Surprise! Pats play fast and loose with the rules!

[HoggHannah]

 

an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the change in his eligibility status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team.

He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he

must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and

the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.

 

 

Which is what happened, just in reverse (eligible reporting ineligible).  It's ok to admit you are wrong here, no one is going to criticize you for that.

 

#47 is an eligible receiver lining up at the end of a 5 man line making him.... wait for it... eligible. 

 

It really sounds like you aren't reading what anyone else is trying to tell you, but crying about how no one is reading your posts.  We all are, it's just that you are incorrect.

Edited January 14, 2015 by HoggHannah

[amfootball]

It's absolutely hiding him. The whole purpose of the alignment is to use misdirection and cause confusion.

 

And again, I'm not suggesting anything be limited or removed from the game. I simply said that I think he should have to report. 

Right. The whole purpose is to keep the defense off-balance. He was no hiding. He was right there in an eligible spot with Vareen declared ineligible. I think you know you are stretching big time with this. There is no way the committee would ever make a team declare an eligible player eligible just because of a different looking formation. It violates the very nature of the sport.

[ColtsBlueFL]

It's absolutely hiding him. The whole purpose of the alignment is to use misdirection and cause confusion.

 

And again, I'm not suggesting anything be limited or removed from the game. I simply said that I think he should have to report. 

 

I was getting your argument the whole time.  But rather than having an eligible number declare when he lines up in a typically ineligible spot, I am of the thinking that the Defense gets more time to substitute and cover up the O after they have trotted out an illegal number of receivers, and then declare one not eligible to go down field, nor catch a forward pass.  However... that guy can in deed run backward from scrimmage at the snap and catch a lateral like Edelman did, and either run, or launch his own legal forward pass. So the dude still has to be accounted for at some point.  So do you spy the guy for a lateral run/pass?  Or slide down the line and try an unabated run at the QB for a sack?

[ColtsBlueFL]

It's absolutely hiding him. The whole purpose of the alignment is to use misdirection and cause confusion.

 

And again, I'm not suggesting anything be limited or removed from the game. I simply said that I think he should have to report. 

I'm waiting for BB to run out his jumbo goal line package plus enough receivers to have an illegal amount ( say 3 in this case. ) of receivers and total players, but before the jumbo dudes get there, they turn around and an additional 3 lineman from the huddle run back off with them to cover for the 3 new receivers they  trotted in.  So now the D has 7 seconds to decide who to send in as their own subs and get them aligned, right? Plenty of time?  O can have 40 seconds to get subs,  a play call, and alignment, but D gets 7, so its fair, yes?

 

Time for D subs after an O sub package in the rulebook is "Reasonable Time".  I like how media and Pats fans have now ruled that 7 seconds is recommended replacement Reasonable time.  Guess that will be the change in the rulebook next year.   Hmmmphffff

[Superman]

Right. The whole purpose is to keep the defense off-balance. He was no hiding. He was right there in an eligible spot with Vareen declared ineligible. I think you know you are stretching big time with this. There is no way the committee would ever make a team declare an eligible player eligible just because of a different looking formation. It violates the very nature of the sport.

 

How am I stretching?

 

I said that, on the three plays out of 20,000 this season where a player lined up in a normally ineligible spot wearing an eligible number, that I think he should have to declare. You act like I'm saying the forward pass should be outlawed.

 

It's a minor thing, and it's actually in keeping with the rule. They require an eligible numbered player lining up as ineligible to declare. They require an ineligible numbered player lining up as eligible to declare. It's clear what the purpose of the rule is, it's to make sure everyone know who is and is not eligible. My suggestion is right in line with that.

[jvan1973]

I was getting your argument the whole time. But rather than having an eligible number declare when he lines up in a typically ineligible spot, I am of the thinking that the Defense gets more time to substitute and cover up the O after they have trotted out an illegal number of receivers, and then declare one not eligible to go down field, nor catch a forward pass. However... that guy can in deed run backward from scrimmage at the snap and catch a lateral like Edelman did, and either run, or launch his own legal forward pass. So the dude still has to be accounted for at some point. So do you spy the guy for a lateral run/pass? Or slide down the line and try an unabated run at the QB for a sack?

