too painful for me. I'm not sure, but my recollection is that before the play, Wilson, Lynch, and Baldwin left the huddle and had no clue where to even line up...almost like they were in disbelief that that play was called. Am I correct in my recollection? And if so, why did those 3 guys look so confused? In 50+ years of watching football, I'd have to say that was by far the most bizarre play I've seen. NOTHING about that play looked right to me.

 

[themunn]

If a DB can do ANYTHING to a WR there... why not just tackle them at the line? Take their legs out? It's within 5 years- so, why not? There is contact that remains illegal. For example, no shots to the face. The gist of this rule is to allow DB's to be physical at the line - to bump them off their intended route line. But, the hands cannot maintain contact. So, they can be more PHYSICAL - certain allowances - but, they cannot GRAB the player - especially above the shoulder - and restrict them from progress. That's still holding.
"In the NFL, a defensive back is allowed any sort of contact within the 5 yard bump zone except for holding the receiver, otherwise the defensive back can be called for an illegal contact penalty, costing 5 yards and an automatic first down, enforced since 1978, and known colloquially as the Mel Blount Rule."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_and_run_coverage

At the end of the day, if the hold gets called, what happens? They get another shot at it, but if you don't hold and they execute, they score the TD. So you hold. You hope the ref doesn't see it and it breaks up the play.

That's exactly what happened.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Let.It.Go.

 

[LymonHawk]

Let.It.Go.

This. :th2thumbs:

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

It was a very bad call Wilson threw it to far out in front of Lockette and the DB got a good jump and picked it off . It's over and done with time to move on.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Exactly, geez, MOVE....ON....

 

[BASF]

Let.It.Go.

You could have at least put a little funk on it: