The ONLY rule change I really care about is.....

[Superman]

I get all that but if you are going to make this change then it can have ripple effects. As Yehoodi pointed out, why didn't the competition committee get involved in the WildCat when it was introduced? It certainly violated the spirit of the rule as teams and officials had to adjust to seeing the QB line up out wide while a RB or WR took the snap. I think if a player is announced as ineligible then the defense should know not to cover him regardless of where he lines up. It really is pretty simple and not all that confusing. I think the newness of it has everyone up and arms.

 

Because the QB is eligible. Always has been, always will be. That's why he wears an eligible number. He can line up out wide, and the snap can go directly to any other eligible player. That's always been the case.

 

A team using a wildcat formation isn't the same as a team sending out 7 players with eligible numbers, and lining one of them up in a spot where an ineligible player would normally be. 

 

And in the Ravens game, it wasn't about whether they knew not to cover Vereen. It's that they didn't know that the TE was eligible, because he was lined up inside the tackle box. They exploited a loophole. Good for them, but that loophole is likely about to be closed.

[Superman]

No one has mentioned this yet but this new rule will severely mess up punt formations.

 

No it won't. If a player on punt team lines up outside the tackle box and doesn't wear an eligible number, he has to report. Most players that line up outside the tackle box on punt team wear eligible numbers.

[Yehoodi]

It's a bad formation.    It's going to be made illegal.

 

There that took me one paragraph with two sentences as opposed to your 18 paragraphs which told me..........????????

 

Do you have a problem with the wildcat?

 

Do you have a problem with a team breaking the huddle on one play and having a RB at QB and a QB at WR; then, without a player change so the defense can not change either or risk a 12 man on the field penalty, on the next play breaking the huddle and substituting the RB at QB with the QB, and then on third down substituting back the RB at QB and sending the QB again to WR.   And none of these substitutions are known to the defense until the huddle is broken and the team gets to the line of scrimmage.  

 

I think more rational and educated football fans will admit that a RB at QB will require a different defensive look (and frankly different defense sub packages) then a QB at QB. 

 

So are you comfortable with a defense not knowing this switch, and thus burden on them having to adjust on defense, occurring as the team lines up at the line of scrimmage? 

[Yehoodi]

It's a bad formation.    It's going to be made illegal.

 

There that took me one paragraph with two sentences as opposed to your 18 paragraphs which told me..........????????

 

You do realize that, as a defensive player, one can immediately identify a player as eligible or ineligible just by looking at their jersey number and regardless of anyone's location on the field right?

 

You also realize that in order for one to change their eligibility status from one to the other they have to report to the refs who then makes an announcement?

 

And if you put those two tiny simple little facts together as a defense coach you tell your players the following:

 

Regardless of their location on the field or anything else, including but not limited too the score of the game, the crowd noise, their body odor, your pain, your fatigue, or whatever, they are what their jersey number says they are unless they tell you otherwise.

 

So if they are eligible they are eligible.   If they are ineligible they are ineligible.  KISS method.  Keep It Simple Stupid.  Do your job and read the jersey number and don't worry about their location on the field as that is not going to help you figure it out.    Just look at the number.   And if that is the number the happened to have been called then you know the answer.

 

This is way easier then you all are trying to make it out to be.

 

And it is way more controlled then you all claim that is not controlled.

 

As I mentioned earlier if this was such brainstorm of a formation folks would be doing is a lot more and reason they do not is because there are just as many risks as running a double reverse, sure you can hit it big, but you also lose a lot of yardage.

[NewColtsFan]

You do realize that, as a defensive player, one can immediately identify a player as eligible or ineligible just by looking at their jersey number and regardless of anyone's location on the field right?

 

You also realize that in order for one to change their eligibility status from one to the other they have to report to the refs who then makes an announcement?

 

And if you put those two tiny simple little facts together as a defense coach you tell your players the following:

 

Regardless of their location on the field or anything else, including but not limited too the score of the game, the crowd noise, their body odor, your pain, your fatigue, or whatever, they are what their jersey number says they are unless they tell you otherwise.

 

So if they are eligible they are eligible.   If they are ineligible they are ineligible.  KISS method.  Keep It Simple Stupid.  Do your job and read the jersey number and don't worry about their location on the field as that is not going to help you figure it out.    Just look at the number.   And if that is the number the happened to have been called then you know the answer.

 

This is way easier then you all are trying to make it out to be.

 

And it is way more controlled then you all claim that is not controlled.

 

As I mentioned earlier if this was such brainstorm of a formation folks would be doing is a lot more and reason they do not is because there are just as many risks as running a double reverse, sure you can hit it big, but you also lose a lot of yardage.

 

If you really think the reality of pro football is just that simple then why hasn't everyone done it?

 

Why has the competition committee proposed the rule change they have?

 

I don't know how you came to your conclusion but we see this entirely differently.

 

It's a bad formation and will hopefully be made illegal.

[chrisfarley]

...and then what? 5 years from now it's 10 point possessions? 11? 

 

How about if a receiver catches the ball with one hand, it counts for 1,587 points? 

 

This garbage needs to stop, now. This is exactly the kind of fiddling that will bring the NFL down. At this rate, 30 years from now we're gonna be talking about "Remember back when football was the biggest sport in America? Ya know, when they could tackle and hit each other back before those padded robot suits."

 

Inject enough money into this creature [NFL] and it will die. 

 

This sport doesn't need gimmicks. It needs integrity. 

bring it on until we don't have a good FG kicker.  that's the kicker.

[amfootball]

No it won't. If a player on punt team lines up outside the tackle box and doesn't wear an eligible number, he has to report. Most players that line up outside the tackle box on punt team wear eligible numbers.

Right but according to this new rule he HAS to line up in the tackle box.

 

As an FYI, Bill is his explanation of the play cited the punt team as where the formations he ran happen the most. He said that is where the idea originated from as well as from watching other NFL teams run similar plays on offense as he did.

[amfootball]

Believe me, the league does not want to band aid any officials call with replay especially ones that are subjective), they want to give them the circumstances to get it right the first time.

 

Besides, if nobody caught it the first time, who in the world is going to call for a replay and looking for infractions of substitution?

I get all that but the onus is on the refs to study the formations and be prepared. The same as the defense. An offense formation should not be eliminated for fear of confusion on the officiating team.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I get all that but the onus is on the refs to study the formations and be prepared. The same as the defense. An offense formation should not be eliminated for fear of confusion on the officiating team.

 

Because_You_Feel this way, doesn't make it so. As a matter of fact, they do know formations and what is a legal formation and what is not.  Thus if a team creates confusion in the officials based upon unique formation changes along with players substitutions and declarations of eligibility and ineligibility and the O wants to run hurry up on the play before the defense can recognize and defend, then so be it...  as long as the refs can also be in full control of the game situation and flow. The missed illegal substitution penalty on Nate Solders TD catch show this is not always the case.

 

You see, it is the Refs responsibility. 

 

** NFL referees are the chief officials at professional football games and maintain oversight and control over the game. Referees enforce official NFL rules, make sure that the game progresses, and call out penalties when players break the rules. They also keep track of the game and play clocks. NFL referees are responsible for making sure the games flow smoothly, so they must maintain a fair stance in order to guarantee the safety of all players. While all officials are responsible for any decision involving the application or interpretation of the rules, the referee has the final decision. **

 

It is the Leagues responsibility to set processes and protocols that allow the Refs to effectively do that job.  If situations come up that affect the Refs ability to do their job effectively, the League can and will make appropriate adjustments that allow them the ability to maintain oversight and control.  It's not the" onus of the Refs" to get better and faster at at recognizing trickery and potential  (willingly or inadvertent) rules infractions that go unnoticed in the fast paced confusion.

 

You see, you feel the team (actually, anything Patriots) gets final say on the flow and control of the game.  The League says, no, the Refs get final say on the flow and control.  And they will look into any situation they feel is disrupting that and deal with it appropriately.  That is why they are looking into this.  Since this change was proposed from the within the competition committee itself, it has a much better chance of making it out and into final voting in some form.

[amfootball]

Because_You_Feel this way, doesn't make it so. As a matter of fact, they do know formations and what is a legal formation and what is not.  Thus if a team creates confusion in the officials based upon unique formation changes along with players substitutions and declarations of eligibility and ineligibility and the O wants to run hurry up on the play before the defense can recognize and defend, then so be it...  as long as the refs can also be in full control of the game situation and flow. The missed illegal substitution penalty on Nate Solders TD catch show this is not always the case.

 

You see, it is the Refs responsibility. 

 

** NFL referees are the chief officials at professional football games and maintain oversight and control over the game. Referees enforce official NFL rules, make sure that the game progresses, and call out penalties when players break the rules. They also keep track of the game and play clocks. NFL referees are responsible for making sure the games flow smoothly, so they must maintain a fair stance in order to guarantee the safety of all players. While all officials are responsible for any decision involving the application or interpretation of the rules, the referee has the final decision. **

 

It is the Leagues responsibility to set processes and protocols that allow the Refs to effectively do that job.  If situations come up that affect the Refs ability to do their job effectively, the League can and will make appropriate adjustments that allow them the ability to maintain oversight and control.  It's not the" onus of the Refs" to get better and faster at at recognizing trickery and potential  (willingly or inadvertent) rules infractions that go unnoticed in the fast paced confusion.

 

You see, you feel the team (actually, anything Patriots) gets final say on the flow and control of the game.  The League says, no, the Refs get final say on the flow and control.  And they will look into any situation they feel is disrupting that and deal with it appropriately.  That is why they are looking into this.  Since this change was proposed from the within the competition committee itself, it has a much better chance of making it out and into final voting in some form.

That's all well and good except the refs had no issue with what the Pats did. The ref that worked the Ravens game did his job 100 percent correct and was told beforehand by the Pats about the formations which was why they were announced every time. If the refs during the conf. title game were confused that was on them and your quote from the Globe is just conjecture by the way.

 

The issue here as I see it has nothing to do with the refs but the defense's ability to recognize the formation and whether it is too deceptive to have a player who is eligible line up in eligible spot after declaring himself ineligible. If they deem that is just too much for a defense to be able to understand and recognize pre-snap then so be it but as I have stated before this opens a Pandora's box of sorts when it comes to formations and could impact punt formations.

 

Also, stop already with the Pats bias. It is getting old already. I care about the rule itself not whether or not the Pats ever run it again. I was not expecting to see much of it 2015 as it was obvious that it was something Bill unveiled in the post-season for a reason. If this rule is passed or shot down I really don't think it impacts the Pats one way or the other BUT what I am really hoping is that the league is not having some knee jerk reaction to all of this because it was the Pats who did it and Harbaugh whined about it as the plays have been run before in the NFL and in college with no one saying a peep but as soon as the Pats do it with success in a big game and the opposing coach whines all of a sudden the competition committee gets involved. I really hope they don't end up painting themselves into a corner with this because as soon as you say a team can't do something that is fine according to the rules, then you impact the entire game and other instances you have not even thought of.

[Superman]

Right but according to this new rule he HAS to line up in the tackle box.

No.

The proposal states that ineligible players must line up inside the tackle box. The proposal does NOT state that players wearing ineligible numbers can't report as eligible and line up outside the tackle box.

So on punt team, a player wearing an ineligible number and lining up outside the tackle box must report. Same as it is now.

So we can drop the whole punt team argument. It's immaterial.

[amfootball]

No.

The proposal states that ineligible players must line up inside the tackle box. The proposal does NOT state that players wearing ineligible numbers can't report as eligible and line up outside the tackle box.

So on punt team, a player wearing an ineligible number and lining up outside the tackle box must report. Same as it is now.

So we can drop the whole punt team argument. It's immaterial.

So what's the difference? So defenses can figure that out on STs but not on defense?

[ColtsBlueFL]

That's all well and good except the refs had no issue with what the Pats did. The ref that worked the Ravens game did his job 100 percent correct and was told beforehand by the Pats about the formations which was why they were announced every time. If the refs during the conf. title game were confused that was on them and your quote from the Globe is just conjecture by the way.

 

The issue here as I see it has nothing to do with the refs but the defense's ability to recognize the formation and whether it is too deceptive to have a player who is eligible line up in eligible spot after declaring himself ineligible. If they deem that is just too much for a defense to be able to understand and recognize pre-snap then so be it but as I have stated before this opens a Pandora's box of sorts when it comes to formations and could impact punt formations.

 

Also, stop already with the Pats bias. It is getting old already. I care about the rule itself not whether or not the Pats ever run it again. I was not expecting to see much of it 2015 as it was obvious that it was something Bill unveiled in the post-season for a reason. If this rule is passed or shot down I really don't think it impacts the Pats one way or the other BUT what I am really hoping is that the league is not having some knee jerk reaction to all of this because it was the Pats who did it and Harbaugh whined about it as the plays have been run before in the NFL and in college with no one saying a peep but as soon as the Pats do it with success in a big game and the opposing coach whines all of a sudden the competition committee gets involved. I really hope they don't end up painting themselves into a corner with this because as soon as you say a team can't do something that is fine according to the rules, then you impact the entire game and other instances you have not even thought of.

