Freak Catch In SB - Harmon Could Have Done More

[PatsFanInVa]

I mean WTF? If Harmon, HIMSELF, has this take, why so much handwringing to excuse his actions on the play? And again, does anyone seriously believe Belichick didn't use this as a teaching moment on how to never give up on a play?

See above and your own quote... while he is looking at the play his play on the ball is as it falls to the "ground"... after he goes past it pops up... I don't claim much knowledge or certainty here, just saying "I could have done something to stop it" is different from specifying what and how.

We only know that in hindsight, it is a 100% certainty that Kearse catches the ball, and some lower percentage chance that Harmon gets flagged.

And that's how I'd think about the catch if I were Harmon: OMG, I might have just lost a SB.

 

[BradyManny]

Nice series BradyManny. In (2) we have the ball at the "top" of its "Harmon arc," meaning the top of the arc as defined by times that Harmon can act. In (3) he'd have to dive.... your analysis is the only play would be on the ball, but I'd guess that the play on the ball would have to include a possible hit on Kearse, or so he judged it. I never played secondary.

Same here - so my guess is just a guess, too. If someone has been in that position, I'd definitely defer to them. I guess it comes down to whether you think there is a reasonable expectation Harmon consider the play live. By his own admission, his assumption it was dead informed his play.

 

[everlong]

Can't we just enjoy it? I really don't care if he could have done more. The way it played out just brings closure to the Manningham and more so the Tyree catches. I've rewatched it so many times now and just cannot get enough knowing what's coming. They survived the miracle catch this time.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Can't we just enjoy it? I really don't care if he could have done more. The way it played out just brings closure to the Manningham and more so the Tyree catches. I've rewatched it so many times now and just cannot get enough knowing what's coming. They survived the miracle catch this time.

Five words for you:
April, May, June, July, August.

Of course we can't just enjoy it, look what you just said!

 

[hwc]

Harmon was screwed in that situation. If he dives for it he risks hitting Kearse and giving away a personal foul his other option is to kick it away also a foul. I believe that is an unsportsman like foul

You can hit a receiver as hard as you want trying to make a play on the ball. You just can't hit him in the head or hit him with YOUR head.

That's not to say the refs wouldn't have made a bad call, but Harmon could have hit the snot out of Kearse legally as long as that ball was live.

But, I don't even want him to do that. I want him to try to grab the ball. It's a lvie ball and interception wins the game.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

You have an example a minute later when Butler collides with the Seahawks receiver while playing the ball with no penalty called.

First of all, Butler gets the ball. You come up with the ball, and seconds later, it's clear why you made the play... it wasn't hitting someone defenseless, it was making a play on the ball. Look! You have the ball! No contest.

Same would apply had Butler interrupted the play, but dropped the interception. Clearly he had a play on the ball.

Now without even going into tinfoil hat mode, the guy is flat on his back, with the ball not in his possession YET by the time Harmon is going by. Harmon's play, if he can make it quick enough, is to jump on the ball as it hits kearse's body. Only if he doesn't have the timing to get to the ball, to at least tip it, he's just nailing a receiver flat on his back. Now he says later he thought the ball hit the ground, as did everybody else... so if that's true he isn't even judging on that merit.

But let's say Harmon is misremembering and in the moment he understands that the ball hit Kearse not the ground.

He doesn't get a piece of that ball, he's flagged, period.

The beauty of the Butler play is, what do you lose by going for the INT? I guess you could conceivably be hit with half the distance/loss of down, but it's a much less ambiguous moment. That and the possibility of being flagged is so low b/c you have the right to go for the ball... and the proof would be hands on the ball, if not INT.

So while we can all fight through Easter morning about whether Harmon had a play, but saying that the Butler play was on equal footing doesn't wash for me. I think that if Harmon leaps into that play and there's a flag, we're all sitting here arguing about whether he could have jumped clear of the play.

 

[TBR]

He actually could've scooped in low and tried to intercept it after one of the initial bounces

 

[PatsFanInVa]

You can hit a receiver as hard as you want trying to make a play on the ball. You just can't hit him in the head or hit him with YOUR head.

That's not to say the refs wouldn't have made a bad call, but Harmon could have hit the snot out of Kearse legally as long as that ball was live.

But, I don't even want him to do that. I want him to try to grab the ball. It's a lvie ball and interception wins the game.

Against the Pats? In a SB? Nahhhhhh.

Okay, this is the tinfoil helmet part. He'd need proof he was playing the ball. He doesn't get a swat at that ball and it's flags-o-rama. In fact, even if he did, I wonder whether the ball would have magically "hit the ground therefore making it a dead play."