An ineligible receiver can't throw a pass. They can only advance a fumbe

[Superman]

I was getting your argument the whole time.  But rather than having an eligible number declare when he lines up in a typically ineligible spot, I am of the thinking that the Defense gets more time to substitute and cover up the O after they have trotted out an illegal number of receivers, and then declare one not eligible to go down field, nor catch a forward pass.  However... that guy can in deed run backward from scrimmage at the snap and catch a lateral like Edelman did, and either run, or launch his own legal forward pass. So the dude still has to be accounted for at some point.  So do you spy the guy for a lateral run/pass?  Or slide down the line and try an unabated run at the QB for a sack?

 

I'm waiting for BB to run out his jumbo goal line package plus enough receivers to have an illegal amount ( say 3 in this case. ) before the jumbo dudes get there, they turn around and an additional 3 lineman run back off with them to cover the 3 new receivers they  trotted in.  So now the D has 7 seconds to decide who to send in as their own subs and get them aligned, right? Plenty of time?  O can have 40 seconds to get subs a call, and alignment, but D gets 7, so its fair, yes?

 

Exactly. This all illustrates the point I'm making. The rule is there so that the eligible receivers can be clearly identified. The design of the play that was run is to cause confusion about who is and isn't eligible. I think that's the whole thing the rule is designed to curtail.

[Superman]

Which is what happened, just in reverse (eligible reporting ineligible).

 

In other words, it's not what happened. 

 

It's ok to admit you are wrong here, no one is going to criticize you for that.

 

#47 is an eligible receiver lining up at the end of a 5 man line making him.... wait for it... eligible. 

 

It really sounds like you aren't reading what anyone else is trying to tell you, but crying about how no one is reading your posts.  We all are, it's just that you are incorrect.

 

 

What am I wrong about? I made a simple suggestion. I didn't state anything as fact. I think the rule could be adjusted to avoid having it exploited.

 

Also, like I said earlier, you either didn't read my post, or purposely misrepresented what I said.

[amfootball]

How am I stretching?

 

I said that, on the three plays out of 20,000 this season where a player lined up in a normally ineligible spot wearing an eligible number, that I think he should have to declare. You act like I'm saying the forward pass should be outlawed.

 

It's a minor thing, and it's actually in keeping with the rule. They require an eligible numbered player lining up as ineligible to declare. They require an ineligible numbered player lining up as eligible to declare. It's clear what the purpose of the rule is, it's to make sure everyone know who is and is not eligible. My suggestion is right in line with that.

That is exactly what happened once Vareen was declared ineligible and Hooman lined up in an eligible spot with an eligible number. Your suggestion takes away from the competitive nature of the sport.

[SouthernCal]

Your suggestion takes away from the competitive nature of the sport.

Explain.

[amfootball]

Explain.

I did a few posts back. Part of the offenses job is to disguise and confuse what it is doing. That is why there are so many rules about formations, men in motion, guys on the line, off the line, shifts, eligible numbers and so forth. The offense is always trying to keep the defense guessing. What the Pats did was take a normal formation and flip it and declared a normally eligible player ineligible. In keeping with the rules, this player was announced. To have to then announce eligible players because the formation is not what is normally seen or done is to take that competitive advantage away from the offense. It is the defenses job to recognize the formation and adjust accordingly.

[Superman]

That is exactly what happened once Vareen was declared ineligible and Hooman lined up in an eligible spot with an eligible number. Your suggestion takes away from the competitive nature of the sport.

 

No it doesn't. It's in harmony with the rule that's already in place. And it would have affected 0.02% of plays run in the NFL this season.

 

This formation the Pats used is pretty much the only way they could have exploited this rule, without something drastic like Swinging Gate. The rule exists to make sure everyone knows who is and isn't eligible. They disguised it.

