Completely legal substitution aka the "John Harbaugh is a whiny little brat" thread.

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
11,723
Somewhere
RGREELEY33 said:
As some of sort of stated, what's the difference in doing this versus lining up 4 guys on the left side and bringing the odd man rushes? Such sour grapes - - and why I want both Harbaughs to die of face cancer.
Last I checked, Suggs isn't contagious.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
14,007
I was at the game so I couldn't tell but was Hooman lined up behind the LOS? If not wouldn't vereen. be covering him?.

I love my ipad keeps trying to autocorrect harbaugh to garbage.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,897
NortheasternPJ said:
I was at the game so I couldn't tell but was Hooman lined up behind the LOS? If not wouldn't between be covering him?.
 
When they lined up, he was on the LOS and covered by the flanker, but before the snap the flanker stepped back off the line.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,186
On the play where Hooman caught the ball, Vereen was on the other side of the formation.
 

McBride11

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
14,324
Charleston, SC
I like how he blames the officials for not understanding what was going on and therefore he haddd to take the penalty to make them understand. Im pretty sure the officials understood what was going on Jim. It's the same 'deception' when a player announces as a tackle eligible.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,896
Didn't Suggs bitch about the pats no-hurry being a "gimmick" a few years back?
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
25,179
Melrose, MA
Did the Patriots switch Vereen between being eligible and ineligible without having him come off the field for a play? I think that (if they did it) really would be illegal.

When they used to play Solder at TE, they used to have to sit him out for a play before he could go back to LT. Did the Pays do that with Vereen and Hooman?
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,717
NOVA
Eddie Jurak said:
Did the Patriots switch Vereen between being eligible and ineligible without having him come off the field for a play? I think that (if they did it) really would be illegal.

When they used to play Solder at TE, they used to have to sit him out for a play before he could go back to LT. Did the Pays do that with Vereen and Hooman?
 
Good question. I believe they were switching Vereen's eligibility from play to play.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,186
Eddie Jurak said:
Did the Patriots switch Vereen between being eligible and ineligible without having him come off the field for a play? I think that (if they did it) really would be illegal.

When they used to play Solder at TE, they used to have to sit him out for a play before he could go back to LT. Did the Pays do that with Vereen and Hooman?
 
You don't need to do that.
 
Substitution rules: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/playersubs
 
Eligibility: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/positionofplayers
 

GBrushTWood

lurker
Jul 12, 2005
371
Brookline
drleather2001 said:
It's laughable that a coach who makes it a major page of his team's playbook to fish for PI is bitching about another team taking advantage of the rulebook. Fuck off and die. Stop deflecting the fact that your team did really well this year and simply lost.
 
This reply hits the nail on the head. A hypocritical, entitled, cockmunch response from Harbaugh.
 
"The league will take a look at that type of thing and I'm sure they'll make adjustments."
 
So this goon now sets the agenda for the NFL competition committee? Fuck off and die. You lost; try again next year.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Agree with everything said up thread. If I'm the Patriots I vigorously defend the legality of this as Brady did because Harbaugh's deception whining is only going to perpetuate the idiocy of haters that the Pats cheat. He got outsmarted and it resulted in his number one advantage the pass rush being neutralized for a bit. Shut up and go home. 
 

k-factory

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
1,283
seattle, wa
McBride11 said:
I like how he blames the officials for not understanding what was going on and therefore he haddd to take the penalty to make them understand. Im pretty sure the officials understood what was going on Jim. It's the same 'deception' when a player announces as a tackle eligible.
 
Yeah this was the laughable part of his diatribe. THEY didn't understand what was going on and he had to martyr himself with a penalty to help THEM understand.
 
What a champ. 
 
Hes a competitive guy and what not, but still, not exactly a classy response there.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,031
riboflav said:
 
Good question. I believe they were switching Vereen's eligibility from play to play.
 
Could be different having a player with an eligible receiver number shift between eligible/ineligible than having a lineman (who by number is not eligible unless declared).  But I am completely speculating
 

SteveF

lurker
Jul 14, 2005
91
Another tip for the defense is that Vereen is on the line of scrimmage and is 'covered' (not as in defensive coverage, but covered up on the line of scrimmage by another player of the same team) by Edelman who is also on the line of scrimmage.  The only players on the line of scrimmage that are eligible are the guys at either end.  Every other eligible receiver cannot be on the line of scrimmage.
 
