Patriots' "eligible Tackle" maneuver
- Thread starter Orangeman
- Start date
now saying you cant report that way. but if you read the rule book interpretations only on kicking plays are you supposed to have more than 6 eligible numbers on the field or less than 5 without clearly stating this. if you are running a normal play with less than 5 olineman then its only reason is for deception and that is against the rules. much like the fumble rooski went away and other plays that confused the D.
next thing they will do is line up 11 guys call 5 ineligible and run a play that mixed them all up. you think the D will ever be able to keep track of that?
next thing they will do is line up 11 guys call 5 ineligible and run a play that mixed them all up. you think the D will ever be able to keep track of that?
hoopsupstate
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,753
- Like
- 29,123
Guess what? That's what good coaching is all about. Finding a way to out-scheme your opponent. If they throw a flag the first time they use it, so be it. The second and third time is on the defense. It's called making adjustments. I wish my team would out smart an opponent once and a while.
Last edited:
If the ref announces which 5 are ineligible then teams which aren't stupid would know whom to cover.
Plus if you did that a blitz would get to the QB real fast. The Pats did it the way you have too. 4 OL, 6 WR/TE/RBs and the ref announcing over the mic whom is ineligible which the ref clearly did but Mosley bit on Vereen's fake like a moron but let's ignore that and call the Pats cheaters.
there is a reason they went to numbered jerseys for eligible and inelgible people once the game became a passing game and less of a running game and this it.
if NE lined up 11 eligible players and had 5 report as in ineligible and then ran them out of the huddle at speed to an unbalanced line you really think it would be simple for the D to figure out who to guard? and then when the play starts they run all over?
that is the reason in HS they made players wear jerseys with the right numbers and didnt allow this stuff.
the pro's could easily do that and end all the issues.
did the rules say that you had to report all the players to the huddle when you ran players on and off the field 5 years ago? the rules left a vague area that is against the spirit and should not have been allowed NE took advantage and it will be more clearly defined next year.
the deception rule is in place for stuff like this. if the NFL wasnt so cheap they wouldnt allow the wrong numbers be having more plays on the active roster.
the deception rule is in place for stuff like this. if the NFL wasnt so cheap they wouldnt allow the wrong numbers be having more plays on the active roster.
OK, I just reviewed the drive in question on NFL rewind (I will undoubtedly forget to cancel my free subscription and get charged $40 next month!).
We no longer have to worry about whether this maneuver violated the spirit of the rules. In fact, it violated the rules, 100% and without question. It's not even close. It wasn't the specific formation, it was 1) Shane Vereen's participation (concrete, no question) and 2) the late reporting by Vereen on the third and final play. Details below….
To be honest, this league is a CF right now with rushing to proclaim anything BB does as legal or good…those league officials should be ashamed of themselves.
I am repasting the rules on substitutions and reporting below. The bottom line is that a player who is not an ineligible number may not report as ineligible then revert back to an eligible player on that same series (or as a continuous player, in their language).
Shane Vereen violated this rule on plays 9 and 10 of the drive. There were 10 plays, 3 utilized the formation in question.
Plays 1 & 2 were normal.
Play 3 was the formation…Manatee in, Vereen reports and is out on the end, etc. They get like 12 yards to wide-open Manatee.
Play 4 is normal, what's important here is Vereen and Manatee are OUT of the game, Bolden comes in at RB.
Play 5 is the penalty for too many men, no play (QB sneak)
Play 6 is normal, completion to Edelmann
Play 7 is the formation again, Vereen and Manatee in, 11 yard completion to Edelmann, defense was confused
Play 8 is the formation again, Vereen reports late, on the way to the line, does NOT join the huddle after reporting, the ball is snapped right away. This play goes for like 15 to Manatee who is wide open.
Play 9 is normal, except Vereen is out wide and then comes and joins Brady in the Backfield…this is a clear violation of the rules as stated below
Play 10 is normal, Touchdown, although Vereen is again in the backfield, a clear violation of the rules.
