Patriots' "eligible Tackle" maneuver

[javadoc]

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.

From an earlier post in the thread:

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?

 

[Orangeman]

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.

Have you? I haven't seen one article on the subs/switches, if you have please post one or two, I'd love to see them.

There's no arrogance, it's written language in the NFL rulebook so I don't no how anyone can disagree but whatever, I've made my point, they'll figure it out in the off-season.

I'll post it here for the last time below, with the two relevant sentences in Bold and I've copied the link of the source of the information below. In this game, two eligible receivers (#47 and #34) both reported as an ineligible receiver, then reversed the very next play without leaving the game. #47 caught a pass the next play, #34 did not, but it doesn't matter, both are violations.

• Play 7 #47 is on the end of the line but ineligible. The next play he catches a 15 yard pass
• Play 8 #34 is spread out but ineligible. The next play he is in the backfield as a RB.

You argue above that an eligible player can switch back and forth….I'll highlight this sentence from the rulebook below: He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game

Either the rule book is wrong, I'm wrong, or a whole bunch of people haven't bothered to read the rule book. My suspicion is the NFL doesn't want another hit to its credibility so it'll be addressed in 4-5 months when noone cares.

What does it matter at the end of the day? Not much…BB isn't infallible but we knew that…refs messed up, the Ravens were caught off-guard, and the Patriots benefited but are moving on….it's just a sports forum.

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...s/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf

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.

 

[Scooch]

From an earlier post in the thread: 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?

Where in that rule does it say that an elligible numbered player must check out of a game to switch his eligibility?

Vereen and Hooman reported their eligibility to the ref, who them announced it to the stadium.

 

[Scooch]

Have you? I haven't seen one article on the subs/switches, if you have please post one or two, I'd love to see them. There's no arrogance, it's written language in the NFL rulebook so I don't no how anyone can disagree but whatever, I've made my point, they'll figure it out in the off-season. I'll post it here for the last time below, with the two relevant sentences in Bold and I've copied the link of the source of the information below. In this game, two eligible receivers (#47 and #34) both reported as an ineligible receiver, then reversed the very next play without leaving the game. #47 caught a pass the next play, #34 did not, but it doesn't matter, both are violations. [*]Play 7 #47 is on the end of the line but ineligible. The next play he catches a 15 yard pass [*]Play 8 #34 is spread out but ineligible. The next play he is in the backfield as a RB. You argue above that an eligible player can switch back and forth….I'll highlight this sentence from the rulebook below: He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game Either the rule book is wrong, I'm wrong, or a whole bunch of people haven't bothered to read the rule book. My suspicion is the NFL doesn't want another hit to its credibility so it'll be addressed in 4-5 months when noone cares. What does it matter at the end of the day? Not much…BB isn't infallible but we knew that…refs messed up, the Ravens were caught off-guard, and the Patriots benefited but are moving on….it's just a sports forum. http://static.nfl.com/static/conten...s/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf 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.

You seem to be hung up on play 8 into play 9 on that series. Are you sure Vereen was "elligible" on play 9?

It is it not odd that Harbaugh hasn't questioned this aspect of the series?

 

[Orangeman]

Where in that rule does it say that an elligible numbered player must check out of a game to switch his eligibility?

Vereen and Hooman reported their eligibility to the ref, who them announced it to the stadium.

I'm feeling like a major loser, but this has been posted like 6 times, and it's absolutely clear as day…in fact, it's so clear in the rule book that you know it's been described this way for a reason…it says three things: 1) an eligible player can report ineligible; 2) they must stay that same way (E or I/E) as long as they are in the game; and 3) it lists literally all the legal circumstances that would allow the player to switch back.


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.

OFFICIAL

 

[javadoc]

You seem to be hung up on play 8 into play 9 on that series. Are you sure Vereen was "elligible" on play 9?

It is it not odd that Harbaugh hasn't questioned this aspect of the series?

I think that the play 7 to play 8 progression is more obvious. That would be my test case.

 

[Orangeman]

You seem to be hung up on play 8 into play 9 on that series. Are you sure Vereen was "elligible" on play 9?

It is it not odd that Harbaugh hasn't questioned this aspect of the series?

First, we don't need play 8 anyway, because #47 committed the violation on play 8 when we switched after play 7. BUT, yes, on play 9 Vereen does not check in, lines up on the left as a wideout, then goes in motion into the backfield where he is a RB, which is by definition an eligible player, which per the rules is a violation since the play earlier he reported in as an Ineligible player.

 

[Orangeman]

I think that the play 7 to play 8 progression is more obvious. That would be my test case.

Only obvious because we know what happens on the next play (he catches the pass)

Trust me, Vereen is a RB on the 9th play.

What's interesting, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist?? Go check out the play by play on ESPN….it only lists one play where someone declared themselves ineligible (Vereen on play #8). There were three plays. Could be just omission by distraction, or it could be because if they list who was Ineligible on play #7 then it would be very clear that there was a violation on play #8, because the guy catches a pass on the next play.

To save folks the trouble, play #7 has #47 on the end of line as I/E, Vereen split wide as E, and they complete a pass to I think Edelmann on the left.

 

[Scooch]

Only obvious because we know what happens on the next play (he catches the pass) Trust me, Vereen is a RB on the 9th play. What's interesting, if you want to be a conspiracy theorist?? Go check out the play by play on ESPN….it only lists one play where someone declared themselves ineligible (Vereen on play #8). There were three plays. Could be just omission by distraction, or it could be because if they list who was Ineligible on play #7 then it would be very clear that there was a violation on play #8, because the guy catches a pass on the next play. To save folks the trouble, play #7 has #47 on the end of line as I/E, Vereen split wide as E, and they complete a pass to I think Edelmann on the left.

I think the issue is that you didn't correctly follow the eligible/inelligible declarations throughout the series. I know you watched it, but I think you missed some of the changes. Here's what I read yesterday, on an NFL board...

>>They didn't actually do that [substitute in violation of the rule]. If you watch the tape, they only do it three times -- and each time, they both come off the field afterward (Bolden replaces Vereen, the RT replaces Hooman). Yes, you have to check out to change your status back to your standard eligibility. Fortunately, they did. After each snap, both players come off the field and return at a later point. The other thing to keep in mind is that if you're already on the field you can stay on the field if you change to eligible/ineligible so long as you're changing to the one you're not normally. Meaning: Vereen is on the field as an eligible receiver on the LaFell first down, then changes to ineligible. That's fine. But to go back to eligible (what he's qualified for as a player with a number between 01-49 and 80-89) he has to sit a play out. Hooman never stays on the field two plays in a row as an eligible receiver and never goes from eligible to ineligible and back or anything like that without taking a play or two off.<<

 

[Orangeman]

This description of what happened is wrong, per the language in the rulebook I posted earlier. I'll try and highlight where this person is wrong. He's correct that the first time they ran the play, #34 and #47 subbed off after the down. I've repeatedly said that in this thread.

The 2nd time they ran the play, it was legal as well. #47 declares, the refs alert the defense, all good. THE NEXT PLAY, #34 declares, #47 reverts back to an ELIGIBLE player, and catches a pass. Neither leave the field as your description suggests in between plays 7 & 8. So this description is actually accurate about the rule ("But to go back to eligible (what he's qualified for as a player with a number between 01-49 and 80-89) he has to sit a play out.") but for some reason doesn't get the plays correctly in order. So the 3rd play is illegal per the description you just provided (those players never left the field, and switched eligibility while wearing an eligible number).

Then, Play #9 is illegal because, as your description describes, #34 changes back from I/E to E without leaving the game. The only counterpoint to this is that the penalty assigned to Baltimore might have changed (clause D above says a "foul" allows the player to switch back? That's the one undefined part in this whole thing).

But the description you posted actually confirms that it was illegal on play #8.

 

[javadoc]

I think the issue is that you didn't correctly follow the eligible/inelligible declarations throughout the series. I know you watched it, but I think you missed some of the changes. Here's what I read yesterday, on an NFL board...