And of course Edelman MUST be on the line of scrimmage in that formation because Vereen must be 'covered.'
 

Norm Siebern

Member
SoSH Member
May 12, 2003
6,561
Western MD
For a team that always plays up the faux "we tough, we physical, we play like MEN," the Ravens make a living whining and crying. They do this all the time. Against the Steelers, and now against the Patriots. They used to cry every time Hynes Ward threw a block. Stop being such whiney sour grapes losers, and man up.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,186
Guys, the rule is posted.
 
The ONLY thing you need to do is alert the ref if you switched your eligibility.
 
If a player changes his eligibility, the Referee must alert the defensive captain after player has reported to him.
 
 
That's it. There's one line in rules digest about it.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,717
NOVA
PedroKsBambino said:
 
Could be different having a player with an eligible receiver number shift between eligible/ineligible than having a lineman (who by number is not eligible unless declared).  But I am completely speculating
 
Yes, I was thinking that too. Though drewdawg says a player doesn't need to come off for a play. Will read the rule now.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
26,897
DrewDawg said:
Guys, the rule is posted.
 
The ONLY thing you need to do is alert the ref if you switched your eligibility.
 
 
That's it. There's one line in rules digest about it.
 
That's true only for players wearing eligible numbers. Solder, for example, had to go to the sidelines for at least 1 play before returning to action as ineligible.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,654
AZ
My understanding about the whole "declaring" thing is not that you're obligated to tell the other team the details of your formation. You are free to put any eligible player anywhere, so if you want to put three linemen near the snap and one wide, you are free to. The only time "eligible" or not comes into play has to do with the player's number. If you're going to line up a player that does not wear certain numbers in a position that can run down field you have to announce it.

I'm actually surprised there is such a thing as declaring a player "ineligible" at all. If Tom Brady wants to line up at Center, he shouldn't have to tell anyone. The only purpose to telling the ref is if you want to be sure he counts you as one of the nondownfield guys.

Put more simply, the "declare" rule is to make sure a man with a lineman's number can run down field. I am surprised there is any obligation for a guy who is not running downfield to do anything, whether he wears a lineman's number, a punter's number, a passer's numcer, a receiver's number or anything else. The reason to do it is alert the refs.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,186
Harry Hooper said:
 
That's true only for players wearing eligible numbers. Solder, for example, had to go to the sidelines for at least 1 play before returning to action as ineligible.
 
Ok, they don't put that in digest, but it doesn't apply here anyway.
 
I wonder if that's what Harbaugh is confused about--assuming the player subbed in?
 

SteveF

lurker
Jul 14, 2005
91
Harry Hooper said:
 
That's true only for players wearing eligible numbers. Solder, for example, had to go to the sidelines for at least 1 play before returning to action as ineligible.
The rule explicitly states the player doesn't need to be substituted. The player just has to report as eligible/ineligible before every play. At the end of the play he reverts back to whatever his number indicates about his eligibility.
 
Edit: Actually I'm a gigantic idiot and what I said above is entirely wrong!
 
The player does have to be withdrawn for a snap to change his eligibility back again (or after a stoppage.)
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,432
drleather2001 said:
He should be complimentary to his team and leave the rest alone.
Agreed - and sorry, I should have used some kind of emoticon, Harbaugh can swim in a vat of bleach as far as I'm concerned
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,594
Fuck him. You want to cut block all game? Choke on the rules, asshole.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,024
Oregon
SportsCenter now promoting an "emerging controversy" about the Patriots
 

Freddy Linn

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
8,612
Where it rains. No, seriously.
Harbaugh said that nobody has seen that before, but his own players didn't have the same level of disdain for the play calls.
 
"We hadn't seen it this season," defensive end Chris Canty said. "Certainly we've talked about it in our meetings. That's one of those things that you can't anticipate. You just gotta see it and you gotta adjust to it. Unfortunately on that drive they were able to tempo things and keep things rolling and score a touchdown there, and that hurts. We weren't able to adjust to it quick enough."
 
The Patriots ended up scoring a touchdown on the drive as Tom Brady hit Rob Gronkowski in the end zone for five yards. New England would go on to score two more touchdowns later in the game, but they didn't go back to the ineligible receiver package. That damage had been done.
 