I can't tell if this is just a 5-yard procedure penalty or a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty, they are both discussed in other sections of the rulebook for this infraction…for some reason there seems to be some leeway on behalf of the officials to judge the intent to deceive.
In this case, the shifting of eligible players to ineligible and back, to me, would indicate gross negligence in terms of intent to deceive, and they should have had 1st and Goal from the 25 instead of the 5, Harbaugh should not have been penalized.
But in reality, they should have been penalized for procedure on Play 8 for the late report (definitely not immediate
There you have it, this was illegal, no ifs ands or buts, and I would like the league to acknowledge once again that the Patriots were breaking the rules (in addition to all the "luck" that seems to materialize for them.
Section 3 Changes in Position
REPORTING CHANGE OF POSITION
Article 1An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50-79 and 90-99) is permitted
to line up in the position of an eligible pass receiver (1-49 and 80-89), and 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.
RETURNING TO ORIGINAL POSITION
Article 2A player who has reported a change in his eligibility status to the Referee is permitted to return to a
position indicated by the eligibility status of his number after:
(a) a team timeout;
(b) the end of a quarter;
(c) the two-minute warning;
(d) a foul;
(e) a replay challenge;
(f) a touchdown;
(g) a completed kick from scrimmage;
(h) a change of possession; or
(i) if the player has been withdrawn for one legal snap. A player withdrawn for one legal snap may reenter
at a position indicated by the eligibility status of his number, unless he again reports to the
Referee that he is assuming a position other than that designated by the eligibility status of his
number.
We no longer have to worry about whether this maneuver violated the spirit of the rules. In fact, it violated the rules, 100% and without question. It's not even close. It wasn't the specific formation, it was 1) Shane Vereen's participation (concrete, no question) and 2) the late reporting by Vereen on the third and final play. Details below….
To be honest, this league is a CF right now with rushing to proclaim anything BB does as legal or good…those league officials should be ashamed of themselves.
I am repasting the rules on substitutions and reporting below. The bottom line is that a player who is not an ineligible number may not report as ineligible then revert back to an eligible player on that same series (or as a continuous player, in their language).
Shane Vereen violated this rule on plays 9 and 10 of the drive. There were 10 plays, 3 utilized the formation in question.
Plays 1 & 2 were normal.
Play 3 was the formation…Manatee in, Vereen reports and is out on the end, etc. They get like 12 yards to wide-open Manatee.
Play 4 is normal, what's important here is Vereen and Manatee are OUT of the game, Bolden comes in at RB.
Play 5 is the penalty for too many men, no play (QB sneak)
Play 6 is normal, completion to Edelmann
Play 7 is the formation again, Vereen and Manatee in, 11 yard completion to Edelmann, defense was confused
Play 8 is the formation again, Vereen reports late, on the way to the line, does NOT join the huddle after reporting, the ball is snapped right away. This play goes for like 15 to Manatee who is wide open.
Play 9 is normal, except Vereen is out wide and then comes and joins Brady in the Backfield…this is a clear violation of the rules as stated below
Play 10 is normal, Touchdown, although Vereen is again in the backfield, a clear violation of the rules.
I can't tell if this is just a 5-yard procedure penalty or a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty, they are both discussed in other sections of the rulebook for this infraction…for some reason there seems to be some leeway on behalf of the officials to judge the intent to deceive.
In this case, the shifting of eligible players to ineligible and back, to me, would indicate gross negligence in terms of intent to deceive, and they should have had 1st and Goal from the 25 instead of the 5, Harbaugh should not have been penalized.
But in reality, they should have been penalized for procedure on Play 8 for the late report (definitely not immediate
There you have it, this was illegal, no ifs ands or buts, and I would like the league to acknowledge once again that the Patriots were breaking the rules (in addition to all the "luck" that seems to materialize for them.