>>They didn't actually do that [substitute in violation of the rule]. If you watch the tape, they only do it three times -- and each time, they both come off the field afterward (Bolden replaces Vereen, the RT replaces Hooman). Yes, you have to check out to change your status back to your standard eligibility. Fortunately, they did. After each snap, both players come off the field and return at a later point. The other thing to keep in mind is that if you're already on the field you can stay on the field if you change to eligible/ineligible so long as you're changing to the one you're not normally. Meaning: Vereen is on the field as an eligible receiver on the LaFell first down, then changes to ineligible. That's fine. But to go back to eligible (what he's qualified for as a player with a number between 01-49 and 80-89) he has to sit a play out. Hooman never stays on the field two plays in a row as an eligible receiver and never goes from eligible to ineligible and back or anything like that without taking a play or two off.<<

Here is what I have learned about the series in question: in order to understand what happened, and to assess compliance with the rules, parties to a debate need to have an itemized list of all relevant aspects of each play in the drive - who was in for each play, where he lined up, whether he reported to the refs and when, etc. It really needs to be an in-depth bulleted list to establish the facts, then all parties need to review the review the list and agree to the facts before discussion can even begin.

Which tells me that this set of rules is absolutely ripe for revision or removal.

 

[Orangeman]

Sorry, I thought I was done...this is a quote from the ESPN article. The only way I could be wrong is if it was Vereen ineligible the whole time, AND the penalty on Harbaugh wiped out his ineligibity-ness after Play 8. This quote shows that #47 was I/E for one of the plays, and since he caught the two passes on the first and third, it shows he was I/E on the second. Since he didn't leave the game in between the 2nd & 3rd plays (#s 7 and 8 of the drive), they committed a violation. On a secondary note, IF #47 was the eligible player on the 2nd play as well, then Vereen, who went out for a pass, was downfield illegally when they through the ball to Edelmann on that play.

Patriots coach Bill Belichick explained the strategy, which he utilized on three plays and featured four offensive linemen on the field and had either running back Shane Vereen or tight end Michael Hoomanawanui lined up as ineligible.

 

[Orangeman]

Here is what I have learned about the series in question: in order to understand what happened, and to assess compliance with the rules, parties to a debate need to have an itemized list of all relevant aspects of each play in the drive - who was in for each play, where he lined up, whether he reported to the refs and when, etc. It really needs to be an in-depth bulleted list to establish the facts, then all parties need to review the review the list and agree to the facts before discussion can even begin.

Which tells me that this set of rules is absolutely ripe for revision or removal.

Well, I did this earlier in the thread, all that's missing is for the various parties to agree that what I witnessed on the film, what has been described in various articles, are all factual. The only thing I'll throw out there is that on Play #7 Vereen went out for a pass, so he was an eligible player on that play.

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.

 

[Scooch]

Well, I did this earlier in the thread, all that's missing is for the various parties to agree that what I witnessed on the film, what has been described in various articles, are all factual. The only thing I'll throw out there is that on Play #7 Vereen went out for a pass, so he was an eligible player on that play.

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.

This has been a fun way to pass the time, Orangeman. But I'll leave you with this last bit of analysis. You simply have the sequence of things wrong from that series.

Read this:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...could-catch/eTiRiTUbQaECsPGF4e8APJ/story.html

Here are the relevant points:

• A player is free to report as eligible/ineligible on consecutive plays, but they need to inform the referee each time. Once a player changes his eligibility, he only returns to his original eligibility if he sits out a play or after a timeout, end of a quarter, after a penalty, and so on.
  
• The Patriots used this tactic three times in the third quarter in the middle of a drive. They pulled right guard Josh Kline from the game, lined up Nate Solder at left guard, Michael Hoomanawanui at left tackle, and inserted a skill player as ineligible.
• The first two times the Patriots used the tactic, Vereen and Hoomanawanui, came off the field on the following play. The third time, a penalty allowed Vereen to stay on the field for the next play.

There you have it. The first two times those guys came off the field, and the last time Vereen didn't have to, and it was Harbaugh's fault.