 

And again, before the Pats fan brigade shows up with more reinforcements, I'm not dogging the Pats about it. They didn't break any rule that's in place, and it's actually to their credit that they ran something the league isn't familiar with. And they ran it three times; the Ravens should have caught on sooner. But it's still an exploitation of the rule. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

An ineligible receiver can't throw a pass. They can only advance a fumbe

 

I don't ever recall reading in the rules who could be the forward pass player. I'll check later to be certain. But I do know of a lineman in college that threw a TD pass to the long snapper.  Took fancy shifting to make snapper eligible and not in illegal formation. Including his guard to drop off the line to shotgun formation behind him.

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=11759773 

 

You can bet BB knows about this one too...

[HoggHannah]

 What am I wrong about?

 

 

an eligible player lined up in a normally ineligible spot should have to declare, regardless of his jersey number.

 

This statement is assuming that the "spot" is ineligible, it's not.  Hooman (#47) is an eligible receiver lining up as eligible.  There is no such thing as an "ineligible" spot.  Vereen declaring his ineligibility just sets the line differently.  It does nothing to change Hooman's eligibility, as he lines up after Vereen has been declared.

 

You keep thinking that the 5 down lineman on the offensive side of the ball are always ineligible, that has never been the case.  There is nothing in the rule book that says that those five and only those five can be ineligible.  Check out Chip Kellys play where he had two lineman line up as WR, yet ineligible.  3 man line, 6 men out wide with two in the backfield.

 

You also keep bringing up the "spirit of the rule" which is trying to interpret what is not there.  The rule is what it is.  For example:  I argue that the Ravens and Flacco regularly throw up rainbow bombs in order to draw P/I penalties.  Statistics favor my opinion as they lead the league in defensive pass interference penalties drawn.  I then make an argument that because of this, the Ravens are taking advantage of the rule, which would clearly not be in the "spirit" of the rule - that is throwing up balls (in some cases short or uncatchable) that are meant to draw a penalty.

 

Am I right?  Does it matter?  No, because the rule is there, and in the end it doesn't matter what the "spirit" of the rule was meant to be all that matters is that the rules were followed.  Revis got flagged for this during the game, on a ball that would never have been caught otherwise (landed out of bounds).  It sucks, but it's the rule.

 

Being new, I have only one more reply left, so good luck!

[Superman]

This statement is assuming that the "spot" is ineligible, it's not.  Hooman (#47) is an eligible receiver lining up as eligible.  There is no such thing as an "ineligible" spot.  Vereen declaring his ineligibility just sets the line differently.  It does nothing to change Hooman's eligibility, as he lines up after Vereen has been declared.

 

The rule itself refers to eligible and ineligible positions. Refer to the link I submitted earlier. Typically speaking, the guard and tackle spots are manned by ineligible players.

 

You keep thinking that the 5 down lineman on the offensive side of the ball are always ineligible, that has never been the case.  There is nothing in the rule book that says that those five and only those five can be ineligible.

 

This is part of the problem, obviously. You think that I don't understand the rule, when in reality, I'm saying that I think the rule could/should be adjusted. I understand the rule just fine. Thanks, though.

 

You also keep brining up the "spirit of the rule" which is trying to interpret what is not there.  The rule is what it is.  For example:  I argue that the Ravens and Flacco regularly throw up rainbow bombs in order to draw P/I penalties.  Statistics favor my opinion as they lead the league in defensive pass interference penalties drawn.  I then make an argument that because of this, the Ravens are taking advantage of the rule, which would clearly not be in the "spirit" of the rule - that is throwing up balls (in some cases short or uncatchable) that are meant to draw a penalty.

Am I right? Does it matter? No, because the rule is there, and in the end it doesn't matter what the "spirit" of the rule was meant to be all that matters is that the rules were followed. Revis got flagged for this during the game, on a ball that would never have been caught otherwise (landed out of bounds). It sucks, but it's the rule.