"They tricked us! Nah, just [kidding]," Lardarius Webb said. "They did that the whole drive and it was different, something I guess we didn't prepare for. We were supposed to be smart about it. He was ineligible and we weren't supposed to cover him up. We didn't find that out until we came off the field.
 
"They couldn't drive the ball down on us regular, they had to do something tricky and they did."
 
As for having seen something like that play call previously, Webb has to an extent, but he's about to utilize it himself a whole lot more.
 
"I've always seen a guy saying he's ineligible, but just not with the whole empty [backfield] thing. I believe I'm going to take that to my Madden game. Go on Madden and tell him he's ineligible."
 
Webb didn't think it was a cheap call. Instead, he said the Patriots played "smart".
 
"Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to win because you know the Ravens were coming here to kick their butts. Smart, man, you just gotta say it was a smart thing. They pulled it out at the right time."
 
 
Link
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
14,233
<null>
OK, I've thought about it some more, and this was:
a) Brilliant and
b) Probably never going to be seen in an NFL game again
 
If the defense reacts properly, which is to say that they leave Vereen alone, the Pats are effectively playing down a man. If they swap, and Hooman stays inelligible, then the Pats are effectively playing with Hooman as a lineman.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,254
"They couldn't drive the ball down on us regular, they had to do something tricky and they did."

Um...okay! We still win by four and get to host the AFCCG, right?
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
10,956
Anyone getting shitty about Webb's comments are overly sensitive. The majority of his quote was very high praise.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
26,626
Alexandria, VA
DrewDawg said:
Harbaugh keeps saying substitution, but that had nothing to do with it. Vereen was on the field the previous play. No new player came on, and ref announced eligibility. That's all there is to it. League should tell him to shut it.
 
He also said the refs "put a stop to it" and I'm not sure they did. Because, of course, there's no reason to.
He also says it's "deceptive" a bunch of times, as though that makes something fishy or illegal rather than being good football. Being deceptive is half the point of play calling. What's next? Ban play-action? The hard count? Reverses? Make teams announce their blitzes pre-snap?
 

SteveF

lurker
Jul 14, 2005
91
From the article linked above:
 
"The Ravens were so confused on defense that even the officials were audibly instructing them not to cover Shane Vereen."
 
Hilarious.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
23,511
Here
You know what really sticks in my fucking craw? When a Quarterback has the fucking audacity to pretend to hand the ball off and then pulls it back for a pass. It's a fucking cheap-ass gimmick dishonorable bullshitty strategy that the league really ought to look into. Real men coaches shy away from that nancy bullshit.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,186
PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:
ESPN covering it now.  Their expert ref is saying it is 100% legal.
 
So Harbaugh lied when he said the refs agreed with him and put a stop to it?
 

Tony C

Dope
Dope
Apr 13, 2000
11,945
Yeah, they tried to hype it a bit..but fortunately their expert put it to bed pretty concisely.
 
Jnai said:
OK, I've thought about it some more, and this was:
a) Brilliant and
b) Probably never going to be seen in an NFL game again
 
If the defense reacts properly, which is to say that they leave Vereen alone, the Pats are effectively playing down a man. If they swap, and Hooman stays inelligible, then the Pats are effectively playing with Hooman as a lineman.
 
Yeah, if the Ravens react correctly, it's a terrible play for the Pats since basically Vereen did nothing -- neither blocked nor went out for a pass.
 
Ed Hillel said:
You know what really sticks in my fucking craw? When a Quarterback has the fucking audacity to pretend to hand the ball off and then pulls it back for a pass. It's a fucking cheap-ass gimmick dishonorable bullshitty strategy that the league really ought to look into. Real men coaches shy away from that nancy bullshit.
 
and I saw the Ravens do this repeatedly goddamnit! Bastahds....
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,717
NOVA
SteveF said:
The rule explicitly states the player doesn't need to be substituted. The player just has to report as eligible/ineligible before every play. At the end of the play he reverts back to whatever his number indicates about his eligibility.
 
Edit: Actually I'm a gigantic idiot and what I said above is entirely wrong!
 
The player does have to be withdrawn for a snap to change his eligibility back again (or after a stoppage.)
 