 

Look, the VP of officiating caused a lot of uneasiness because he chastised the way Vinovich called the Patriots - Ravens game, and stated the way Wlat Anderson called the Colts - Patriots game was correct.  Even still, Walt Anderson and crew misses an illegal substitution call on the Patriots that should have taken away Nate Solders TD.

Now it appears the League is going to do something about it, and there's likely nothing the Patriots or their fans can do about it.  No conjecture, it's all reported here in these articles.  Enjoy-

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/18/proposed-nfl-rules-change-aimed-patriots-eligible-receiver-tactic/hMezndf5czcRiyF3Hyl3vM/story.html#

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/01/bill_vinovich_dean_blandino_not_on_same_page_with_ineligible

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/30/head-officiating-nate-solder-should-not-have-counted/K6QymTsPtcR8t1fOa3U80I/story.html

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000465143/article/blandino-refs-signaled-ineligible-players-in-afc-title

[amfootball]

Look, the VP of officiating caused a lot of uneasiness because he chastised the way Vinovich called the Patriots - Ravens game, and stated the way Wlat Anderson called the Colts - Patriots game was correct.  Even still, Walt Anderson and crew misses an illegal substitution call on the Patriots that should have taken away Nate Solders TD.

Now it appears the League is going to do something about it, and there's likely nothing the Patriots or their fans can do about it.  No conjecture, it's all reported here in these articles.  Enjoy-

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/18/proposed-nfl-rules-change-aimed-patriots-eligible-receiver-tactic/hMezndf5czcRiyF3Hyl3vM/story.html#

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/01/bill_vinovich_dean_blandino_not_on_same_page_with_ineligible

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/30/head-officiating-nate-solder-should-not-have-counted/K6QymTsPtcR8t1fOa3U80I/story.html

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000465143/article/blandino-refs-signaled-ineligible-players-in-afc-title

Pretty sure the refs that called the Detriot/Dallas playoff game were chastised too. Errors happen all the time in the NFL and the refs mess up pretty much every game. To try to blame them missing Nate Solder's TD is a stretch. That has happened before a zillion times in football without the formations the Pats used on the prior play.

 

I am not sure really sure why you are going down the officiating end of it. Again, it is simple for the refs as they are just designating who is eligible vs ineligible. The defenses apparently are the ones that can't keep up.

[ColtsBlueFL]

So what's the difference? So defenses can figure that out on STs but not on defense?

 

Makes this formation and play totally illegal (Vereen with Red X).

 

Soon, if you are lined up outside the tackle box, you are eligible (or had better declare it if your number isn't). No guess work.

 

[amfootball]

Makes this formation and play totally illegal (Vereen with Red X).

 

Soon, if you are lined up outside the tackle box, you are eligible (or had better declare it if your number isn't). No guess work.

 

Yes, I know what is being proposed my point to superman is why is this play with Vereen so much harder for defenses to figure out and defend vs a STs play with several players identify themselves as ineligible?

[ColtsBlueFL]

Pretty sure the refs that called the Detriot/Dallas playoff game were chastised too. Errors happen all the time in the NFL and the refs mess up pretty much every game. To try to blame them missing Nate Solder's TD is a stretch. That has happened before a zillion times in football without the formations the Pats used on the prior play.

 

I am not sure really sure why you are going down the officiating end of it. Again, it is simple for the refs as they are just designating who is eligible vs ineligible. The defenses apparently are the ones that can't keep up.

 

Then you explain how they missed this if it is so easy and they are just pointing out eligible / ineligible players, but the VP of officiating clearly did not?

 

"Offensive tackle Cameron Fleming reported as an eligible receiver on the play before Solder’s TD, but returned to an ineligible lineman on the next play. NFL rules state Fleming can only switch from eligible to ineligible, or vice versa, if he sits out for one play or if there is a stoppage in the game."

 

Again, the officials control oversight, flow, and control of the game. The League gave them that power, and will ensure they keep it.

[Superman]

So what's the difference? So defenses can figure that out on STs but not on defense?

