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

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
I haven't researched the game so I don't know for sure if Vereen either came off the field or kept declaring and loving up as ineligible, but I find the notion that Belichick and Co. only got half the rules right for their gambit highly unlikely.
 

Section15Box113

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,914
Inside Lou Gorman's Head
Prime on NFLN last night: "They're crying because they lost."
 
Both he and LT were adamant that it's on the defense to call timeout, figure out what they're doing, and stop it.
 

k-factory

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
1,854
seattle, wa
Crew on NFL Gameday Morning saying the refs never announced it. But that is false. They did. At least as far as i saw. 
 
The key wasn't whether things were announced based on what Harbaugh was whining about. In his own words it was that he should be allowed to substitute. Since the Pats never switched personnel from the field, Harbaugh has no leg to stand on.  
 
Hats off to Belichick and McDaniels for exploiting the rule. Unfortunate that its not being credited by the talking heads.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
This morning, Mooch and Sapp say what the Pats did was stretching the rules and the Competition Committee needs to fix it. Eisen was joining in on that too. Irvin and Faulk both say it was within the rules and it's up to the Ravens to stop it.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Bunt4aTriple said:
Is Vereen considered a tackle in this formation for intentional grounding purposes?
Yeah, technically he was playing RT (just split really wide from the RG, Vollmer), and Wendell was snapping the ball from the LG position in an unbalanced line.
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
5,500
SoxinSeattle said:
That play is from EA NCAA 12. Stolen from a poster at SB Nation. Also the same play was used by Alabama to beat LSU in OT this year.
 
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/10/7526841/the-patriots-trick-play-that-got-john-harbaugh-mad-ravens
Interesting, Alabama split out a tackle out wide when they ran the play. In college, you cannot report as ineligible; linemen must wear a number between 50 and 79. The Patriots added another wrinkle by splitting out a player with an eligible receiver's number, and placed the onus on the defense to recognize that. Clearly, they failed.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Man, those Harbaugh boys really aren't sore loses at all. They take every single piece of adversity with grace, humility, and tenderness.
 
Seriously, they are two absolute sore losers. Great coaches, of course, but whining babies, too. No wonder Jim lost the SF locker room and I hope John loses Baltimore. He will.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
At first I thought Harbaugh's complaints had some validity but now my understanding of the situation is this:
  • It is legal to switch between eligible and ineligible without having that player come off the field between plays
  • The ineligible receiver did indeed report as ineligible prior to the play
  • The Ravens were informed that the player was ineligible
  • Defenses are only given time to substitute if the offense changes personnel, this did not happen on these plays
  • Defenses are not given time to react to changes in offensive formation
  • Offenses are allowed to snap the ball as soon as all 11 players are set on the line
Noting that was done on the play was against league rules.  In essence the Ravens were asking for additional time to react to a complex (due to ineligible reporting) quick snap situation but there isnt anything in the rulebook that indicates they are entitled to this additional time.  The complaints are really just sour grapes and I sincerely hope the league doesnt make any changes based on what the Patriots did.
 
However, the one precedent that this might be compared to is the referee holding the ball at the line to allow the defense to react.  When the Patriots started the 'rush to the line' offense the league dictated that referees give the defense time to get set but I do not believe there is a rule that indicates that the defense is given X amount of time to get set.  Similarly when the offense makes a substitution the defenses is given Y amount of time to make their own substitution.  From that point of view I can sort of see his point because the X & Y amount of time is an subjective decision by the referee and the league has made a subjective decision on which situations to provide this additional time.  This is a situation where the league could add some clarity and make this objective and make a rule along the lines of "When the offense makes a substitution, rushes to the line or changes the eligibility of a player on the field then the defense will be given 15 seconds before the ball is snapped".  
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
In college, players wearing numbers 50-79 are always ineligible for offensive plays. The Alabama player was wearing an eligible number. That is not the case in the NFL, you can report as eligible with one of those numbers (The Fridge, Vrabel, etc), and you can obviously report as ineligible in the NFL wearing an RB, WR, or TE numbers such as 34. 
 

SidelineCameras

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2011
1,813
I rewound it to count (because I'm a masochist) - Warren Sapp said four times on NFLN this am that the ref needs to "click on the mic" and announce Vereen as ineligible.

According to everyone here who was at the game, he did. I won't hold my breath waiting for a correction.
 