 

Goodness, there's a canyon of space between drawing PI and disguising eligible receivers. 

 

And again, I never claimed the Pats violated the rule. But no one here is ignorant of the many times the rules have been adjusted so as to provide for more clear interpretation.

 

A couple years ago, the rules were adjusted to prevent QBs from faking the snap when they were in shotgun. No more jerky body movements or head movements, trying to draw the defense offsides. That adjustment was made in the name of bringing the written rule in line with the intent of the rule. And guess what? The world didn't stop, the league didn't crumble, and the competitive nature of the game was not infringed upon. Rules are adjusted all the time, for the very reason of bringing the written rule in line with the intent of the rule. 

 

Being new, I have only one more reply left, so good luck!

 

 

That's too bad...

[ColtsBlueFL]

No it doesn't. It's in harmony with the rule that's already in place. And it would have affected 0.02% of plays run in the NFL this season.

 

This formation the Pats used is pretty much the only way they could have exploited this rule, without something drastic like Swinging Gate. The rule exists to make sure everyone knows who is and isn't eligible. They disguised it.

 

And again, before the Pats fan brigade shows up with more reinforcements, I'm not dogging the Pats about it. They didn't break any rule that's in place, and it's actually to their credit that they ran something the league isn't familiar with. And they ran it three times; the Ravens should have caught on sooner. But it's still an exploitation of the rule. 

 

That is why the NFL has a numbering system for jerseys!  To tell D players at a glance who can and cannot catch a pass.  The Pat's make a D play Russian Roulette putting out an illegal number of eligible jerseys.  Place them so that one is lined up in an atypical spot for an eligible receiver, then declare an eligible receiver in a typically eligible pass receiving position on the field as ineligible. That is why Harbaugh was mad, only that he felt the Refs didn't allow time for them to find the ''hidden' eligible guy once the 'other guy was declared ineligible (the mechanics of the situation),  and it tricks the D in using the substitution rule as well not fully knowing which personnel group to bring in based upon matchups, because one of the receivers with an eligible number will soon become ineligible; just don't know who, where, and when until player reports to ref and it is announced.

 

That is why i think they do look at it in the off season.  There is enough There there to ascertain that the practice at least indirectly tries to scoot around the some of provisions provided in two different rules- The allowing of the D reasonable time to substitute their players to properly counter any O substitution, and The bringing excessive number of eligible numbered jerseys on field, then shuffling them into atypical lineup, then declaring one of he players ineligible.  Now what is reasonable time (provided for in the rules) for D to properly substitute and determine where the other legal jersey numbers are located?  If

 

it is not looked at, NFL folks a lot smarter than myself and many here to improvise, push, and develop even more ingenious elements of deceit that skirt previous rules without breaking any.  It will be a clever gig, for sure.

[BlacknGold77]

 

You are missing the most basic point, Hooman lined up in a normally ELIGIBLE position.

 

He was on the LOS and was not covered up, that is textbook eligible.  Same way on the LOS and covered up is textbook ineligible.

 

Its not the offense's fault if the Ravens football knowledge doesnt even cover the basics from Pee Wee football.

[Superman]

That is why the NFL has a numbering system for jerseys!  To tell D players at a glance who can and cannot catch a pass.  The Pat's make a D play Russian Roulette putting out an illegal number of eligible jerseys.  Place them so that one is lined up in an atypical spot for an eligible receiver, then declare an eligible receiver in a typically eligible pass receiving position on the field as ineligible. That is why Harbaugh was mad, only that he felt the Refs didn't allow time for them to find the ''hidden' eligible guy once the 'other guy was declared ineligible (the mechanics of the situation),  and it tricks the D in using the substitution rule as well not fully knowing which personnel group to bring in based upon matchups, because one of the receivers with an eligible number will soon become ineligible; just don't know who, where, and when until player reports to ref and it is announced.