It's a different scenario. The ineligible player must line up inside the tackle box. Doesn't matter what number he's wearing.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Yes, I know what is being proposed my point to superman is why is this play with Vereen so much harder for defenses to figure out and defend vs a STs play with several players identify themselves as ineligible?

 

I'll let Superman answer for himself, but whether Vereen is eligible or not on a punt, he will be covered because the return team doesn't want him to get to the kick returner unimpeded.  So I don't see any difference if a guy is right up on him anyway. But now he would have to line up inside the tackle box. {Shrug}

[amfootball]

It's a different scenario. The ineligible player must line up inside the tackle box. Doesn't matter what number he's wearing.

Sure. I just don't get why the Vereen play is so much more confusing that it has to be outlawed given how common it is for players to report different statuses especially on STs.

[Superman]

Sure. I just don't get why the Vereen play is so much more confusing that it has to be outlawed given how common it is for players to report different statuses especially on STs.

Then why did the Patriots use the formation?

[amfootball]

Then why did the Patriots use the formation?

Same reason players are put in motion or shift or the QB calls out dummy signals, to hope they can gain a split from the defense in terms of recognition to be able to convert the play. I really don't think if the play was run as is by the Pats or any other team next year would be that big of a deal. Defenses adjust like they did with the Wildcat and the read option and the spread ...

[Yehoodi]

If you really think the reality of pro football is just that simple then why hasn't everyone done it?

 

Why has the competition committee proposed the rule change they have?

 

I don't know how you came to your conclusion but we see this entirely differently.

 

It's a bad formation and will hopefully be made illegal.

 

I do not know why no one has not run the formation, and very likely due to the fact that it seems that it was first run this year.

 

As for the simplicity of football, I was not making the argument that it was easy for the offense to run the formation from their side of the ball, but that it is easy from the defensive side of the ball to identify who is and who is not eligible.  That was my point.

 

It appears from your position and others, that this formation makes it difficult for the defense to identify who is eligible.   I say that is incorrect and that it is easy to identify who is eligible.  You just look at their jersey number.  Not too complicate is it?

 

If you get wrapped up in where he is on the field that is your problem.   That is football, guys/formations line up/move around all the time on either side of the ball to try to confuse the opponent.

 

As for the competition committee not sure why they are jumping all over this issue.  Too me its just sour grapes as opposed to folks wanting the put in the small bit of effort to learn how to id players and to counteract this formation.  Just like the wildcat once some one gets savoy to the minuses in the formation you will rarely see it again.   And also, I do not anticipate the pats running it all that much in the future.

[amfootball]

As for the competition committee not sure why they are jumping all over this issue.  Too me its just sour grapes as opposed to folks wanting the put in the small bit of effort to learn how to id players and to counteract this formation.  Just like the wildcat once some one gets savoy to the minuses in the formation you will rarely see it again.   And also, I do not anticipate the pats running it all that much in the future.

Spot on Yehoodi with this last graph. My thoughts exactly.

[Superman]

Same reason players are put in motion or shift or the QB calls out dummy signals, to hope they can gain a split from the defense in terms of recognition to be able to convert the play. I really don't think if the play was run as is by the Pats or any other team next year would be that big of a deal. Defenses adjust like they did with the Wildcat and the read option and the spread ...

 

I'm not sure why you and Yehoodi keep conflating these two issues.

 

The entire point of the numbering convention and the eligible/ineligible reporting rules is so that the defense and the officials can identify which players are eligible and which players are not. The NFL is not concerned with the offense telling the defense what they are going to do, who the ball is going to, whether it's a run or a pass, when the ball is going to be snapped, etc. But the NFL does want to know who is and isn't eligible. Again, that's the reason for the rules that exist.

 

The Swinging Gate formations and all its iterations are counter to that principle. Putting 7 players with eligible numbers on the field and not identifying which 6 of those 7 are actually eligible is counter to that principle. The NFL seems to want that fixed.

[Yehoodi]

Makes this formation and play totally illegal (Vereen with Red X).

 

Soon, if you are lined up outside the tackle box, you are eligible (or had better declare it if your number isn't). No guess work.

 

 

I take it you realize that Vereen is dead in the water here correct?  And that in effect the pats are playing with 10 guys.  But hey this is a great formation. 

 

Maybe folks on this board that are complaining about the formation, the competition committee and the Ravens coaching should think for maybe 10-15 minutes and come up with a defense scheme to counter act this scheme.  After all is new and until someone figures the weaknesses, one can not exploit them.