So if you want to claim that the Pats didn't announce the inelligibility in the appropriate way to the refs that's your perogative. We do know that each time it happened the ref announced it to the entire stadium, so I'm not sure how the Ravens either (a) couldn't have been given enough warning, or (b) couldn't have called TO to figure things out. But I won't convince you on that point so I won't try.

But it is indisputable that the Pats substituted in an entirely legal manner.

I suspect you'll claim that since this piece appears in the Boston Globe it is all part of the conspiracy. But its not. It is reciting facts. You simply watched the series incorrectly. It happens.

Take care, enjoy Sexy Rexy.

 

[Scooch]

Here is what I have learned about the series in question: in order to understand what happened, and to assess compliance with the rules, parties to a debate need to have an itemized list of all relevant aspects of each play in the drive - who was in for each play, where he lined up, whether he reported to the refs and when, etc. It really needs to be an in-depth bulleted list to establish the facts, then all parties need to review the review the list and agree to the facts before discussion can even begin.

Which tells me that this set of rules is absolutely ripe for revision or removal.

Just for you, my friend...

1st and 10 at NE 20 (10:22) T.Brady pass incomplete short middle to S.Vereen.

2nd and 10 at NE 20 (10:15) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to B.LaFell to NE 31 for 11 yards (R.Melvin).

1st and 10 at NE 31 (9:33) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short middle to M.Hoomanawanui to NE 47 for 16 yards (D.Stewart).
[NOTE: This is the first time Vereen reported as ineligible and Hooman reported as eligible]

1st and 10 at NE 47 (8:48) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to R.Gronkowski to BLT 44 for 9 yards (R.Melvin).
[NOTE: Both players were not on the field for this play]

2nd and 1 at BAL 44 (8:24) T.Brady up the middle to BLT 40 for 4 yards. PENALTY on BLT, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at BLT 44 - No Play.

1st and 10 at BAL 39 (8:23) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to J.Edelman to BLT 28 for 11 yards (W.Hill).
[NOTE: This is the second time Vereen reported as ineligible and Hooman reported as eligible]

1st and 10 at BAL 28 (8:23) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to J.Edelman to BLT 24 for 4 yards (C.Mosley).
[NOTE: Both players were not on the field for this play]

2nd and 6 at BAL 24 (7:19) NE 34-Vereen ineligible. (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short middle to M.Hoomanawanui to BLT 10 for 14 yards (D.Stewart).
[NOTE: This is the third ime Vereen reported as ineligible and Hooman reported as eligible]

PENALTY on BLT, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, 5 yards, enforced at BLT 10. Penalty on BLT bench.
[NOTE: Because Harbaugh drew a penalty neither player needed to check out of the game to change their status from the previous play to play in the next one]

1st and 5 at BAL 5 (6:57) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete short left to J.Edelman.

2nd and 5 at BAL 5 (6:52) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to R.Gronkowski for 5 yards, TOUCHDOWN. NE 12-Brady 45th career postseason pass TD, ties Joe Montana for most all-time. NE 87-Gronkowski 2nd career postseason 100-yard game.S.Gostkowski extra point is GOOD, Center-D.Aiken, Holder-R.Allen.

END SERIES

--------

I think Orangeman may have confused Vereen "going in motion" or "joining Brady in the backfield" when he was ineligble and, by rule, was not allowed to move downfield after the snap. On those occasions he backpedaled from the line at snap because this was the only thing he could do legally. In fact, by rule he could have received a lateral from Brady, so that was no doubt part of Belichick/McDaniels plan to further confuse the D.

 

[Orangeman]

I agree that this fun has run its course, but that article, while addressing the key issue of the substitution pattern, conflicts with what I saw when I rewound the video. I've lost my free subscription so I won't be able to verify what they're saying, but I'll provide the play/play (which they didn't do). And then I'll go away...

I've highlighted what I believe are the plays where an ineligible reported to the official. We know two of the are fact, because #47 caught the pass wide open after leaving his tackle spot. The issue is when was the third such play?

