I'm sure he's mad at Flacco for being deceptive. The 4 TD passes and the PI bait throws had him thinking he was the best QB in the NFL. Right up to the point where he lobbed the game and season to Duron Harmon.
Completely legal substitution aka the "John Harbaugh is a whiny little brat" thread.
- Thread starter CaptainLaddie
- Start date
Harbaugh claiming he had to take a penalty is the best part of this. The guy was on tilt and his team was clueless.
Were they already down to two timeouts by that point? I've forgotten.
Were they already down to two timeouts by that point? I've forgotten.
If Baltimore had left ineligible Vereen uncovered, wouldn't a pass to Edelman (I think that's who was next to him) have resulted in easy yards assuming Vereen was able to block the lone CB?
Yes watching the replay there's no way Vereen gets close enough to block. And in fact he just runs backward off the line and calls for a lateral.Jnai said:
So the play is five wide with an RB that can take a handoff on a sweep or catch a lateral. And four OL.
Its mainly a gimmick play, but it makes a little sense in yesterday's second half. The Pats completely gave up on the run so on many plays the offense is spreading it out and running quick routes, like slants or bubble screens. They're using 3-receiver stacks to create separation and block for the screens.
So the gimmick formation has 5 wide, plus you trade an OL for a guy who can run a bubble screen or lateral behind the QB. The Pats have similar options in the gimmick formation as in 5 wide: receiver stacks, quick slants, screens, plus a down field route or two if Brady sees the OL is holding on that play.
Plus the pats could set it up with Vereen split out to one side, on the line. And the other four receivers on the other side. Then the defense needs to cover Vereen- if uncovered he gets a lateral and runs free up the sideline.
So its not a pure gimmick but would be rarely effective if teams prepare.
Putting aside the narrative that Harbaugh "had" to take the penalty, what was the deal with his little untimed conference with the refs? It couldnt be to explain the penalty call itself-he was in clear violation of the rules being that far on the field. So why does he get the benefit of a break for his defense without having to take a time out? Isn't the job of the refs there to say "coach, we don't see a penalty" and put the ball in place to be snapped by the Pats?
The other key is that they ran it twice with Hoomanawanui at "LT" and the Ravens ignored him - part because of confusion, and part because he's Hoomanawanui. It's telling that on the play where Gronkowski was at "LT," the Ravens did not leave him uncovered (Brady completed a quick pass to Edelman anyway).
I seem to recall the Pats running some version of this play against the Broncos this year on a fourth down play. It was a big catch to Hooman but was called back for illegal formation of something, but not because Hooman wasn't eligible. The Pats punted but it was a sweet looking play.
I think this would be an illegal formation. Some Vereen is technically the RT on this play, the Pats need to have one eligible receiver on the line outside of Vereen for a legal formation.crystalline said:
Best they could do is maybe have that outside guy run a crossing route while Vereen runs behind Brady.
A good article on the plays here by Matt Chatham.
http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/hot-mess-nfl-rulebook-strikes-again
http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/hot-mess-nfl-rulebook-strikes-again
GregHarris said:
Yeah its been done before. I hope they fine Harbaugh.
Harbaugh and team didn't have time to watch that film. Pats did.
Enjoy your tee time, John.
Harbaugh should also note the DB calling a timeout since they didn't recognize the formation.GregHarris said:
Yeah its been done before. I hope they fine Harbaugh.
Edit - I think he is calling a timeout, but point stands either way.
In related news, MLB will look into defining breaking balls as illegal pitches because they deceive the batter, and hitting is already hard enough.Ed Hillel said:
HriniakPosterChild said:
I get that it's fun to goof on the Ravens, but baseball is probably the wrong example here. There are dozens of rules that prevent the pitcher / defense from doing things that are too confusing or distracting or deceptive, from quick pitching to all the 150 ways to balk to rules against having non-pitcher players distract the batter (like, you can't align your shortstop behind the pitcher and have him wave his arms and shout during the pitch).
dcmissle said:
This whole thing is stupid and it just shows the Ravens are sore loses. They got all the big calls (non call on Gronk was huge and the Revis hold, obviously, was a colossal call, even if it wasn't an awful call) and they are still whining about a legal play. Pathetic.