 

Lets try this one on for size.

 

When you see 6 guys will eligible numbers on the field not named the QB you wait for who claims to be ineligible, and if he is your guy and he decides to split out wide you go to the other side of the tackle box and blitz the QB.  You will have a free run as he wont be there to block as he is on the other side to the tackle box and you don't have to worry about him as he can not go out for a pass.   This is just one play that could be use, is simple to implement and creates a free run at the QB. 

 

But hey its a great formation that needs to be change.  But we will ignore the fact that with a little thinking the formation creates a free run at the QB, among other things.  but hey, go ahead don't think and adapt just changes the rules when one is too lazy to do just a little bit of ciphering.   

[amfootball]

I'm not sure why you and Yehoodi keep conflating these two issues.

 

The entire point of the numbering convention and the eligible/ineligible reporting rules is so that the defense and the officials can identify which players are eligible and which players are not. The NFL is not concerned with the offense telling the defense what they are going to do, who the ball is going to, whether it's a run or a pass, when the ball is going to be snapped, etc. But the NFL does want to know who is and isn't eligible. Again, that's the reason for the rules that exist.

 

The Swinging Gate formations and all its iterations are counter to that principle. Putting 7 players with eligible numbers on the field and not identifying which 6 of those 7 are actually eligible is counter to that principle. The NFL seems to want that fixed.

Goodness. The Pats did tell the officials who told the Ravens who was eligible and ineligible. That is the point you continue to miss over and over again. There was zero deception. There was a failure on the part of the Ravens to identify the players in terms of how they were going to cover which is a part of football. For the NFL to want to prevent players from lining up where they want AFTER They have declared themselves goes against the very nature of the sport IMO.

[Superman]

Goodness. The Pats did tell the officials who told the Ravens who was eligible and ineligible. That is the point you continue to miss over and over again. There was zero deception. There was a failure on the part of the Ravens to identify the players in terms of how they were going to cover which is a part of football. For the NFL to want to prevent players from lining up where they want AFTER They have declared themselves goes against the very nature of the sport IMO.

 

That's patently false. It's 100% untrue. I won't call it a lie, but I do believe you know better.

 

The TE lined up inside the tackle box -- a position where normally an ineligible player would be -- and because he wears an eligible number, he wasn't required to report. That's the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the formation and personnel grouping, to hide that player. It's the whole reason the Pats ran the play the way they did. It's designed to be deceptive. And while it's technically not against the rules, it is contrary to the spirit of the rule.

[amfootball]

That's patently false. It's 100% untrue. I won't call it a lie, but I do believe you know better.

 

The TE lined up inside the tackle box -- a position where normally an ineligible player would be -- and because he wears an eligible number, he wasn't required to report. That's the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the formation and personnel grouping, to hide that player. It's the whole reason the Pats ran the play the way they did. It's designed to be deceptive. And while it's technically not against the rules, it is contrary to the spirit of the rule.

BINGO. He was not required to report. But Vereen was and DID. Of course that is the purpose of the formation and it is not against the rules or this spirit of the rule that you keep harping on. It is either against the rules or not. This spirit of the rules is weak on your part. Very weak. To make this addendum and say ineligible players have to line up in a certain spot goes against the formation rules as stated in the rule book. Once a player is declared, he should be free to line up where he wants.

[Superman]

BINGO. He was not required to report. But Vereen was and DID. Of course that is the purpose of the formation and it is not against the rules or this spirit of the rule that you keep harping on. It is either against the rules or not. This spirit of the rules is weak on your part. Very weak. To make this addendum and say ineligible players have to line up in a certain spot goes against the formation rules as stated in the rule book. Once a player is declared, he should be free to line up where he wants.

 

AM: There was no deception.

Supes: The whole point was deception.

AM: Of course that's the point.

 

I'm not gonna keep going back and forth. The Competition Committee disagrees with you. You and Yehoodi can cry "sour grapes" all you want, but the real deal is that the purpose of the rules about eligible players and the numbering conventions is so that eligible and ineligible players are identifiable before the snap. This proposal would close the loophole that Swinging Gate plays exploit.

 

[amfootball]

I take it you realize that Vereen is dead in the water here correct?  And that in effect the pats are playing with 10 guys.  But hey this is a great formation. 

 

Maybe folks on this board that are complaining about the formation, the competition committee and the Ravens coaching should think for maybe 10-15 minutes and come up with a defense scheme to counter act this scheme.  After all is new and until someone figures the weaknesses, one can not exploit them.

