If you can't beat 'em...

[bishbash]

The same would have happened with the ineligible receiver so I don't know why they felt the need to change the rules.

Umm, probably because its about the only way the rest of the teams can "beat" BB.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I tend to agree with MD on this one. We did not, as far as I saw, do this in the Super Bowl. Had they believed there was an advantage to be gained, I'm sure we would've done so. As it was, Seattle was forced to spend time preparing for it with an obvious benefit to us. Make them waste their time.

There was talk on the radio yesterday that had Baltimore done it to us there would be no rule change. I don't know. Maybe.

Maybe it's true that the Pats are costing the NFL money by screwing up the competitive balance by winning too much and the league will pounce on any advantage that we have created to try and restore more parity and, therefore, enhance revenues from fanbases presently devoid of hope. The whole topic is a little Hunger Games, but it might actually be true.

Maybe BB knew this is what would happen and is accepting of the decision because he knows he can innovate faster than the competition committee can close the loopholes. If that is true, then when we see the next wrinkle unveiled then know that BB is smirking to himself. They can't get him.

He'll demonstrate that the rulesmakers are fools by beating them at their own game.

This post makes me think of that Dicaprio movie where they are chasing him but he's always a step ahead.

 

[BostonTim]

... because its about the only way the rest of the teams can "beat" BB.

In their dreams. The teams almost surely know that all their BS is to no avail. It's nothing more than childish spite.

Cheers, BostonTim

 

[Joe]

This post makes me think of that Dicaprio movie where they are chasing him but he's always a step ahead.

What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

 

[BostonTim]

What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

A mere child,

Cheers, BostonTim

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Catch Me If You Can

Good flick

*based on true story too I believe

 

[O_P_T]

Actually, by rule, there are 4 people in the backfield and 7 on the line. Now keep in mind that "in the backfield" can mean just a single yard behind the line of scrimmage lined up tight near the tackle for extra protection.

That's not the rule.

Offensive team must have at least seven players on line.​

There's nothing preventing them from having 9.

RB's and DB's have the same group of numbers, so by definition, a DB has an "eligible" number. and is lined up at the edge of the inner bunch, that would be illegal under the new rule.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I always thought 7 was the max on the LOS too.

That's why you'll see the occasional WR/TE waving their neighbor back at times.

 

[QuiGon]

That's not the rule.

Offensive team must have at least seven players on line.​

There's nothing preventing them from having 9.

RB's and DB's have the same group of numbers, so by definition, a DB has an "eligible" number. and is lined up at the edge of the inner bunch, that would be illegal under the new rule.

And when have you ever seen such a thing? I was rewatching part of the Super Bowl yesterday and paid attention to the Patriots' first punt. Sure enough, they had 5 down lineman and the split wide outs all on the LOS. They had 2 guys lined up tight but sort of outside the tackles and a full yard behind the LOS. Then they had the safety protector a couple yards behind the LOS and the punter himself way back there.

You're inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[deec77]

I always thought 7 was the max on the LOS too.

That's why you'll see the occasional WR/TE waving their neighbor back at times.

I believe and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. You can put as many on the LOS as you want but only the 2 end players are considered eligible receivers. So in order o have any other receiver eligible they have to be a yard behind the line. Hence the occasional signal to get back. That's why most put 7 on the line and 4 back to optimize the number of receivers.

~Dee~

 

[Tchok13]

Part of the rule change no one seems to be talking about:

The Tackle Box is an area <strike>extending from tackle to tackle and from</strike> between the outside edges of the normal tackle positions extending three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line. After the ball leaves the tackle box, this area no longer exists.

Its odd to me they treat the rulebook wording as "well you know what we mean" rather than clearly define things and use uniform terminology. "normal tackle position" doesn't seem to be defined in the rule book.

Also I guess this means Chip kelly's swinging Gate is banned too?

 

[BostonTim]

Also I guess this means Chip kelly's swinging Gate is banned too?

