I sort of did assisting coaching flag football in the late spring. One of the refs seemed a bit overqualified for 10 year olds. I spoke to him a few times and he does Big 12 and MAC games or something like that. Cracked me up that he was reffing 10 year old flag football.
There's a guy from Arlington who was the back judge in the Alabama/Georgia final game two years ago. ACC official. Probably a few more around Boston as well.
A player should hand them a notarized letter stating their eligibility to prove a point.
What did you expect them to say? Of course the onus is on the player to make sure he is clearly understood. Otherwise I’m sure some dipshit will claim he gave a secret hand signal on the sideline or told the ref in Japanese or whatever.
Hoenstly, though, not sure what a player does in that situation, the onus should 100% not be on him to after he has walked to the official, declared himself eligible, been the only player to do so, then in the huddle step out to try and hear to make sure the ref isn't a bumbling incompetent who announces the number of a player who never came within 10 yards of him eligible instead.
The Lions intentionally tried to make the process deceptive. Usually to avoid these scenarios the players give the “reporting eligible” signal since stadiums are loud. The only player to give any kind of hand signal was 70. You know, the guy whose number was announced over the stadium loudspeaker 2x.
So two players give the signal. Only one player can get eligibility. Allen's primary responsiblity presnap is to watch the sideline for substitutions. Which signal do you think he saw? Probably the one he announced?
If he gave specifics, like "we're gonna make 68 eligible" then yes that's bad. But I've been a part of a lot of these pregame conversations, it's FAR more likely that he said something like "We're gonna run a 2 point play where we throw to an uncovered ineligible number. Here's how they're gonna line up".
Right, who knows how the conversation went.
Dan Campbell drew up the play on paper and handed it to the refs before the game started, saying he was going to use this play later in the game if necessary.
Drawing it up on paper is 99% of the time Xs and Os, not numbers. Even when coaches draw up plays for other coaches!
Did the coaches tell the ref that they would be running 3 linemen out at the same time, all close together in a group, with 2 of them making half-hearted gestures that they are eligible, with only one of them stating verbally they are eligible in their best library voice? Did the coaches tell the ref they would ignore the announcement of the eligible player number, the one that was clearly made over the stadium loudspeaker?
I think the problem is the NFL refs never admit mistakes. And this was clearly a mistake.
What was the lie? There is video of him pointing to 70. He clearly believed 70 had reported.
Let's perform a thought experiment here. Let's say that everything presnap occurs exactly the same, except Allen instead announces 68 is eligible. After the snap, the Lions throw a TD pass to number 70.
Yes. After seeing all the different angles and this formation, it is clear the Lions were trying to deceive and succeeded in deceiving the Ref. I put the issue on the play design including the pre-play group meeting with the ref.
The Lions want the widest player on each side off. But it would be easy to conclude that the top two are off and the bottom is on, especially since the bottom and the top are judged by two different people (each line of scrimmage official works the formation from the ball to the sideline)
Offense needs to have 4 players off the line. Two obvious ones in the photo are the QB and the back lined up a few yards behind. So 2 of the 3 circled players need to be off the line.
Can't have more than 4. Can have less. Unless NFL has different rules but I believe some team favored an 8 man line in shortage yardage situations several years ago.
Exactly. It's no different than what the Pats did to Baltimore in the playoffs about 10 years ago (except they were more deliberate in their execution). Try to exploit a confusing aspect of how the rules play out on the field to see if you can confuse your opponent. Once the refs didn't declare 68 eligible, they could (should?) have called time out.
If the Patriots did this in 2014 instead of the "ineligible receiver" stuff against the Ravens this thread would be 100 pages long with conspiracy theories, talk of how BB was a genius "he even was so smart he told the refs pregame about it!", how they even had two guys go to the ref with only one declaring, having the other guy on the previous downs eligible to confuse the D and how the formation was brilliant. (It's not obvious but it's legal!)Let's perform a thought experiment here. Let's say that everything presnap occurs exactly the same, except Allen instead announces 68 is eligible. After the snap, the Lions throw a TD pass to number 70.
We'd be having the exact same controversy. Except, people would be saying:
- How could he miss 70 reporting? He looked right at him!
- 70 has been reporting the same way all game, how could the ref screw it up at the end of the game??
That leads me to believe that it's not the process that bothers you, but instead the outcome.
The Lions even made their formation intentionally ambiguous in order to hide whether it was 70 or 68 who had reported and mask who was uncovered. 2 and only 2 of the 3 circled players must be off the line of scrimmage. Which two is it?
Unedited here:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/week-17.41403/post-5910638
They didn't have a time out. If the ref actually missed the actual eligible guy, then it is his "fault," strictly speaking. Just like its my fault if I hit a pedestrian at night *in* the crosswalk who is wearing all black.
Thank you, that is correct. Only the players at the end of the LOS are eligible. Of course, teams sometimes try to obscure who is on the line and who is off by having a "backfield" receiver line up close to the line. Sometimes teams get too cute and get called for it.
I don't think the eligible receiver rules are all that confusing, and teams will always try to find ways to confuse their opponent, and coaches will always find ways of either blaming the officials or blaming Bill Belichick when something doesn't go their way.
@CFB_Rules
The refs only do administrative stoppages when they want to give the Chiefs a do over in the AFC Championship game.
Alternatively, just say the center and 2 players immediately to either side of him are ineligible--numbers shouldn't matter. Any other player on offense is eligible and can line up on the LOS or behind it. This doesn't need to be hard.
The 5 OL line up on LOS everyone else can be within a yard. Or 2. Or whatever. But the rest of it is meaningless. 5 ineligible. A QB. Everyone else can go out for a pass.
70 was waving and signaling and chasing down the ref in both instances.
Yes, and they would. Note that the play clock hadn't even started yet when Allen made the announcement, so the offense still had over 25 seconds to figure it out or declare someone else eligible.
If he sees both, he'd probably ask which they meant. I think he never even saw 68, he saw 70 first and immediately ran off since nobody else is allowed to declare themselves eligible.
You have a punt play. The snap is bad and the punter throws the ball downfield to 88 who catches it for a first down. Is it legal? Is it not? We'd never know without replay in your scenario, because we would have to go back and see where he initially lined up. Now all you have to do is look at the jersey number.
So you want more unpredictability and creativity and freedom and action? Instead of long tedious arguments over what a player did or didn't say to the ref when he came in off the sidelines? Well you will never work for the NFL.
It would be literally impossible to defend. It's like saying "wouldn't basketball be more fun if we made the hoop 6 feet wide??"
It would be if they called holding like they're supposed to. Make blocking have to be proper again, instead of all the grabbing that guys get to do now. That would slow down offenses considerably.