 

Lets try this one on for size.

 

When you see 6 guys will eligible numbers on the field not named the QB you wait for who claims to be ineligible, and if he is your guy and he decides to split out wide you go to the other side of the tackle box and blitz the QB.  You will have a free run as he wont be there to block as he is on the other side to the tackle box and you don't have to worry about him as he can not go out for a pass.   This is just one play that could be use, is simple to implement and creates a free run at the QB. 

 

But hey its a great formation that needs to be change.  But we will ignore the fact that with a little thinking the formation creates a free run at the QB, among other things.  but hey, go ahead don't think and adapt just changes the rules when one is too lazy to do just a little bit of ciphering.   

Brady was unbelievably exposed on that play if the Ravens had correctly diagnosed it.

 

The undressing of Harabugh on that series was the best part of the post-season for me along with Pete Carroll of course. lol.

[ColtRider]

That's all well and good except the refs had no issue with what the Pats did. The ref that worked the Ravens game did his job 100 percent correct and was told beforehand by the Pats about the formations which was why they were announced every time. If the refs during the conf. title game were confused that was on them and your quote from the Globe is just conjecture by the way.

The issue here as I see it has nothing to do with the refs but the defense's ability to recognize the formation and whether it is too deceptive to have a player who is eligible line up in eligible spot after declaring himself ineligible. If they deem that is just too much for a defense to be able to understand and recognize pre-snap then so be it but as I have stated before this opens a Pandora's box of sorts when it comes to formations and could impact punt formations.

Also, stop already with the Pats bias. It is getting old already. I care about the rule itself not whether or not the Pats ever run it again. I was not expecting to see much of it 2015 as it was obvious that it was something Bill unveiled in the post-season for a reason. If this rule is passed or shot down I really don't think it impacts the Pats one way or the other BUT what I am really hoping is that the league is not having some knee jerk reaction to all of this because it was the Pats who did it and Harbaugh whined about it as the plays have been run before in the NFL and in college with no one saying a peep but as soon as the Pats do it with success in a big game and the opposing coach whines all of a sudden the competition committee gets involved. I really hope they don't end up painting themselves into a corner with this because as soon as you say a team can't do something that is fine according to the rules, then you impact the entire game and other instances you have not even thought of.

"Also, stop already with the Pats bias. It is getting old already." Really? Get used to it on the "COLTS" forums. However, I will give you this amfootball. Bill Belichick is an absolute mastermind of schematic (fitting into "Systematic" FB) NFL football. The guy is a genius at this.

However, the teams that are emulating this strategy (I.e. Colts ..et.al) and implementing it are the teams that will be successful from now on. I think you can count on it. The cat's outta the bag and it's not going anywhere. And it doesn't take prisoners.

[NewColtsFan]

I do not know why no one has not run the formation, and very likely due to the fact that it seems that it was first run this year.

 

As for the simplicity of football, I was not making the argument that it was easy for the offense to run the formation from their side of the ball, but that it is easy from the defensive side of the ball to identify who is and who is not eligible.  That was my point.

 

It appears from your position and others, that this formation makes it difficult for the defense to identify who is eligible.   I say that is incorrect and that it is easy to identify who is eligible.  You just look at their jersey number.  Not too complicate is it?

 

If you get wrapped up in where he is on the field that is your problem.   That is football, guys/formations line up/move around all the time on either side of the ball to try to confuse the opponent.

 

As for the competition committee not sure why they are jumping all over this issue.  Too me its just sour grapes as opposed to folks wanting the put in the small bit of effort to learn how to id players and to counteract this formation.  Just like the wildcat once some one gets savoy to the minuses in the formation you will rarely see it again.   And also, I do not anticipate the pats running it all that much in the future.

 

It has nothing to do with a jersey number.

 

In the formation,  New England took out an offensive lineman.  They had 4 and not 5.

 

They had 6 possible receivers in the game.   Not the normal 5 (2 wr's 2 TE's and 1 RB)

 

One receiver was designated as ineligible. 

 

BUT....

 

He lines up as he normally would,  as an eligible receiver split wide.    And when the ball is snapped,  he turns to the QB and holds up his hands as if he's about to receive the ball.

 

All it's designed to do is confuse the defense.    Yes,  the guy has been designated as ineligible.   But, within one or two seconds the play is being run and the receiver is acting as if he IS eligible to catch the ball.