 

[PatsFanInVa]

He actually could've scooped in low and tried to intercept it after one of the initial bounces

Decision point is pretty much as the ball hits Kearse's body the first time; he's vaulted clear of the play after that. So by "scooped in low" you have to mean "could have hit Kearse", b/c that's where the ball is... I guess he could fly past/over Kearse and timed it so he gets the INT above Kearse's body

 

[mihap]

Cant wait to see Harmon playing this year. i am really high on him and i hope that he wont dissapoint me

 

[Ivan]

I mean WTF? If Harmon, HIMSELF, has this take, why so much handwringing to excuse his actions on the play?

LMAO- You guys are tying yourselves into knots trying to show how a player could have possibly made a play in a Super Bowl they already won and you think others are doing the"hand wringing?" NEWSFLASH- THE PATRIOTS WON THE SUPER BOWL! What difference does it make of a player missed a block or dropped a pass or failed to knock a ball away??? I could see some debate if they lost but this is truly idiotic.

That said I am going to go start a Jamie Collins lost containment thread just to make Deus happy.

 

[RayClay]

Decision point is pretty much as the ball hits Kearse's body the first time; he's vaulted clear of the play after that. So by "scooped in low" you have to mean "could have hit Kearse", b/c that's where the ball is... I guess he could fly past/over Kearse and timed it so he gets the INT above Kearse's body

While hovering and changing direction in mid air. i suppose it's possible, that is if he could have predicted where the slide, complete turnaround and juggled ball would be.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

A very important part of the maneuver, of course, is hooking in mid-air to avoid the Kearse leg-kick

 

[RayClay]

A very important part of the maneuver, of course, is hooking in mid-air to avoid the Kearse leg-kick

Also the swerve to avoid going two yards out of bounds in a different direction, unless we assume he stopped on a dime after running across the field, then executed a standing broad jump worthy of combine best consideration.

 

[BradyManny]

He doesn't get a piece of that ball, he's flagged, period.

This is the part of the conversation I disagree with very strongly. Unless Harmon goes for Kearse's head, they aren't going to throw a flag: why would they, it's not a penalty? We're assuming the refs suck worse than they do.

Again: the play was live, and as evidenced by the fact that the official, without any hesitation, marked it a complete pass upon Kearse hauling it in, he was very well aware of this.

 

[hwc]

It's simple for me. The safety should have been making a concerted effort to involve himself in the play. Instead, he made every effort (including hurdling a receiver) to avoid getting involved in the play. To me, argument about whether he could have broken up the pass is irrelevant. We'll never know because he went out of his way to not try.

 

[Ivan]

You can hit a receiver as hard as you want trying to make a play on the ball. You just can't hit him in the head or hit him with YOUR head.

.

Simply not true. I saw two plays this season where defenders had perfectly clean textbook hits and both were flagged for unnecessary roughness. One was Denver/St. Louis and Sanders got the call and the other involved A Patriots DB, Browner I believe. And he got the foul on a textbook hit but he destroyed the WR and got the foul.

 

[Rob0729]

I think people are playing Monday Morning CB here. Everyone I was with when watching the play in real time thought the ball hit the ground. Even in replay, it wasn't immediately apparent. There was little chance that Harmon could have seen the ball hit Kearse's leg in real time. It is a little piling on a guy who a target on this board.

Harmon did what most likely every other safety in the league would have done in his position - avoid making contact with the receiver and drawing a cheap penalty on a play that he clearly thought was broken up. To think he or any safety could have seen that not hit the ground in real time is just using 20/20 hindsight and dozens of angles on the play to draw a conclusion.

I don't blame Harmon for that play at all. Most players would have thought that ball hit the ground. You can't blame Harmon for thinking the same.

 

[Rob0729]

You can hit a receiver as hard as you want trying to make a play on the ball. You just can't hit him in the head or hit him with YOUR head.

That's not to say the refs wouldn't have made a bad call, but Harmon could have hit the snot out of Kearse legally as long as that ball was live.

But, I don't even want him to do that. I want him to try to grab the ball. It's a lvie ball and interception wins the game.

You cannot hit a receiver as hard as you want when he is on the ground. If Harmon did that, not only would Kearse gotten the reception, but half the distance to the end zone on top of that. If a receiver is laying on his back on the ground and you plow into the guy, it is an almost always a defenseless receiver penalty.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I just had a scary thought.... I wonder how many plays we'll complain about once the product of "heads up football" are at the NFL level