Brohamer of the Gods

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,947
Warwick, RI
Has anyone asked Harbaugh yet how his vaunted D line allowed Brady to get those passes off when the Patriots were playing one lineman short? I need to see the tape of those plays to see what the blocking scheme was. Quick passes and all, but still.
 

GregHarris

beware my sexy helmet/overall ensemble
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2008
3,460
I am curious as to how the refs should assist the D beyond what they already did. Apparently it was announced and they even told the D not to cover him. How is it the refs job to make sure the D is properly line up to defend the play? How much time should be allowed, and what if the D still doesn't understand whats going on given extra time?

It's basically 11 on 10 with Vereen being out of the play and they couldnt stop it. Major sour grapes.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,824
Needham, MA
By the way, they ran this formation three times the entire game. All three plays worked but it was a very small part of the overall game. Absurd that Harbaugh just didn't call a timeout after the first time they saw it.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
GregHarris said:
I am curious as to how the refs should assist the D beyond what they already did. Apparently it was announced and they even told the D not to cover him. How is it the refs job to make sure the D is properly line up to defend the play? How much time should be allowed, and what if the D still doesn't understand whats going on given extra time?

It's basically 11 on 10 with Vereen being out of the play and they couldnt stop it. Major sour grapes.
New rule. You have to give a Harbaugh as much time as he needs to figure out what the hell is going on.
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
7,254
Ralphwiggum said:
By the way, they ran this formation three times the entire game. All three plays worked but it was a very small part of the overall game. Absurd that Harbaugh just didn't call a timeout after the first time they saw it.
 
I'd say the BS PI on Revis and the non-call PI on Gronk more than made up the difference.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
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.
Couldn't Vereen also receive a backward pass (which would go in the books as a rushing attempt) or a handoff on a jet sweep for that matter?

Stupidity aside, it would be legal for a QB to hand off to, say, a pulling guard, right?

What if Brady laterals to an ineligible receiver who attempts a forward pass? Legal, or does a player have to line up in the backfield to legally attempt a forward pass?
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,741
As much as some in the print media want to make it so, this is not controversial. It is simply Harbaugh being unprepared and out coached. Harbaugh claims he "had" to take an unsportsmanlike penalty to stop the madness. No John, you simply had to call a timeout. Just hope those that know better call him out on it
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
crystalline said:
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.
Well, if Vereen is actually called upon to block like you say (ie, the defense recognizes the play), it effectively becomes a 4 wide formation with four linemen and an inel rb in an awful position to try to throw a block.

Which is a disaster, offensively.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
I believe the play was mostly called the first time to see if the Ravens would burn a TO. When they didn't and covered Vereen, Pats were coached as to what to do.
 
 
And yes, Vereen could take a handoff. The "eligible/ineligible" stuff is only in regards to being a receiver.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Here's play: 

 
Not sure Vereen was really covered actually. #57 slides out a bit, but drops into zone.
 
EDIT: I guess he actually was. Perhaps #51 would have slide over to Hooman and #57 would be on Gronk.
 
 
Adding to confusion--Vereen slides back and puts hands up like he's expecting a pass. MORE TRICKERY!!!! BURN AT STAKE!!!! It's fucking brilliant.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
I was actually about to post this same thing, I don't think the Pats coaches expected to run a play from this formation let alone three.
I think they wanted the Ravens to burn a valuable timeout going over what needed to be done and then the Pats would then go back to normal.
 
They obviously wouldn't tell the players that in case the Ravens brainfarted, which they did.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Mooch said:
Love the way Vereen sells it by calling for the ball. Brilliant.
 
Just another reason why we need to really savor this team, coach, QB, etc. If you pay attention to the details, it's pretty brilliant. They won't always win, but damn if it's not a treat for those that pay attention.
 
BB gambled the defense wouldn't be able to quickly diagnose who was eligible, despite announcement, and maybe burn TO. However, the defense doubled down on the stupid when they not only didn't do that, they had a guy sort of shadowing Vereen.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
6,823
PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:
Mort on ESPN confirms that the NFL has declared the play legal and there is no issue with how it was run or how the player reported.
 