And Shooter's picket fence.

Cheers, BostonTim

 

[QuiGon]

Part of the rule change no one seems to be talking about:



Its odd to me they treat the rulebook wording as "well you know what we mean" rather than clearly define things and use uniform terminology. "normal tackle position" doesn't seem to be defined in the rule book.

Also I guess this means Chip kelly's swinging Gate is banned too?

Actually this answers a question I was wondering. Suppose the Patriots run the same play, only with a guy with a uniform number in the 79's in place of Vereen (which is still legal and is what Alabama did). That guy split out in the slot is the right tackle. That's a pretty wide tackle box! Glad they clarified it.

 

[chevss454]

James Christensen ‏<s>@</s>NEPatriotsDraft <small class="time">https://twitter.com/NEPatriotsDraft/status/580903385286705152 </small> Did the Patriots try and outlaw the Wildcat package? No. They figured out how to stop it. Other NFL teams should try that strategy.

 

[deec77]

I'm still trying to figure out what the big confusion is over the formation.

By rule the only eligible receivers on the line of scrimmage are the 2 last players at either end of the line. Which is still the rule. It shouldn't matter how or where another player on the line of scrimmage is lined up in-between the 2 end eligible receivers. The new rule doesn't change the fact that you can still have 4 linemen and 3 receivers on the line as long as the only 2 end receivers are the only 2 to go forward. The remaining receiver can stay behind the line and block and not by rule have to claim to be ineligible as long as they line up in a receivers position inside the 2 end receivers.

~Dee~

 

[BostonTim]

I'm still trying to figure out what the big confusion is over the formation.

By rule the only eligible receivers on the line of scrimmage are the 2 last players at either end of the line. Which is still the rule. It shouldn't matter how or where another player on the line of scrimmage is lined up in-between the 2 end eligible receivers. The new rule doesn't change the fact that you can still have 4 linemen and 3 receivers on the line as long as the only 2 end receivers are the only 2 to go forward. The remaining receiver can stay behind the line and block and not by rule have to claim to be ineligible as long as they line up in a receivers position inside the 2 end receivers.

~Dee~

It's part of the leagues recently implemented special needs program, designed to mainstream the Baltimore crows.


Cheers, BostonTim

 

[aloyouis]

It's part of the leagues recently implemented special needs program, designed to mainstream the Baltimore crows.


Cheers, BostonTim

As the husband of a SP Ed teacher I LOL'd....

 

[QuiGon]

I'm still trying to figure out what the big confusion is over the formation.

Let's be honest. The formation, like about a million other strategies in the NFL, is designed to confuse the opponent. When the defense sees 5 down linemen, they do not assign a man to cover one of those guys, which is why Hoomanawanui goes right down the seam uncovered.

The only problem is that the opposing coach is a whiny little b*tch and it was the Patriots who came up with this trick play. If any other team came up with it, there would have been no rule change. If the opposing coach wasn't a whiny little b*tch, there would have been no rule change.

By rule the only eligible receivers on the line of scrimmage are the 2 last players at either end of the line. Which is still the rule. It shouldn't matter how or where another player on the line of scrimmage is lined up in-between the 2 end eligible receivers. The new rule doesn't change the fact that you can still have 4 linemen and 3 receivers on the line as long as the only 2 end receivers are the only 2 to go forward. The remaining receiver can stay behind the line and block and not by rule have to claim to be ineligible as long as they line up in a receivers position inside the 2 end receivers.

~Dee~

I am not sure I understand you correctly, but an eligible receiver playing the part of offensive lineman still has to declare himself ineligible. The rule change is that that person now has to line up in the tackle box, not split-right like Vereen was.

 

[deec77]

Let's be honest. The formation, like about a million other strategies in the NFL, is designed to confuse the opponent. When the defense sees 5 down linemen, they do not assign a man to cover one of those guys, which is why Hoomanawanui goes right down the seam uncovered.

