Patriots' "eligible Tackle" maneuver

[Orangeman]

You still have to defend them if they aren't reported as being ineligible. If the Patriots got a touchdown because the refs didn't notice that he was ineligible but the Ravens did, they never would have lived it down. Not to mention the guy that went to line up with him would have had to look at everyone else in the formation to process the fact that Vereen was lining up in a spot that made him ineligible.

Yeah, they couldn't "not cover" Vereen on the outside. That sets up a mean WR screen with the receiver on the outside and Vereen 1x1 blocking the corner...not good.

Incidentally I'm coming around to the biggest flaw in this whole thing is Manatee reporting as I/E on the first play, then switching back to E on the next play when Vereen reported in as I/E. That's the entire crux of the argument right there. I'm just going off the media reports here that that's what happened, because the prior throw went to Amendola, but Vereen seemed to go out for a pass, supporting that he was E then I/E, while Manatee was I/E then E. You can't do that.

That seems like a flagrant violation of the rules as written. Let me put it differently: if that IS legal, that's absolutely absurd, given that Vereen reported in as he was walking to the line...so the Ravens, within 4 seconds, have to say "OK, last play that guy was I/E, but now this other guy is I/E, so that means that if he's I/E than that guy is E...but where is he? Oh, he's on the line, over there."

No chance. The rule says that a player wearing an E number cannot report as I/E then switch his status on the next play without something happening (timeout, etc). The rule makes sense for this reason, the Patriots had a smart idea but got sloppy with the execution, the officials screwed it up then and WORSE the NFL continues to screw it up now.

I will desist if I see one person address this issue without a freeze-frame of a the controversial formation, which isn't the issue at all.

 

[Alsacs]

BTW the plays in question Vereen subbed in for Josh Kline the RG. Vereen told the ref he was reporting ineligible. Voinvich immediately went towards the Ravens defensive huddle told them don't cover 34 he is ineligible. Mosley lined over Vereen who moved backward on the snap and Hooman was uncovered and the Ravens got beaten.

Harbaugh is a whiner and wants to taint the win because he got outcoached. Does the NFL want to pass a new rule where the defense can't be fast snapped because the Pats did nothing wrong. This argument Orangeman is making is just sour grapes. Vereen subbed in Ineligible he didn't switch back to eligible during the next play he came out for Kline and then came back in the next play/drive as eligible.

 

[Cusefan0307]

This formation has Ernie Adams written all over it. Adams went to prep school with Belichick at Phillips Andover and they've been football junkies together ever since. Adams was the QB coach under Ray Perkins with the Giants pre-Parcells, then went and worked on Wall Street. Brilliant guy who has been with the Patriots since Belichick took over. He's not on their coaching staff but he's in the booth during games etc This is the type of thing he would spend hundreds of hours figuring if it was legal, researching it, investigating it and implementing it.

Nick Saban/Lane Kiffin ran this against LSU and got a 22 yard gain earlier this year.

 

[Orangeman]

I have no sour grapes, I'm not a Ravens fan. I just don't like seeing injustice gotten away with...

Your first paragraph is mostly accurate, but inconsequential to what I'm saying. Your facts around Vereen's subbing and declaration are inaccurate.

I detailed all this earlier, but the first time they ran the "Alternate Formation" they got it all correct. After that play, Vereen and Manatee subbed out, as they needed to in order to "refresh" their eligibility.

The second time they ran it they were wrong...I'll graph it for you:

Play 1 Play 2 Play 3
Manatee E I/E E

Vereen E E I/E

That is illegal without subbing. They are both wearing E #s and are not allowed to switch around like this (Vereen then stays on the field as a RB (E) for the 1st & Goal...illegal)

It has nothing to do with whether they reported...although Vereen didn't report "Immediately" before the final Alternate Formation play in my mind...but we don't need that for it to be illegal.

I have not seen anyone here or in the Media explain how this pattern of I/E & E players does not violate the NFL rulebook which I have posted here several times. It's honestly not even close.

BB is a great coach, he tried to outsmart the opponent, instead they outsmarted everyone, and got away with it.

Both Manatee and Vereen committed an infraction on Saturday.

 

[Orangeman]

Nick Saban/Lane Kiffin ran this against LSU and got a 22 yard gain earlier this year.

No offense, I'm not trying to be difficult, but you're not grasping the concepts here. If Alabama ran it for one play successfully that has nothing to do with this situation. The violation is the switching of players from E to I/E over multiple plays. Again, executing the formation successfully on one play is not the issue. Does that make sense?