Where are you getting this? I read drewdawg's link and didn't see it.
 

Tony C

Dope
Dope
Apr 13, 2000
11,945
DrewDawg said:
 
So Harbaugh lied when he said the refs agreed with him and put a stop to it?
 
I wonder if he didn't lie...if the refs did, incorrectly, promise that, which would have meant that Harbaugh deceived them to gain an unfair/illegal advantage. "Har-cheater...."
 
(i should add I could see Harbaugh saying this in the heat of the moment and not fault him too much -- I think he's generally pretty classy, would hope tomorrow he gets perspective (and realizes the rules) and takes it back)
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
45,086
DrewDawg said:
So Harbaugh lied when he said the refs agreed with him and put a stop to it?
Well, technically they put a stop to it when they outright started telling the Ravens not to cover Vereen.

Assuming this is true, technically, the Patriots might have a grievance--not that they care.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,717
NOVA
Tony C said:
 
I wonder if he didn't lie...if the refs did, incorrectly, promise that, which would have meant that Harbaugh deceived them to gain an unfair/illegal advantage. "Har-cheater...."
 
(i should add I could see Harbaugh saying this in the heat of the moment and not fault him too much -- I think he's generally pretty classy, would hope tomorrow he gets perspective (and realizes the rules) and takes it back)
 
Not really: 
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/john-harbaugh-patriots-titles-have-asterisks-are-stained/
 
Interesting addendum is that he (Harbaugh) also says in this article that "you've got to figure out ways to use the rules to your advantage."
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
2,394
NYC
I think Harbaugh is a very good coach but if this is happening.
 
 
 
"[SIZE=12.8000001907349px]The Ravens were so confused on defense that even the officials were audibly instructing them not to cover Shane Vereen."[/SIZE]
 
How do you not take a time out to tell your players what to do? That is just terrible coaching. That 15 yard penalty was by far the better approach.
 

SteveF

lurker
Jul 14, 2005
91
riboflav said:
Where are you getting this? I read drewdawg's link and didn't see it.
I'm getting it here: here.pdf
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.
The player can remain in the game as long as his eligibility status remains unchanged. (The rules require he report again and again before each play, however.)
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,713
JP
Jnai said:
OK, I've thought about it some more, and this was:
a) Brilliant and
b) Probably never going to be seen in an NFL game again
 
If the defense reacts properly, which is to say that they leave Vereen alone, the Pats are effectively playing down a man. If they swap, and Hooman stays inelligible, then the Pats are effectively playing with Hooman as a lineman.
I am not sure we'll see it again much, but it may not be a terrible strategy.

I saw a play where Vereen was on the line and sprinted into the backfield after the snap looking for someone to block.

Assuming he can get back fast enough, this is just like leaving an RB in to block on a pass play. The TE becomes an extra receiver. The main issue is going from 5 to 4 actual offensive linemen. The Pats today had at least one play where Suggs was unblocked and they relied on quick throws to prevent DL from getting to Brady in time.

So perhaps if Vereen comes back to help protect, and Brady treats it like a blitz or screen and has one or more very fast reads reads, it might be a semi-legit play.

I do think that, just like the Wildcat, teams with a full training camp to prepare will beat it easily.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I wonder if the Pats try it again with the forethought that if the defense doesn't cover Vereen, the end on that side runs a go route and then they throw a lateral pass to a wide open Vereen who has just taken three steps back. That would be a running play, right, so he could catch and run with it?
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,717
NOVA
SteveF said:
I'm getting it here: here.pdf
The player can remain in the game as long as his eligibility status remains unchanged. (The rules require he report again and again before each play, however.)
 
Interesting. So if Vereen were staying on the field and switching between eligible and ineligible, the refs screwed up and the Ravens should be furious. Though this doesn't explain why the league really needs to look at this more closely (as Harbaugh said). The rule already accounts for this and the refs just missed it.
 

SteveF

lurker
Jul 14, 2005
91
riboflav said:
So if Vereen were staying on the field and switching between eligible and ineligible, the refs screwed up and the Ravens should be furious.
He wasn't. My understanding is he kept reporting as ineligible and they kept announcing it and the Ravens kept covering him when he split out. Someone upthread mentioned being at the game and hearing it announced 3-4 times on the drive in question.