javadoc
All American
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,804
- Like
- 8,302
From an earlier post in the thread: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.
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.
Let's put aside for a moment what "tons of people" have found. It's a rule book, written down in language that anyone can understand - no need for an appeal to authority. What do you think, based on the rules as written, and the content of that drive? It still looks like an infraction to me. The rule(s) say that you have to exit for a play, or for certain significant events to occur (which generally involve a cessation of play for a short while) in order for your eligibility status to change back. The charge is that a player changed eligibility without satisfying the criteria - stated in the rulebook - for that to happen.
So which part of the analysis is wrong?