Correct. It was what they did before. Using an extra lineman to block but instead added a wrinkle with them going out when the opportunity came.singaporesoxfan said:
Completely legal substitution aka the "John Harbaugh is a whiny little brat" thread.
- Thread starter CaptainLaddie
- Start date
Sure, and using the same guys in different ways is just part of the game. Similar to if the Pats had been using an RB for 10 plays in a row to protect Brady, and then on one play they ran him on a wheel route. Or like using a TE like Hoomanawanui to run block for 10 plays, then throwing him a pass on the 11th.singaporesoxfan said:
Eligibility doesn't really enter into it at all.
The other reason the pass to Solder worked is it was 3rd-and-1, which is both a common situation to have a sixth OL and a situation where the D sells out to stop the run. The Colts ran the same play against the Patriots Week 11 to get a touchdown to Castonzo on the goal line on 3rd-and-1, and the Patriots ran a similar play against the Jets on 3rd-and-2 in 2013 to get a touchdown to Aaron Dobson (who was lined up essentially as a TE).singaporesoxfan said:
https://soundcloud.com/siriusxmnfl/nate-solder-td-in-afc-championship-should-not-have-counted-says-jim-miller
The gist - Fleming was eligible the previous play but stayed in as ineligible for the Solder play. He would have had to leave the game for 1 play.
EDIT: Just rewatched it, they are correct.
The gist - Fleming was eligible the previous play but stayed in as ineligible for the Solder play. He would have had to leave the game for 1 play.
EDIT: Just rewatched it, they are correct.
Spotting that discrepency now is like spotting a guard holding on a TD run but the officials missed it. What can they do, retroactively make the score 38-7?
JohnnyK said:
I just rewatched it and I think it's a close call as to whether or not Gronk is lined up at the LOS. If he is officially behind it--and they are notoriously sort of loose about how that's called--then Fleming is eligible. Hew would still have to report to the referee as per rule, though--if that didn't happen, it should be a penalty.
There is no Rev said:
I just rewatched it and I think it's a close call as to whether or not Gronk is lined up at the LOS. If he is officially behind it--and they are notoriously sort of loose about how that's called--then Fleming is eligible. Hew would still have to report to the referee as per rule, though--if that didn't happen, it should be a penalty.
That doesn't work. If Gronk isn't on the line of scrimmage then they have only 6 men on the LOS and it's an illegal formation. If Gronk is in then Fleming is ineligible.
Then it's only a 6 man line. Fleming isn't eligible.There is no Rev said:
I just rewatched it and I think it's a close call as to whether or not Gronk is lined up at the LOS. If he is officially behind it--and they are notoriously sort of loose about how that's called--then Fleming is eligible. Hew would still have to report to the referee as per rule, though--if that didn't happen, it should be a penalty.
Per the play-by-play, only Solder reported eligible. Also, they would have had 7 eligible if Fleming had reported (Brady, Blount, LaFell, Edelman, Gronk, Solder is 6)There is no Rev said:
JerBear said:
LaFell is on the line for #7, isn't he? Also, was there a flag on the previous play or one of these other conditions?
Harry Hooper said:
If LaFell is on the line he's covering Solder and Solder would have been ineligible.
JohnnyK said:
Yep. PBP:
2nd and 1 at IND 16 (11:08) C.Fleming reported in as eligible. L.Blount right guard to IND 16 for no gain (J.Freeman; R.Jean Francois).
3rd and 1 at IND 16 (10:10) N.Solder reported in as eligible. T.Brady pass short left to N.Solder for 16 yards, TOUCHDOWN. NE 77-Solder 1st NFL TD.S.Gostkowski extra point is GOOD, Center-D.Aiken, Holder-R.Allen. 7 24
Here's something the Patriots actually did get away with, verifiably so, that affected the game (arguably at 17-7 the game was still in a little bit of doubt and perhaps NE would have had to settle for the FG, while the Solder TD totally took the Colts out of the game) and instead all we've heard the last few days is balls, balls, balls.
Well, if the Pats with all their prep messed it up twice, and the officials can't cope, then maybe there will be rule changes.
Tony Dungy recommends Seattle fake injuries to stop this
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/dungy-nfl-needs-to-restrict-new-englands-substitution-game/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/dungy-nfl-needs-to-restrict-new-englands-substitution-game/
Ah, Mr. Dungy was upset when the new rules affected his former team's blistering hurry-up pace when they were changed in 2010, but now he has had a change of heart when it comes to allowing defenses time to react.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/30/tony-dungy-illegal-snap-rule-will-hinder-no-huddle-offenses/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/30/tony-dungy-illegal-snap-rule-will-hinder-no-huddle-offenses/
Is Dungy wrong about Vereen, was there was a penalty that allowed Vereen to reset to eligible without sitting out a play?
One thing I love about some of Belichick's innovations is that they hearken back to the past, before the introduction of eligible receiver rules in 1951, or the specialization of offensive and defensive payers.
I heard Ross Tucker on his podcast saying he thought the rules should change, because while legal, he aesthetically didn't like the style of football playing around with eligibility produced. I love the aesthetics - I love trick plays, interesting formations, and the like. But I'll grant that some people don't like it. Even so, how would one write a rule that could stop "playing around with eligibility" while still allowing for the relatively common 6-man OL that teams go to on short yardage TD runs? Not allow those wearing eligible receiver numbers to declare ineligible?
