Author Topic: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the A-11????>  (Read 6511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4687
  • FAN REACTION: +865/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the A-11????>
« on: January 12, 2015, 07:44:26 AM »
As a member of Patriot Nation, I was thrilled with the defeat of the Crows (Ravens is only a fancy name for 'em irregardless of Edgar Allen Poe); but confused by a Patriot formation used for several plays in the third period. Two wideouts were both on the LOS with eligible numbers, HOWEVER the one on the end of the line was deemed ineligible and did not go downfield ??? ???. Who knows what NFL rule allows this to be legal ::) ???. Apparently the Crow's coach was also confused >:( :o :!# ...at a price of an USC ^flag....

Offline SD_Casey

  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-1
Re: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the \
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2015, 08:11:41 AM »
Rule 5-3-1?

An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50–79 and 90–99) is permitted to line up in
the position of an eligible pass receiver (1–49 and 80–89), and an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass
receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the
change in his eligibility status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team.
He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he
must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and
the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.



So the guy is split out like a receiver but is covered up so he doesn't go downfield?  So essentially he's the Tackle, just split out.  I guess they were hoping that the 'crows' would put a defensive back on him and spread their pass coverage thin elsewhere?

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-12
  • We are always learning
Re: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the \
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2015, 08:21:33 AM »
Interesting, I never spotted those in the game.

A clever tactic it would seem and worked well as got them an extra 15 yards.

Here's the first in screenshot https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpg106d0afgafaa/too_many_backs.jpg?dl=0

In the first play the two players on the line nearest the camera drop back on the snap.

Here's the second https://www.dropbox.com/s/r6z6chu5m805esk/too_many_backs2.jpg?dl=0

In this play the inside 'receiver' (nearest the camera) on the line drops back. 

Looks like The Ravens put more people across to cover the two 'receivers' leaving them short on the far side.

Reading rule Rule 5-3-1 it looks like the eligible numbered player should have reported ineligible for each of the two plays, or am I reading that wrong?

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • FAN REACTION: +109/-35
Re: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the \
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2015, 08:28:13 AM »
Yes, the covered-up players wearing eligible numbers should have reported and the referee should have announced that. This probably happened, but late enough before the snap so the Ravens were not able to adapt.

Unlike the NCAA (and NF?), if the covered-up players with eligible numbers do not report, it is an illegal formation penalty.

Offline SD_Casey

  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-1
Re: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the \
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2015, 08:49:56 AM »
I did hear the R make the announcement at least once on the TV broadcast.  Not sure otherwise.

Offline riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-19
Re: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the \
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2015, 11:49:24 AM »
I would expect Belicheat to use a variation of "the offense that shall not be named". He will skirt rules to the breaking point to gain any kind of advantage.  Hopefully the NFL will make some changes like the NFHS did to correct this issue.

Offline Bwest

  • *
  • Posts: 236
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-3
Re: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the \
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2015, 12:25:50 PM »
I would expect Belicheat to use a variation of "the offense that shall not be named". He will skirt rules to the breaking point to gain any kind of advantage.  Hopefully the NFL will make some changes like the NFHS did to correct this issue.

This is no more "skirting" the rule then a halfback pass is. It's 100% legal within the rules aand unlike the A-11 offense the defense gets advance notice of who the ineligible player is.

In fact, according to ESPN, the referee Bill Vinovich even went so far as to yell "Don't cover 32!" to the defense.

Offline riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-19
Re: An ineligible eligable???? ....Was coach B using the \
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2015, 12:30:10 PM »
This is no more "skirting" the rule then a halfback pass is. It's 100% legal within the rules aand unlike the "The offense that shall not be named" offense the defense gets advance notice of who the ineligible player is.

In fact, according to ESPN, the referee Bill Vinovich even went so far as to yell "Don't cover 32!" to the defense.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what is "skirting" the rules. "The offense that shall not be named" was also 100% legal.

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-12
  • We are always learning

Offline goodgrr

  • Roger Goodgroves
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-12
  • We are always learning