 

It is completely confusing and counter-intuitive to how defenders are trained.   It's harder to respond than supporters of the play here are stating.

 

This is not just about a number. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

Brady was unbelievably exposed on that play if the Ravens had correctly diagnosed it.

 

The undressing of Harabugh on that series was the best part of the post-season for me along with Pete Carroll of course. lol.

 

Really?  OK, why don't you and Yehoodi diagram out that miracle D alignment that "exposes" Brady so badly!

 

As it was, they rushed 4 and the O line had a great pocket for Brady.  Even if they Blitzed a 5th guy, Hoomanawanui was so wide open right away Brady could have dumped it off even quicker than he did.  Pats had eligible receiver at top of the TV screen stay on the line, drawing coverage toward him like the ineligible Vereen down below in the slot position all the while Hoomanawanui sprints up the field unabated catching a quick hitter in stride.  The only Thing I know that might have stopped it was a big strong pass rusher right up in Hoomanawanui's face bull rushing him to back into Brady.

 

[amfootball]

Really?  OK, why don't you and Yehoodi diagram out that miracle D alignment that "exposes" Brady so badly!

 

As it was, they rushed 4 and the O line had a great pocket for Brady.  Even if they Blitzed a 5th guy, Hoomanawanui was so wide open right away Brady could have dumped it off even quicker than he did.  Pats had eligible receiver at top of the TV screen stay on the line, drawing coverage toward him like the ineligible Vereen down below in the slot position all the while Hoomanawanui sprints up the field unabated catching a quick hitter in stride.  The only Thing I know that might have stopped it was a big strong pass rusher right up in Hoomanawanui's face bull rushing him to back into Brady.

 

Yehoodi already did in his previous post. The one I quoted.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Yehoodi already did in his previous post. The one I quoted.

 

You mean this post? 

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/37077-the-only-rule-change-i-really-care-about-is/page-3#entry1070922

 

The one where he states-

 

"When you see 6 guys will eligible numbers on the field not named the QB you wait for who claims to be ineligible, and if he is your guy and he decides to split out wide you go to the other side of the tackle box and blitz the QB.  You will have a free run as he wont be there to block as he is on the other side to the tackle box and you don't have to worry about him as he can not go out for a pass.   This is just one play that could be use, is simple to implement and creates a free run at the QB."

 

Watch the play, then have Yehoodi tell us who should have blitzed that didn't already rush Brady, and where he should have lined up for the 'free run' at Tom. I vehemently disagree with his claim and your approval of it.

[amfootball]

You mean this post? 

 

http://forums.colts.com/topic/37077-the-only-rule-change-i-really-care-about-is/page-3#entry1070922

 

The one where he states-

 

"When you see 6 guys will eligible numbers on the field not named the QB you wait for who claims to be ineligible, and if he is your guy and he decides to split out wide you go to the other side of the tackle box and blitz the QB.  You will have a free run as he wont be there to block as he is on the other side to the tackle box and you don't have to worry about him as he can not go out for a pass.   This is just one play that could be use, is simple to implement and creates a free run at the QB."

 

Watch the play, then have Yehoodi tell us who should have blitzed that didn't already rush Brady, and where he should have lined up for the 'free run' at Tom. I vehemently disagree with his claim and your approval of it.

I am sure Yehoodi will follow up with you and give an explanation.

[dw49]

Oh.. my aching buttocks...

[JerodMayo51]

I agree. This will easily get passed.

I read that New England is lobbying for permanent cameras on the goal lines and boundaries, as well as pushing for the use of technology that precisely determines forward progress.

The committee's proposal will definitely pass, which is good. I hope New England's proposal receives enough votes to pass as well.

 

Belichick has been trying to get the cameras on the goal line passed for like 8+ years and is shot down every single year..

 

Its extremely bizarre and frankly quite suspicious that the league will not put cameras right down the goal line.. there are so many important plays that come down to the goal line and every camera shot is at a slight angle so you cant see straight down the line..

 

They have like 60 different cameras in a stadium, so for them to not want to place them down at arguably the most important spot on the field is very, very odd.

[JerodMayo51]

You'll have to do better than that.

 

Wow.

 

You completely blew off his long, articulated post and mocked him for taking the time to actually defend his position.. and then he follows it up and you write 7 words and don't even argue your point at all.

 

Real nice!