 

[Bambrewer]

One question who the hell is manatee

 

[Orangeman]

One question who the hell is manatee

Ha, #47 the TE I just can't get his name

 

[Cusefan0307]

No offense, I'm not trying to be difficult, but you're not grasping the concepts here. If Alabama ran it for one play successfully that has nothing to do with this situation. The violation is the switching of players from E to I/E over multiple plays. Again, executing the formation successfully on one play is not the issue. Does that make sense?

It's only an issue because Baltimore wasn't prepared. Frankly I don't know any team that would be. The Eligiblie/Ineligible receivers were announced on the loudspeakers when given to the official after each play. Baltimores defense was confused and couldn't figure out who to cover.

 

[Bambrewer]

Hoomanawanui

 

[Orangeman]

It's only an issue because Baltimore wasn't prepared. Frankly I don't know any team that would be. The Eligiblie/Ineligible receivers were announced on the loudspeakers when given to the official after each play. Baltimores defense was confused and couldn't figure out who to cover.

Let me ask you a direct question: have you read the rules that I've copied/pasted into this thread? The ones that state that a player wearing an eligible number (i.e. #47 or #34) cannot declare themselves I/E and then become E again during "Continuous play", meaning they don't leave the game? Even if someone else declares themselves I/E, seemingly making the formerly I/E player eligble again?

Well, #47 did that exact thing, according to media reports, my own eyes, etc etc...he went from I/E to E on plays 7 and 8 of the drive, and caught a wide open 15 yard pass.

Any idea why they'd create and define these rules so distinctly? Precisely this reason, to not create an advantage for the offense over the defense. Which is, as you said, happened, because the Ravens weren't "prepared".

Can you explain which part of my argument is wrong? And not just that the NFL has ruled it was legal?

 

[Cusefan0307]

Let me ask you a direct question: have you read the rules that I've copied/pasted into this thread? The ones that state that a player wearing an eligible number (i.e. #47 or #34) cannot declare themselves I/E and then become E again during "Continuous play", meaning they don't leave the game? Even if someone else declares themselves I/E, seemingly making the formerly I/E player eligble again?

Well, #47 did that exact thing, according to media reports, my own eyes, etc etc...he went from I/E to E on plays 7 and 8 of the drive, and caught a wide open 15 yard pass.

Any idea why they'd create and define these rules so distinctly? Precisely this reason, to not create an advantage for the offense over the defense. Which is, as you said, happened, because the Ravens weren't "prepared".

Can you explain which part of my argument is wrong? And not just that the NFL has ruled it was legal?

The way you described the rules you are correct, but if the rules were truly that, why weren't the Patriots told they couldn't run this play before the game when they cleared with the NFL their plans for this specific package.

 

[javadoc]

The way you described the rules you are correct, but if the rules were truly that, why weren't the Patriots told they couldn't run this play before the game when they cleared with the NFL their plans for this specific package.

You are talking past the question - you guys aren't debating the same thing.

The Patriots could very well have cleared the play/strategy, but they messed up when running it, by running afoul of some of the "ancillary" rules that almost certainly weren't vetted. It's like left-on-red turns. You can double-check ahead of time ("can I turn left on red here? ok, great."), but if you don't come to a complete stop before making the turn, you still committed an infraction. That is what is being debated.

 

[Orangeman]

You are talking past the question - you guys aren't debating the same thing.

Exactly, it's happening all over the media since this happened -- I'm no Harbaugh fan, but he's saying one thing and people just aren't listening. They're looking at a freeze-frame and saying it was a legal play set-up. Well, it would have been, had everything been done properly, but it wasn't.

I hadn't heard that they cleared the play with the NFL before-hand...first, that's weird, but second, that almost makes it more likely they forgot/didn't know/neglected to consider the machinations of making different players eligible on different plays - "Hey, the NFL said it's cool, we're a go".

Because you can set up 11 people with 7 here and 4 there in a lot of different ways (what is that, permutations? whatever) that are legal on a play. That doesn't mean, per the rules, that they arrived there legally.

Don't forget, the head of officials of the NFL was partying with the Dallas Cowboys' owner's son on a party bus heading to Strip clubs the week before their playoff game. Is THAT the guy we're all relying on to say this was fine?

 

[Scooch]

We're on to Indianapolis.

 

[Orangeman]

It was a good win. Of course, the Pats were down 28-14 when they began their illegal shenanigans, although in reality it probably only cost the Ravens 20 yards (the 2nd 15 yarder to Manatee and the Unsportsmanlike conduct penalty).

I'll allow that maybe they reported properly on the first one and just plain fooled the Ravens

Tom Brady was pretty obnoxious after the game that he was lucky to win...especially after all his whining in the 1H. He was more contrite today, but I'd like the NFL to let him know that it was his team that was wrong, not the Ravens.