 

That is why i think they do look at it in the off season.  There is enough There there to ascertain that the practice at least indirectly tries to scoot around the some of provisions provided in two different rules- The allowing of the D reasonable time to substitute their players to properly counter any O substitution, and The bringing excessive number of eligible numbered jerseys on field, then shuffling them into atypical lineup, then declaring one of he players ineligible.  Now what is reasonable time (provided for in the rules) for D to properly substitute and determine where the other legal jersey numbers are located?  If

 

it is not looked at, NFL folks a lot smarter than myself and many here to improvise, push, and develop even more ingenious elements of deceit that skirt previous rules without breaking any.  It will be a clever gig, for sure.

 

Again, we speak in agreement.

 

Imagine this: A team comes out with 7 players in eligible numbers, and they all line up, just how the Pats lined up on the play we've been discussing. The defense gets set, then the offense picks out who they want to be eligible/ineligible, and the ineligible player points to the ref to report. The ref makes the announcement, then the offense snaps the ball. 

 

Technically, the way the rule is written, that's legal. But it's a clear exploitation of the rule. That's the reason the Pats ran it that way.

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread that the Colts did something similar against the Pats this year, on AC's TD catch. But AC wears an ineligible number, so he had to report. The Pats did the reverse (coincidentally, the numbers are reversed, also; AC wears #74, Hoomanawanui wears #47), and didn't have to draw attention to the wild card player. It's not some dastardly and nefarious plot, but I do think it's an exploitation of the rule, as written.

[Superman]

 

 

You are missing the most basic point, Hooman lined up in a normally ELIGIBLE position.

 

He was on the LOS and was not covered up, that is textbook eligible.  Same way on the LOS and covered up is textbook ineligible.

 

Its not the offense's fault if the Ravens football knowledge doesnt even cover the basics from Pee Wee football.

 

 

Not really. I'm not missing that. But I disagree that his spot is "normally eligible." It's not. There's normally an ineligible player lined up there, 95% of the time in the NFL. And the rulebook specifies "the position of an ineligible pass receiver." 

 

Again, this is the exact reason the Pats ran it the way they did. To act like this is about the Ravens not knowing the rules is unnecessarily arrogant.

[HoggHannah]

Not really. I'm not missing that. But I disagree that his spot is "normally eligible." It's not. There's normally an ineligible player lined up there, 95% of the time in the NFL. And the rulebook specifies "the position of an ineligible pass receiver." 

 

Again, this is the exact reason the Pats ran it the way they did. To act like this is about the Ravens not knowing the rules is unnecessarily arrogant.

 

That's the issue.  Your focus on #47 tells the rest of us that you do not understand the play.  For the 5th time, he's an eligible player, lining up at an eligible position as #6 on the line.  The other 4 OLman and Vereen being the regular 5 ineligible players.

 

Just because you feel like Hooman is lining up at an "ineligible spot" is indicating that you do not understand how lining up actually works.  There is no such thing as an ineligible spot, so please stop saying that.

 

 

Like Constanza, I am out of here (until tomorrow)!

[Superman]

That's the issue.  Your focus on #47 tells the rest of us that you do not understand the play.  For the 5th time, he's an eligible player, lining up at an eligible position as #6 on the line.  The other 4 OLman and Vereen being the regular 5 ineligible players.

 

Just because you feel like Hooman is lining up at an "ineligible spot" is indicating that you do not understand how lining up actually works.  There is no such thing as an ineligible spot, so please stop saying that.

 

 

Like Constanza, I am out of here (until tomorrow)!

 

Thank goodness you graced me with your all too brief presence, to explain to me things I already know.

 

Again, my point was/is simple: The way the Pats lined up is an exploitation of the rules, and that's the very reason they did it that way. An examination of the wording of the rules makes it pretty clear that they would like to have the offense declared exactly who is and is not eligible; as CBFL says, that's the whole reason for the numbering system. In keeping with the implied/inferred intent of the rule, a simple adjustment would make it so that the defense doesn't have to guess in a matter of just a few seconds who is and is not eligible.