That said, the fact that the NFL came out and announced the play was ok as if that's the final word is kind of funny. All of a sudden, the NFL is a pristine org beyond question because they said so? Ummm, no. This is still much ado about nothing but the NFL making an announcement means nothing.
Also note the casual trashing of the officials in Harbaugh's remarks: "the officials told me after that they would give us the opportunity to do that which they probably should have done during that series but didn't, they didn't really understand what was happening"
If the officials thought it was illegal they would have thrown a flag. If they were confused they would have taken time out on the field to confer with themselves.
If the officials thought it was illegal they would have thrown a flag. If they were confused they would have taken time out on the field to confer with themselves.
johnmd20 said:
I think it is more that there isn't anyone arguing the other side, really. Multiple former officials have said it's legal, league has said it is, many analysts (including Ravens anaylsts) have agreed and explained it. So, I don't think it's solely "NFL must be right" it is that there's unanimity among experts here.
The only quote from a non-media talking head saying otherwise is Harbaugh's
Great point about checking into a safe (zone) call, which all defenses have on tap.Byrdbrain said:
I do think this play creates some cognitive dissonance - the Pats showed something that looked like a normal line with a normal slot receiver but wasn't. Even if you know it's a gimmick it may still be confusing.
Especially since it all begins with a player declaring himself ineligible, so the officials know something weird is going on.alydar said:
I've got it taped and you can hear them announce the ineligible receiver over the PA at about 9:45 and 7:25 in the 3d quarter.
GregHarris said:
Yeah its been done before. I hope they fine Harbaugh.
It's been pointed out to me that this is quite different -- the two tackles are positioned very very wide, but it's still recognizable by number who the ineligible receivers are.
"You’ve got to figure out ways to use the rules to your advantage.”riboflav said:
They did just that.
This reminds me of the game a few years ago where Miami gashed the Pats for big gains on 3 or 4 different direct-snaps to the runningback. Except I don't remember any of us, or Belichick, whining about how cheaty it was. I remember us bitching about falling for it more than once.
Also, it was on a 2nd down pick up right?
It's not like it was a game changing play. Sour grapes...well not technically, but Harbawl.
It's not like it was a game changing play. Sour grapes...well not technically, but Harbawl.
Holy shit I'm not sure whether to put this here or in the ESPN.com sucks thread but wow....
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/158381/inside-slant-patriots-deception-was-legal-fair-and-handled-reasonably
"The Patriots reputation as NFL rule pusher....video taping opponents' practices..."
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/158381/inside-slant-patriots-deception-was-legal-fair-and-handled-reasonably
"The Patriots reputation as NFL rule pusher....video taping opponents' practices..."
GeorgeCostanza said:
That's just the reality that the Patriots, and their fans, will have to live with. Even though what Seifert said about the offense was inaccurate, perception has become reality. Whenever the Pats become involved with something out of the ordinary, this will come up.
I see your point, E5, but on this one all a reporter has to do is go through a simple mental exercise to keep themselves honest.
To wit: "if Chip Kelly employed that strategy, what would my reaction be as a reporter? To call him a genius with an encyclopedic knowledge of the byzantine NFL rulebook, hurr durr Oregon. I should hit backspace a bunch here!"
To wit: "if Chip Kelly employed that strategy, what would my reaction be as a reporter? To call him a genius with an encyclopedic knowledge of the byzantine NFL rulebook, hurr durr Oregon. I should hit backspace a bunch here!"
It's fine to bring up the whole Belicheat shit but bring it up accurately, don't say they recorded opponents fucking practices. Unless he's angling for a job at the Herald I guess.
In conclusion: that whole postgame answer from Harbaugh is the best goddamn heelin' I've seen in the NFL since Rex Ryan got sucked dry of joy. What a tremendous douchebag. I hope that whole ref crew has long memories.