Section 3 Changes in Position
REPORTING CHANGE OF POSITION
Article 1An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50-79 and 90-99) is permitted
to line up in the position of an eligible pass receiver (1-49 and 80-89), and 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.
RETURNING TO ORIGINAL POSITION
Article 2A player who has reported a change in his eligibility status to the Referee is permitted to return to a
position indicated by the eligibility status of his number after:
(a) a team timeout;
(b) the end of a quarter;
(c) the two-minute warning;
(d) a foul;
(e) a replay challenge;
(f) a touchdown;
(g) a completed kick from scrimmage;
(h) a change of possession; or
(i) if the player has been withdrawn for one legal snap. A player withdrawn for one legal snap may reenter
at a position indicated by the eligibility status of his number, unless he again reports to the
Referee that he is assuming a position other than that designated by the eligibility status of his
number.
Technically there was nothing wrong with the formation.
I just outlined in detail what was wrong, there were two things wrong with the strategy. The talking heads are all saying that nothing was illegal with the play, but they're are looking at the trees and missing the forest.
You can't move a normally eligible receiver to ineligible and back on the same series, and especially when he doesn't leave the game. Its a penalty, it's not a debate it's a fact.
your reply relates to the actual formation but does not address my point
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 97,625
- Like
- 192,327
Orangeman said:
How many times have you changed your argument? You started out saying they he didn't report or they didn't tell the Ravens he was changing his position. You seem to be fishing. Everything I have heard and read about the play says the formation and notification were legal. Are all these people that dumb?
I actually don't think I've changed anything. The reporting is a subjective thing…it's on national television, they showed a replay, you can see Vereen trot over to the ref and say I'm ineligible as behind him the team breaks from the huddle and sets up the play, and the ref sort of anxiously start shouting to the Ravens players that he's ineligible. That just does not fit my definition of reporting, which if you read the rulebook is basically leaving the sideline, telling the ref, joining the huddle (while the ref alerts the opponent) and off we go…again thats just an opinion. Given all the new rules about fast play I believe they'll address and correct this in the off season
On the other hand, it's crystal clear that an eligible player can't switch back/forth as long as he's continuously in the game (i.e. for a series…the rules I pasted were very clear about this). Vereen did this…RB, then ineligible receiver, then RB. The obvious reason was to deceive…it's a penalty. Not even debatable. This is directly from the Internet NFL rulebook, I'd love to hear where I'm wrong on this:
REPORTING CHANGE OF POSITION
Article 1An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50-79 and 90-99) is permitted
to line up in the position of an eligible pass receiver (1-49 and 80-89), and 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.
On the other hand, it's crystal clear that an eligible player can't switch back/forth as long as he's continuously in the game (i.e. for a series…the rules I pasted were very clear about this). Vereen did this…RB, then ineligible receiver, then RB. The obvious reason was to deceive…it's a penalty. Not even debatable. This is directly from the Internet NFL rulebook, I'd love to hear where I'm wrong on this:
REPORTING CHANGE OF POSITION
Article 1An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50-79 and 90-99) is permitted
to line up in the position of an eligible pass receiver (1-49 and 80-89), and 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.
Bambrewer
Dad of CWB champion #24
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,704
- Like
- 10,749
Here I'll end it all...
1st it was legal because the patriots told the refs they were doing it before the game started. The ref said he was emphatic about telling the Ravens not to cover him because belicheck told them he was doing it pregame.
2nd to prove it was legal I will use your own words... They will change the rule in the offseason... If it was illegal why change rules?
3rd it was legal because the score board in foxboro still says 35 to 31 patriots win game over see Indy in foxboro next week
BOOM
1st it was legal because the patriots told the refs they were doing it before the game started. The ref said he was emphatic about telling the Ravens not to cover him because belicheck told them he was doing it pregame.
2nd to prove it was legal I will use your own words... They will change the rule in the offseason... If it was illegal why change rules?