[BlacknGold77]

Thank goodness you graced me with your all too brief presence, to explain to me things I already know.

 

Again, my point was/is simple: The way the Pats lined up is an exploitation of the rules, and that's the very reason they did it that way. An examination of the wording of the rules makes it pretty clear that they would like to have the offense declared exactly who is and is not eligible; as CBFL says, that's the whole reason for the numbering system. In keeping with the implied/inferred intent of the rule, a simple adjustment would make it so that the defense doesn't have to guess in a matter of just a few seconds who is and is not eligible.

 

47 is the number of a player you expect to be eligible, so boom goes your numbering argument

[Superman]

47 is the number of a player you expect to be eligible, so boom goes your numbering argument

 

That wasn't really the argument, but nice try.

[SouthernCal]

47 is the number of a player you expect to be eligible, so boom goes your numbering argument

??????

[amfootball]

No it doesn't. It's in harmony with the rule that's already in place. And it would have affected 0.02% of plays run in the NFL this season.

 

This formation the Pats used is pretty much the only way they could have exploited this rule, without something drastic like Swinging Gate. The rule exists to make sure everyone knows who is and isn't eligible. They disguised it.

 

And again, before the Pats fan brigade shows up with more reinforcements, I'm not dogging the Pats about it. They didn't break any rule that's in place, and it's actually to their credit that they ran something the league isn't familiar with. And they ran it three times; the Ravens should have caught on sooner. But it's still an exploitation of the rule. 

I guess we will just agree to disagree. I would be absolutely shocked if the competition committee did what you are suggesting but I guess we will see ... we can revisit then.

[ReMeDy]

Being new, I have only one more reply left, so good luck!

 

This kind of attitude is what scares me about new posters -- they have nothing to lose in an argument. They could be vilified, and even banned, and it won't matter. When I bring up a discussion point, and a new user gets into a heated discussion with me, I just walk the other way.

[Superman]

I guess we will just agree to disagree. I would be absolutely shocked if the competition committee did what you are suggesting but I guess we will see ... we can revisit then.

 

Not really any need to. I just stated what I think they should do. I'm not campaigning for it, I'm not predicting it will happen. It was just my opinion of what can be done to cure what seems to me like a loophole. 

 

It's pretty insignificant, at this point. 

[amfootball]

Not really any need to. I just stated what I think they should do. I'm not campaigning for it, I'm not predicting it will happen. It was just my opinion of what can be done to cure what seems to me like a loophole. 

 

It's pretty insignificant, at this point. 

Yeah, I think Harbaugh was just mad that he got fooled. I can't imagine the league doing anything.

[Superman]

Yeah, I think Harbaugh was just mad that he got fooled. I can't imagine the league doing anything.

 

Kind of lost in all this back and forth, I don't think 7 seconds is a reasonable amount of time between the announcement and the snap. I could see the league doing something about that as well, as CBFL has stated.

[amfootball]

Kind of lost in all this back and forth, I don't think 7 seconds is a reasonable amount of time between the announcement and the snap. I could see the league doing something about that as well, as CBFL has stated.

Yeah, I do think they could change the amount of time to 10 seconds.

[Yehoodi]

 

You're getting defensive, and there's no need. I haven't accused the Patriots of anything.

 

My initial point was simple: I think the league should require players to declare, regardless of number, if they line up in a normally ineligible position. And I use the word "normally" because, to my limited knowledge, an eligible player has lined up two spots over from center only four times this season. Out of 20,000 offensive plays. Let's say it's happened 200 times this season, that's still just 1%. The math says this isn't normal. 

 

In the pursuit of fair play, I think it makes sense to adjust the need to declare. When an offense uses a 6OL formation, they declare the eligible player in an ineligible number. The Pats did the exact opposite. It's confusing. Just because we can look at it with replay and figure it out doesn't mean that it's self evident or easy to figure out. That's pretty naive. 