Also, I'd like to know what happened to those Spygate tapes that were incinerated for some unknown reason 4 days later?

 

[xc84]

within rules = feel free to do it

 

[Orangeman]

We're on to Indianapolis.

Sorry, I did not mean to make that sound personal. We are all Orange fans, even if some are corrupted enough to be Patriots fans

 

[Scooch]

Sorry, I did not mean to make that sound personal. We are all Orange fans, even if some are corrupted enough to be Patriots fans

Born and raised in Foxboro, Mass. Three miles from Shaefer Stadium.

Loud and proud with my Pats fandom.

We're the Darth Vader of the NFL these days. I'm cool with that.

Fun thread.

 

[Bambrewer]

It was a good win. Of course, the Pats were down 28-14 when they began their illegal shenanigans, although in reality it probably only cost the Ravens 20 yards (the 2nd 15 yarder to Manatee and the Unsportsmanlike conduct penalty).

I'll allow that maybe they reported properly on the first one and just plain fooled the Ravens

Tom Brady was pretty obnoxious after the game that he was lucky to win...especially after all his whining in the 1H. He was more contrite today, but I'd like the NFL to let him know that it was his team that was wrong, not the Ravens.

Also, I'd like to know what happened to those Spygate tapes that were incinerated for some unknown reason 4 days later?

I'd say Tom terrific as we call him here was less obnoxious than the Ravens screaming... Enjoy the pro bowl when they beat the pats

If say he was less obnoxious than when he said what a great player Terrell Suggs is and suggs responded with the quarter back from New England... Wouldn't even use his name.

It was less obnoxious than when harbaugh was talking an hour before the game about spygate.

I get it success breeds contempt. Everyone hates the winners. But when it comes to obnoxious... Please save that for someone else. There are far worse things said in that league by players and coaches.

And by the way you do know the jets where caught videoing too right... Just no other team cried when they caught... Just mangweenie.

 

[Orangeman]

No dog in this chase so don't really care about the Ravens or their reactions.

Just a Bills fan who's witnessed way too much one-sidedness in this league during the Bills/Patriots "rivalry" so I'm gonna keep 'em honest when possible.

Still would have been a tight game even if you take away the controversial plays.

OK I'll throw one out there...I can't believe there weren't 3 Roughing the Passer penalties on the Ravens in the 1H. They hit him on time and legal, but you're not allowed to hit Tom! They enact new rules about stuff like that.

 

[Scooch]

No dog in this chase so don't really care about the Ravens or their reactions. Just a Bills fan who's witnessed way too much one-sidedness in this league during the Bills/Patriots "rivalry" so I'm gonna keep 'em honest when possible. Still would have been a tight game even if you take away the controversial plays. OK I'll throw one out there...I can't believe there weren't 3 Roughing the Passer penalties on the Ravens in the 1H. They hit him on time and legal, but you're not allowed to hit Tom! They enact new rules about stuff like that.

Like every NFL game there was ample opportunity for fans of each team to complain about the refereeing.

Pats got away with a PI on McCourty.

Ravens got away with a PI on Gronk.

Chandler took an uncalled shot to the head.

Etc.

There's no one-sidedness.

 

[WalnutPark]

Nick Saban/Lane Kiffin ran this against LSU and got a 22 yard gain earlier this year.

And Saban got it from Chip Kelly who ran it as first game as an Eagles head coach in 2013.

 

[Alsacs]

https://twitter.com/fieldyates/status/554748774942539776

Harbaugh like idiot didn't realize the Pats weren't even the first NFL team do the 4 OL and one RB ineligible Detroit did this year at Minnesota.

 

[Orangeman]

You guys are not wrong but you're suffering the forest/trees problem so you're missing the infractions

You are allowed to line up strange formations

The way NE switched the eligibility of players from play/play was illegal

Read up if you want to get it

 

[Scooch]

You guys are not wrong but you're suffering the forest/trees problem so you're missing the infractions You are allowed to line up strange formations The way NE switched the eligibility of players from play/play was illegal Read up if you want to get it

Nah, we see it. It's that others disagree with you. I've seen pieces on the substitution issue that say it was legal. Since Vereen wears an eligible # he doesn't need to check out of a game to change his eligibility. Upperdeck was referring to this issue yesterday. It's those that wear inelligible #s that need to check in and out to change their eligibility.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but it's a bit arrogant to think that you're the ONLY person in America who has discovered the illegality of the series (note I said series, not play). Tons of people have been examining this and found the relevant rules.

Harbaugh himself hasn't challenged the substitution pattern. His gripe was "deception", again what upperdeck was calling out.