The first occasion we agree they subbed off.

The issue centers around plays 6, 7, 8. For their version to be correct, that both #47 and #34 subbed off after their 2nd play, that play would have had to have been play #6, which went for 11 yards to Julian Edelmann. From my viewing, it was actually the following play, the 4 yard pass to Edelmann, where #47 lined up at tackle and reported as ineligible.

I will swear that Vereen was on the field for all three plays, but this was two days ago and I could be wrong. I also would swear that #47 was on the field for the plays #7-#8, which is why I've been so annoying about this...it's the crux of the matter.

I'd have to see which plays they are saying were ineligible...because I don't agree they subbed off, based on what I saw.


J.Tucker kicks 65 yards from BLT 35 to end zone, Touchback. 28 14
1st and 10 at NE 20 (10:22) T.Brady pass incomplete short middle to S.Vereen.
2nd and 10 at NE 20 (10:15) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to B.LaFell to NE 31 for 11 yards (R.Melvin).
1st and 10 at NE 31 (9:33) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short middle to M.Hoomanawanui to NE 47 for 16 yards (D.Stewart).
1st and 10 at NE 47 (8:48) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to R.Gronkowski to BLT 44 for 9 yards (R.Melvin).
2nd and 1 at BAL 44 (8:24) T.Brady up the middle to BLT 40 for 4 yards. PENALTY on BLT, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at BLT 44 - No Play.
1st and 10 at BAL 39 (8:23) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to J.Edelman to BLT 28 for 11 yards (W.Hill).
1st and 10 at BAL 28 (8:23) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to J.Edelman to BLT 24 for 4 yards (C.Mosley).
2nd and 6 at BAL 24 (7:19) NE 34-Vereen ineligible. (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short middle to M.Hoomanawanui to BLT 10 for 14 yards (D.Stewart). PENALTY on BLT, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, 5 yards, enforced at BLT 10. Penalty on BLT bench.
1st and 5 at BAL 5 (6:57) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete short left to J.Edelman.
2nd and 5 at BAL 5 (6:52) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to R.Gronkowski for 5 yards, TOUCHDOWN. NE 12-Brady 45th career postseason pass TD, ties Joe Montana for most all-time. NE 87-Gronkowski 2nd career postseason 100-yard game.S.Gostkowski extra point is GOOD, Center-D.Aiken, Holder-R.Allen.

 

[Orangeman]

Just for you, my friend...

1st and 10 at NE 20 (10:22) T.Brady pass incomplete short middle to S.Vereen.

2nd and 10 at NE 20 (10:15) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to B.LaFell to NE 31 for 11 yards (R.Melvin).

1st and 10 at NE 31 (9:33) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short middle to M.Hoomanawanui to NE 47 for 16 yards (D.Stewart).
[NOTE: This is the first time Vereen reported as ineligible and Hooman reported as eligible]

1st and 10 at NE 47 (8:48) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to R.Gronkowski to BLT 44 for 9 yards (R.Melvin).
[NOTE: Both players were not on the field for this play]

2nd and 1 at BAL 44 (8:24) T.Brady up the middle to BLT 40 for 4 yards. PENALTY on BLT, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards,
--------

I think Orangeman may have confused Vereen "going in motion" or "joining Brady in the backfield" when he was ineligble and, by rule, was not allowed to move downfield after the snap. On those occasions he backpedaled from the line at snap because this was the only thing he could do legally. In fact, by rule he could have received a lateral from Brady, so that was no doubt part of Belichick/McDaniels plan to further confuse the D.

Where did you get this? So #47 never changed his eligibility? It's been reported all over that he did, including on the ESPN website article. Your version has Vereen reporting all three occasions.

I did not confuse Vereen on play #9, apparently the penalty on Baltimore changes his eligibility. Yes, he can catch a lateral which is why you have to cover him anyway.

If all they did, on three separate distinct occasions, was report a player as I/E and run the same play three times then the Ravens are idiots, and there should have been no confusion as to who was reporting. We were told that both #34 and #47 altered their eligibility on the drive, which would have made sense about the confusion.