 

Once upon a time, the NFL didn't require the offense to give the defense a fair chance to substitute. That rule has been changed. Again, I'm not saying the Pats did anything wrong. I'm simply saying that the league should require eligible players in ineligible spots to declare, and that will get rid of the confusion.

 

I am not getting defensive just want to point out that there may be too much fuss over what happened and that what happen was very simple. 

 

As to your point about an eligible player declaring when they line up in the ineligible position, the league requires the player to do this.  If not, and they line up in an ineligible position, it is a 5 yard penalty for illegal substitution.   What Homan did was to line up in a eligible spot and therefore was not penalized. 

 

I understand what you are saying about the left tackle spot but the rules have it all covered.  Since I can't draw it out on paper I will try to describe a visual with words. 

 

If for the moment we think of the left tackle position as being a slot on the field for a visual purpose and this slot runs parallel to the side lines.  A player can line up in this slot at the line of scrimmage or one yard to many yard behind the line of scrimmage.   At the line of scrimmage is an ineligible spot (the default left tackle spot that you described) and one yard to 98 yards behind that is eligible spots.  So there are only two possibilities.   

 

If an player with an eligible number lines up in the spots 1 yard behind the line of scrimmage or behind that, no problem as he is an eligible player in an eligible position.  If however he lines up on the line of scrimmage in the ineligible spot without declaring that he is ineligible then its a 5 yard penalty for illegal substitution. 

 

So as far as the defense is concerned with a player with eligible number lining up in the left tackle slot there are only two possibilities if he does not declare his change in status: we have an (1) eligible receiver or a (2) penalty on the offense an illegal substitution.  So there is no confusion, no missing the spirit of the rule, and the defense has nothing to worry about.  The player is either eligible or its penalty on the offense.  Since the latter will call back any play by the offense the defense only needs to worry about that the guy being eligible and nothing else as the rules take care of the rest. 

 

Just a quick point on new things coming into play in the NFL and team being hurt as they are the first ones to see the issue and can not adjust.  Everyone knows about the Wildcat offense and it is pretty much common place now and defenses have learned to adjust without the need for rule changes or declarations on the field.  But when it first came out, it was new, surprising but not consider against the spirit of any rules, which it is not.

 

And interestingly enough the first game that the Wildcat was brought out was against the Pats in week 3 of the 2008 season by the our friends the Miami Dolphins.  They did not show their cards in preseason games or in the first two games but waited to week 3 to bring it out.  Surely the first application will give them big advantage and they did it for more than just three plays.  And some plays did not include a QB but a RB at QB position, talk about non orthodox players in certain position.  One can understand why they wanted to wait to week 3 as it would give them a big advantage and best to do it against us to give them a better chance to win as opposed to the two teams in the first two weeks as they could beat them without the Wildcat, don't waste you ammo unless you need too. 

 

Anyhoot we lost that game and could not adjust but were able to the next time we saw them as we were ready.  but the damage was done, we lost the game which helped Miami win the division as we were tied 11-5, and so yes we the pats were on the wrong side of a new unorthodox formation that was legal but almost impossible to adjust too in the heat of the moment of the its first introduction.  And yes it cost us a playoff spot, but that is football new things come out and sometimes they are unorthandox.  but there was no federal case made out about this and no statements made by BB either, its football, tip your cap to your opponent and move on, its football.

 

But it cost us none the less, so when we are on the other side of the fence I do not really have a lot of sympathy to be honest nor do I feel there should be all the fuss, its football.   

[GoPats]

I doubt the Patriots will go back to this specific well, but I do think you're going to see something else inventive from them on Sunday night. Brady talked about the plays at his PC last weekend and left off with something like, "And we'll have something else ready for next week." 

 

I initially expected some sort of action or memo from the league this week, but the absence of that tells me that they aren't sure exactly how to address it with teams. So they're probably telling the refs to enforce the "reasonable amount of time" aspect of this that came up earlier in the thread. 