The only problem is that the opposing coach is a whiny little b*tch and it was the Patriots who came up with this trick play. If any other team came up with it, there would have been no rule change. If the opposing coach wasn't a whiny little b*tch, there would have been no rule change.
I am not sure I understand you correctly, but an eligible receiver playing the part of offensive lineman still has to declare himself ineligible. The rule change is that that person now has to line up in the tackle box, not split-right like Vereen was.

He wasn't playing the part of a lineman there's no rule stating you must have 5 linemen. His position was receiver as was his number. The only thing that differed was that he in fact declared himself ineligible. The rule states you must have 7 players on the line of scrimmage. It doesn't specify what players they have to be. The only eligible receivers by rule, on the line of scrimmage, are the players on each end of the line. So my question is why can't you run the same play just not declare him ineligible (since by rule he's not anyway)? What if we lined up a TE to block? As long as they don't go forward I fail to see what the difference would be. Or why the Ravens defense doesn't know that the only receivers eligible on the line of scrimmage are in fact the 2 end players. Basic football. The reason the play isn't used so much is that you are limiting yourself to 4 linemen

~Dee~

 

[QuiGon]

He wasn't playing the part of a lineman there's no rule stating you must have 5 linemen.

Yes there is. You must have at least 7 men on the line of scrimmage at the snap (and for the purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume there are exactly 7 men on the LOS). The 5 in the middle are considered linemen. That means they may not receive a forward pass and they are not allowed to advance beyond the line of scrimmage prior to any downfield forward pass being thrown.

His position was receiver as was his number.

Vereen was not a receiver on the play in question. Note that at the snap of the ball, Vereen runs back a yard or two and fakes like he might catch the ball. It would have been illegal for Vereen to go beyond the line of scrimmage prior to the pass being thrown to Hoomanawanui. It also would have been illegal to throw a forward pass to Vereen, but there's certainly nothing illegal with him holding his hands out and yelling "I'm open!" as a fake.

The only thing that differed was that he in fact declared himself ineligible. The rule states you must have 7 players on the line of scrimmage. It doesn't specify what players they have to be.

Yes it does. It says the 5 in the middle must be linemen (ineligible) and the 2 on the outsiders must be eligible receivers.

Obviously, players who are normally ineligible can declare themselves eligible, but they have to line up as 1 of the 2 outermost guys on the LOS. Furthermore, guys who are normally eligible can declare themselves ineligible, but they have to line up within the group-of-5 men in the middle.

The new rule says a guy who is normally eligible can declare himself to be ineligible but from now on must line up in the tackle box, not split out in the slot like Vereen was.

The only eligible receivers by rule, on the line of scrimmage, are the players on each end of the line. So my question is why can't you run the same play just not declare him ineligible (since by rule he's not anyway)?

If you run the same play without Vereen declaring himself ineligible, it would be illegal. That was true before the rule change as well as now after the rule change.

What if we lined up a TE to block? As long as they don't go forward I fail to see what the difference would be.

If he was part of the "middle 5", then the TE would have to declare himself as ineligible. Under the new rule, he would also have to line up in the tackle box. If he was one of the guys on the end, then he is an eligible receiver. Obviously the fact that he is an eligible receiver doesn't mean he can't stay in tight and block. He certainly isn't required to run a pass pattern.

Or why the Ravens defense doesn't know that the only receivers eligible on the line of scrimmage are in fact the 2 end players.

The home viewer gets a side view of the action, but I can certainly understand the logic that a guy on defense facing the line of scrimmage standing 15 yards away might have a tough time figuring out exactly who is standing on the LOS and who is 1 yard behind it.

Basic football. The reason the play isn't used so much is that you are limiting yourself to 4 linemen

The reason the play wasn't used so much is because it was a brand new innovation. It took a play the Alabama Crimson Tide ran and added a new wrinkle to it. No one had done it before or seen it before. It was Belichickian genius.