If your scenario of plays is accurate (I don't agree yet that play #7 went that way), then the only infraction was failure to report immediately by Vereen (post-huddle) since the penalty wiped out his eligibility issues.

Did you rewatch the plays to get their participation?

 

[Scooch]

Where did you get this? So #47 never changed his eligibility? It's been reported all over that he did, including on the ESPN website article. Your version has Vereen reporting all three occasions.

I did not confuse Vereen on play #9, apparently the penalty on Baltimore changes his eligibility. Yes, he can catch a lateral which is why you have to cover him anyway.

If all they did, on three separate distinct occasions, was report a player as I/E and run the same play three times then the Ravens are idiots, and there should have been no confusion as to who was reporting. We were told that both #34 and #47 altered their eligibility on the drive, which would have made sense about the confusion.

If your scenario of plays is accurate (I don't agree yet that play #7 went that way), then the only infraction was failure to report immediately by Vereen (post-huddle) since the penalty wiped out his eligibility issues.

Did you rewatch the plays to get their participation?

That's the ESPN.com play-by-play, same one you used. I just added notations from facts presented in the Globe article.

NFL Network is re-airng the game today at noon, and I was going to watch anyway, so I'll look at that series and confirm those players were off the field. Ben Volin is an excellent NFL reporter, I'm sure he got it all right. And he's no Pats apologist, he eviscerated them earlier this year after their 2-2 start.

 

[Orangeman]

OK please do. The article just declared they left the game, didn't say which plays were which. I'll be interested to see if my watching was wrong.

 

[Melancer46]

Update on this topic, a couple of the radio hosts on NFL Radio basically brought up the same point that that one poster here brought up. That when a guy wants to change his eligibility, he has to leave the field for a play, and therefore, what the Patriots did on the Nate Solder TD against Indy was illegal.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...s-nate-solders-td-catch-shouldnt-have-counted

 

[Tobias Funke]

Update on this topic, a couple of the radio hosts on NFL Radio basically brought up the same point that that one poster here brought up. That when a guy wants to change his eligibility, he has to leave the field for a play, and therefore, what the Patriots did on the Nate Solder TD against Indy was illegal.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...s-nate-solders-td-catch-shouldnt-have-counted

I just watched the replay of the TD and Fleming line up at right tackle and was covered up by Gronkowski. He has to be an ineligible receiver, and per Orangeman's notes one of the following would have had to happen to become an ineligible receiver. Per the play by play the previous pay was a run for no gain by Blount

(a) a team time out;

(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 re-enter 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.

Definitely should have been caught by the officials. Penalty would have been 5 yard penalty for illegal substitution and would have negated the touchdown.

 

[Melancer46]

I just watched the replay of the TD and Fleming line up at right tackle and was covered up by Gronkowski. He has to be an ineligible receiver, and per Orangeman's notes one of the following would have had to happen to become an ineligible receiver. Per the play by play the previous pay was a run for no gain by Blount

(a) a team time out;

(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 re-enter 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.

Definitely should have been caught by the officials. Penalty would have been 5 yard penalty for illegal substitution and would have negated the touchdown.

Yeah, Tony Dungy was commenting on that play too and said it was an illegal formation as well because Brandon LeFell lined up as if Solder was ineligible or something like that. The illegal formation stuff is over my head though, so I'm just taking his word for it lol.

 

[Scooch]

Yeah, Tony Dungy was commenting on that play too and said it was an illegal formation as well because Brandon LeFell lined up as if Solder was ineligible or something like that. The illegal formation stuff is over my head though, so I'm just taking his word for it lol.

Don't sell yourself short, nothing Tony Dungy says is over anyone's head.

I'm including rocks and trees in that statement.

 

[Tobias Funke]

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-pa...-ravens-absolutely-legal?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo

 

[Stern]

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-pa...-ravens-absolutely-legal?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo

Not any more it ain't. The rule changed after last season because the Pats broke the spirit of the rule http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...iots-formation-now-ruled-illegal-substitution