I heard Ross Tucker on his podcast saying he thought the rules should change, because while legal, he aesthetically didn't like the style of football playing around with eligibility produced. I love the aesthetics - I love trick plays, interesting formations, and the like. But I'll grant that some people don't like it. Even so, how would one write a rule that could stop "playing around with eligibility" while still allowing for the relatively common 6-man OL that teams go to on short yardage TD runs? Not allow those wearing eligible receiver numbers to declare ineligible?
Quite easily. Just write "Can't do anything the Cheatriots do in regards to eligibility and formations" in the rule book. Ought to satisfy mouth breathers and Johnny Harblow.singaporesoxfan said:
You could have the extra lineman have to put on a temporary jersey with special markings that show him as eligible. Not a full uni top, but a loose pullover tht would be a quick add on.
singaporesoxfan said:
I'm with you. Instead of whining, shouldn't OCs be lying awake at night dreaming up "swiss cheese" formations that allow for new kinds of plays to be run?
Edit: to be fair, I haven't heard any OCs whining - they might already be sketching on their bedside notebooks,,,
singaporesoxfan said:
Every single player should be eligible, and there should be no rules on how many players need to be on the line (I guess you need one to snap the ball). Every strange offensive formation will have potential benefits and also glaring weaknesses. Try weird things at your own risk.
There was some discussion of the 7 men on the line rule earlier. The rule was probably introduced to avoid injuries related to having a bunch of large men being able to get a running start from behind the line and collide full-force with the defense. It was introduced a long time ago, before the current focus on safety. Backsliding on this issue seems highly unlikely in the current climate.ivanvamp said:
SumnerH said:
According to Bill Vinovich it's legal:
"“It obviously caught me off guard,” Vinovich said. “I’m not gonna say what the Ravens should or shouldn’t have done. I mean, the easiest thing [for them] to do would have been to call timeout and let them match up. Basically it was just a brilliant play on Bill Belichick’s part and it caught them off guard. That’s why you have to be able to think quickly. Not only did I say he’s not eligible, I said, ‘Do not cover 34 [Vereen].’ But the DBs were obviously confused. What’s going through my mind is, Can he do this legally? Was Vereen in the previous play? All these different things start going through my mind. Then I realize that going from eligible to ineligible, you don’t have to be out one play before. The other way, coming back ineligible to eligible, you have to be out of play. Now he can’t go back to eligible without going out for a play, which he did. Some of the stuff they throw at you, you just go, whoa. That’s the great part of officiating—it’s always changing. Someone’s gonna think of something different to do. But the play was legal, totally legal.”
I'm not sure the reporting is entirely correct.
A player that reports an eligibility different from that indicated by their number must continue to report that eligibility for each play. However, a change in eligibility does require the player to sit out a play (unless there's a timeout, penalty, etc.).
If Fleming was eligible for both plays, then there's no penalty, provided he reported as eligible.
If Fleming was ineligible, then there should have been a penalty.
A player that reports an eligibility different from that indicated by their number must continue to report that eligibility for each play. However, a change in eligibility does require the player to sit out a play (unless there's a timeout, penalty, etc.).
If Fleming was eligible for both plays, then there's no penalty, provided he reported as eligible.
If Fleming was ineligible, then there should have been a penalty.
Yeah, that's wrong. It applies to "a change in eligibility status", whether it's ineligible->eligible or vice-versa doesn't matter.geigercount said:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf
SumnerH said:
This is the play I was thinking of:
How the Patriots are toying with the NFL's rulebook -- and winning
A kinda have to agree that if you use these things 32 times, and only screw up once, that's pretty good.
I'm thinking we'll see something out of the elligibility playbook this weekend.
No, Vinovich is right I think. The confusion is that Vinovich was talking about the Vereen sequence in the Ravens game (which was legal) and Geiger quoted Vinovich in response to the Solder TD in the Colts game (which was not a legal formation).SumnerH said:
The reason the Vereen sequence was legal and Vereen never has to sit out going from eligible to ineligible is in the part of the rule that says: "permitted to return to a position indicated by the eligibility status of his number". Since Vereen wears an eligible number he must sit out one play if he declares ineligible and then wants to return to eligibility. But the following sequence of snaps is perfectly legal:
Vereen eligible
Vereen declares ineligible
Vereen sits out
Vereen eligible
Vereen declares ineligible
singaporesoxfan said:
Well now we're confusing things.
Your explanation of the rule is right for the Vereen play, but then it becomes completely irrelevant to the Solder play we were talking about (which it ultimately is).
Vinovich is correct about the Vereen play being legal, but his explanation of the why (which would apply to the Solder play under discussion) is wrong; he claims there's a difference between going ineligible to eligible vs. eligible to ineligible:
It's the fact that he describes it that way that made it a relevant response to the Solder TD play, but he's wrong. If that were true, the Solder play would be legal; he was switching eligible to ineligible. But whether you have to sit out has everything to do with switching back to whatever your original status was and nothing to do with which absolute direction the switch is (e->i or i->e).
I get that, but I think Vinovich isn't "wrong" more than he was just being specific about the Vereen play in his quote. He was being interviewed about the Ravens game and gave a shorthand way of explaining the rules when the changes involve a player wears an eligible receiver number. Quoting Vinovich to discuss Fleming's eligibility on the Solder TD is just taking Vinovich out of context.