3rd it was legal because the score board in foxboro still says 35 to 31 patriots win game over see Indy in foxboro next week
BOOM
FortyFourCT
2017 Iggy Award Winner
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 391
- Like
- 582
Seems like Orangeman has done some solid research and makes an very interesting argument with evidence to back him up. Would like to see some media pick up on this and follow up to see if he is correct.
CuseIsInTheHouse
2nd String
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 548
- Like
- 281
Tell me more about how the League said they will probably change the rule. I want to hear more about your complete fabrication.
And while you bring up deceptions in the game, let's get rid of the play action pass and the pump fake too. Get it completely out of the game. We can't stand for this!
CuseIsInTheHouse
2nd String
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 548
- Like
- 281
This is an opinion piece by the Patriots blogger on ESPN Boston called "The Inside Slant"…I wouldn't say it's completely independent.
The article does address the subjective issue, which is whether the Referees did their job in ensuring the Defense had time to handle the changes and were appropriately alerted in the first place. I don't think, based on re-watch, that they did on 2 out of the 3 instances, but that's just my opinion.
What is not subjective at all, however, is the rule that a player can't bounce back/forth. not addressed at all (Vereen)
FortyFourCT
2017 Iggy Award Winner
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 391
- Like
- 582
Yes, this is obviously what I meant by wanting to see some more research done on this part.
CuseIsInTheHouse
2nd String
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 548
- Like
- 281
By Kevin Seifert, ESPN.com National Writer... Yeah, Patriots blogger... Sure... ?
Did you even read it? Valuable info is from the former official.
CuseIsInTheHouse
2nd String
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2011
- Messages
- 548
- Like
- 281
I'm sorry. Where does it say you can't bounce back and forth?
Everyone is looking at the freeze-frame of the formation and saying "Yes, that's legal" and they're leaning back on the "Yes, he reported to the Ref and they announced it"
I hate to be so redundant, but they're not addressing what are the two key points: 1) An ineligible report is supposed to report "Immediately"…that is all over the rule book and they define it as pre-huddle…the replay on TV clearly shows Vereen reporting post-huddle; and 2) that a player who is typically eligible was bouncing back/forth. There's a reason that rule is in there, it is very confusing and is not allowed, and it was violated.
To be honest, since BB is so good, my best guess is that he knew all this (they did sub out Vereen on the 4th play of the drive when they went back to normal the first time) but they probably just forgot and left Vereen in there around the goal line, figuring the dumb officials wouldn't notice, which they didn't….
I hate to be so redundant, but they're not addressing what are the two key points: 1) An ineligible report is supposed to report "Immediately"…that is all over the rule book and they define it as pre-huddle…the replay on TV clearly shows Vereen reporting post-huddle; and 2) that a player who is typically eligible was bouncing back/forth. There's a reason that rule is in there, it is very confusing and is not allowed, and it was violated.
To be honest, since BB is so good, my best guess is that he knew all this (they did sub out Vereen on the 4th play of the drive when they went back to normal the first time) but they probably just forgot and left Vereen in there around the goal line, figuring the dumb officials wouldn't notice, which they didn't….
FortyFourCT
2017 Iggy Award Winner
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 391
- Like
- 582
RETURNING TO ORIGINAL POSITION
Article 2A player who has reported a change in his eligibility status to the Referee is permitted to return to a
position indicated by the eligibility status of his number after:
(a) a team timeout;
(b) the end of a quarter;
(c) the two-minute warning;
(d) a foul;
(e) a replay challenge;
(f) a touchdown;
(g) a completed kick from scrimmage;
(h) a change of possession; or
(i) if the player has been withdrawn for one legal snap. A player withdrawn for one legal snap may reenter
at a position indicated by the eligibility status of his number, unless he again reports to the
Referee that he is assuming a position other than that designated by the eligibility status of his
number.
OFFICIAL
Are you a Pats fan and just don't want to hear it any arguments, or are you a non-Patriots fan who knows that this is correct everything was legal? What's you bias here?