 

I know Pagano's not shy about calling fakes too, so this could be a pretty fun game to watch. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

I doubt the Patriots will go back to this specific well, but I do think you're going to see something else inventive from them on Sunday night. Brady talked about the plays at his PC last weekend and left off with something like, "And we'll have something else ready for next week." 

 

I initially expected some sort of action or memo from the league this week, but the absence of that tells me that they aren't sure exactly how to address it with teams. So they're probably telling the refs to enforce the "reasonable amount of time" aspect of this that came up earlier in the thread. 

 

I know Pagano's not shy about calling fakes too, so this could be a pretty fun game to watch.

If it snows and the Pats line up for a field goal , im guessing Belichick will have the staff break out the shovels to clean off the area since tractor snowplows are now banned from such situations because of....you guessed it... the Pats (mod edit- team name insults are against the rules. That applies to any team)

[GoPats]

If it snows and the Pats line up for a field goal , im guessing Belichick will have the staff break out the shovels to clean off the area since tractor snowplows are now banned from such situations because of....you guessed it... the Pats

 

Weird, I thought derogatory variations on team names was frowned upon around here...

 

But you are indeed the stand-up example of high class and fair play who brought us this "wishing an injury" comment in another thread:

 

"I wouldnt mind another early game shot to TB's thigh area by Mr Jomes either...just to send a message."

[Yehoodi]

No it doesn't. It's in harmony with the rule that's already in place. And it would have affected 0.02% of plays run in the NFL this season.

 

This formation the Pats used is pretty much the only way they could have exploited this rule, without something drastic like Swinging Gate. The rule exists to make sure everyone knows who is and isn't eligible. They disguised it.

 

And again, before the Pats fan brigade shows up with more reinforcements, I'm not dogging the Pats about it. They didn't break any rule that's in place, and it's actually to their credit that they ran something the league isn't familiar with. And they ran it three times; the Ravens should have caught on sooner. But it's still an exploitation of the rule. 

 

 

Actually, now that I think about it more today, the rule you cited actually takes care of any permutations of an offense trying to fool defense or disguised a player.  Simply put if a player with an eligible number does not declare a change of status, he can not line up in an ineligible position or its a penalty.   The reverse is true for a player with an ineligible number who can not line up in an eligible position or its a penalty unless he declares his change of status. 

 

So bottom line if nothing is said about a player (like #47) we only have two results

 

A player with an eligible number is either (1) eligible or (2) a penalty on the offense

A player with an ineligible number is either (1) ineligible or (2) a penalty on the offense

 

So there is no hiding and there is nothing for the defense to have to worry about, it still reverts back to looking at the guy's numbers, if it is an eligible number he is eligible, it if is an ineligible number he is ineligible.  Easy peasy and self evident.

 

As a side note I drafted my last post as it was directed towards the left tackle position, a point of discussion in this thread.  And also I assumed for the example that there would be a WR covering the tackle, a point that I forgot to add last night but it was late.

 

And like Brady said in presser conference its all in the rule book.  There is no way the pats could hide the TE from the rule book.

[HoggHannah]

This kind of attitude is what scares me about new posters -- they have nothing to lose in an argument. They could be vilified, and even banned, and it won't matter. When I bring up a discussion point, and a new user gets into a heated discussion with me, I just walk the other way.

 

 

Good point, but I don't have a choice in the matter, really.  Most of my posts (I thought anyway) were generally done well and not hit and run jobs.  I'll be here though!

[backshoulderfade]

Next time Andrew Luck complains about being kneed in the chin, I don't want to hear his fans complain, then.

I cannot imagine that ever happening

I can imagine him answering with something like "Sweet muay thai, buddy!"

[cdgacoltsfan]

Weird, I thought derogatory variations on team names was frowned upon around here...

 

But you are indeed the stand-up example of high class and fair play who brought us this "wishing an injury" comment in another thread:

 

"I wouldnt mind another early game shot to TB's thigh area by Mr Jomes either...just to send a message."

LOL-please tell us all which thread I said I wished an injury on anybody....tick tick tick...im waiting.