But I thought Harbs had to take a penalty to sort the refs out and they totally agreed with him - thus saving the day.  
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,492
PaulinMyrBch said:
So if he's uncovered next week, he catches that and takes off like a bubble screen.
Nope, he can't receive a pass in that situation. He's ineligible to get the ball.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Jnai said:
Well, if Vereen is actually called upon to block like you say (ie, the defense recognizes the play), it effectively becomes a 4 wide formation with four linemen and an inel rb in an awful position to try to throw a block.

Which is a disaster, offensively.
Yes - like any other gimmick it works because the defense hasn't seen it.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Mooch said:
Nope, he can't receive a pass in that situation. He's ineligible to get the ball.
 
Not if he drops behind Brady, which I think was what he meant.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Mooch said:
Nope, he can't receive a pass in that situation. He's ineligible to get the ball.
He can't receive a forward pass. A backward pass is OK - would be considered a rushing attempt (and a live ball if he drops it)
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
DrewDawg said:
 
Not if he drops behind Brady, which I think was what he meant.
Exactly, if you look, by the time Brady throws it Vereen is nearly parallel. I bet that is a wrinkle that we might see depending on how the D lines up.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Let's not get butt sore about this as Pats fans. There is no cheating narrative. From what I have seen, commentary running against Harbaugh 3 to 1, at least. He should have stopped with his base line comment about the game -- we played well but came up short.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Or we never see it again, but Denver/Indy have to spend 20 minutes next week in practice talking about it.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,492
Eddie Jurak said:
He can't receive a forward pass. A backward pass is OK - would be considered a rushing attempt (and a live ball if he drops it)
Got it. Wasn't clear that you guys were talking about a lateral there. It would be an interesting wrinkle for sure.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Like the Edelman pass, it worked because of the surprise element. Pats needed every advantage they could get last night. Defenses will prepare for this and neutralize it.
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,319
Winterport, ME
dcmissle said:
Let's not get butt sore about this as Pats fans. There is no cheating narrative. From what I have seen, commentary running against Harbaugh 3 to 1, at least. He should have stopped with his base line comment about the game -- we played well but came up short.
 
http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/01/did_bill_belichick_and_new_england_patriots_cheat_again_baltimore_ravens_say_yes.html
 
Headline: Did Bill Belichick and New England Patriots cheat again? Baltimore Ravens say yes
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
dcmissle said:
Let's not get butt sore about this as Pats fans. There is no cheating narrative. From what I have seen, commentary running against Harbaugh 3 to 1, at least. He should have stopped with his base line comment about the game -- we played well but came up short.
 
That's all fine and true, but we all know that the haters who believe that NE cheated to win their three Lombardi trophies (and the media shitstirrers who egg them on) will not let this go. 
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
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.
Also, if getting the refs' attention was the rationale for running on the field, wouldn't it have been smarter to throw a challenge flag than to take a 15-yard penalty in that spot? Seems a lot less valuable to me.

Garbage (Harbaugh) claiming he took the penalty strategically is either BS or stupid, take your pick.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
In related news, Harbaugh has claimed the second Amendola touchdown was clearly deceptive and streched the rules. Brady threw what looked like a pass to Edelman, causing defenders to try to tackle him, but because it was slightly bacwards, it did not constitute a forward pass and thus the ball could be passed forward again. Harbaugh hopes the competition committe will review this and make it illegal to throw a forward pass after an "almost but not quite forward pass." When asked, "isn't deception the entire point of football, like receivers making defenders think they are running one place but running the other?", Harbaugh reportedly glared at the reporter, screamed "cheaters!" and then threw his coffee to create a distraction and left the podium.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
johnmd20 said:
Man, those Harbaugh boys really aren't sore loses at all. They take every single piece of adversity with grace, humility, and tenderness.
 
Seriously, they are two absolute sore losers. Great coaches, of course, but whining babies, too. No wonder Jim lost the SF locker room and I hope John loses Baltimore. He will.
 
 
JokersWildJIMED said:
As much as some in the print media want to make it so, this is not controversial. It is simply Harbaugh being unprepared and out coached. Harbaugh claims he "had" to take an unsportsmanlike penalty to stop the madness. No John, you simply had to call a timeout. Just hope those that know better call him out on it
 
To me, these two posts sum it up.  The Harbaughs are spoiled, whiny brats who fall apart emotionally when they get outcoached because everyone tells them how great they are and nothing should be allowed to jeopardize their status.