Baltimore blew three leads, including two double digit advantages because the Patriots are cheaters. It makes perfect sense.
Pereira joins the brigrade that there was nothing illegal and Ravens had responsibility to defend the formation.
https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/554360290540654592
As it turns out, far closer call on whether Harbaugh should be disciplined than on whether the Pats did anything wrong (since there is no debate at all on second point from anyone with NFL officiating responsibility)
https://twitter.com/MikePereira/status/554360290540654592
As it turns out, far closer call on whether Harbaugh should be disciplined than on whether the Pats did anything wrong (since there is no debate at all on second point from anyone with NFL officiating responsibility)
Absolutely. Flacco was confused about whether his downfield receivers were eligible or not.E5 Yaz said:
A) I have no idea why anyone cares what Wade Phillips thinks. Because someone that many people have heard of tweeted something doesn't make it worth posting.
B)In this case except for the completely unnecessary scare quotes around legal, I agree with him.
I loved the plays but I think there will be a rule tweak so that you can't do that anymore. Something like the college rule where you need to have a number between 50 and 79 to be ineligible. There is an issue with the more limited NFL rosters and injuries though. I vaguely recall a tight end playing oline at some point due to injury.
B)In this case except for the completely unnecessary scare quotes around legal, I agree with him.
I loved the plays but I think there will be a rule tweak so that you can't do that anymore. Something like the college rule where you need to have a number between 50 and 79 to be ineligible. There is an issue with the more limited NFL rosters and injuries though. I vaguely recall a tight end playing oline at some point due to injury.
There's no reason for a rule change. This is not a play that's hard to defend if you know what to look for. It's not like we're going to see 4 OL sets take over the NFL and make a mockery of the league.
soxhop411 said:
Not to take this thread too far off topic, but I absolutely adore Wade Phillips' twitter account. It's the perfect mix of bitterness and self-deprecation.GeorgeCostanza said:
Jason Garrett is tied with Wade Phillips for 56 games as the @dallascowboys head coach. Phillips: 34 - 22; Garrett: 29 -27. #suprisesMe
Talking about records. I am the only coach ever let go by all 3 Texas NFL teams(Oilers,Texans,Cowboys)!
Also he will retweet anyone who takes a selfie with him and mentions his handle. There are a surprising amount of young women who want selfies with Wade Phillips.
Plus, how pathetic is it to have the twitter handle "Son of Bum"? I haven't done enough in my own career, but surely you've heard of my father?
Yes. It is quite a bit LESS likely than the Wildcat or the read option to make a mockery of the NFL - and those didn't.Super Nomario said:
On the other hand, it is absolutely not in keeping with the reputation of the No Fun League, so I would not be shocked by a rule change.
Does anyone know the story behind the rule that player on the line of scrimmage is ineligible if covered up by another player on the line? It seems kind of arbitrary. I get having a requirement that five players be ineligible - presumably it was needed to provide balance so that the defense is not overly disadvantaged against the pass.
I don't really get the requirements to have exactly seven players on the offensive line, and that only the ends can receive forward passes. Why does the seven players on the line rule apply only to the offense?
(Not to say there aren't plenty of other arbitrary rules in football. One of the strangest I think is how the timing rules go back and forth between early-game and late-game timing--is there any other sport where timing rules change three times in the course of the game (or more if there's OT)? Who decided that going out of bounds at 5:01 in the fourth quarter should have a different consequence from going out of bounds at 4:59?)
I don't really get the requirements to have exactly seven players on the offensive line, and that only the ends can receive forward passes. Why does the seven players on the line rule apply only to the offense?
(Not to say there aren't plenty of other arbitrary rules in football. One of the strangest I think is how the timing rules go back and forth between early-game and late-game timing--is there any other sport where timing rules change three times in the course of the game (or more if there's OT)? Who decided that going out of bounds at 5:01 in the fourth quarter should have a different consequence from going out of bounds at 4:59?)