Sports: NFL

[dok]

Yeah, it was clearly circumventing the intention of the rules. I imagine that will be added to the illegal formation rules (which are already too complex for me to follow) and/or they will introduce mandatory time for the defense to substitute after a receiver reports ineligible.

[Dad_Scaper]

I blame the officials for facilitating it, regardless. It doesn't work if the officials stall the game while they allow the defense to adjust, which I've seen during other pre-snap shenanigans.

[spidysox]

How is running a legal play "circumventing the intention of the rules?"

[XDVincent]

The NFL confirmed that the New England Patriots didn't break any rules when they used a four-linemen configuration during a playoff win over the Ravens.
LINK

EDIT: It's called a tackle eligible play. They've been used for years.

[Dad_Scaper]

Don't go Tom Brady on us and carry on as if that wasn't using a loophole. It wasn't cheating. It was abusing the rules and contrary to their spirit, and expect the Competition Committee (or the officials, by fiat) to prevent it from happening in the future.

It wasn't cheating. I would have preferred the officials give the Ravens time to adjust, which happens on some other pre-snap shenanigans involving personnel, but it didn't happen that way. Congrats, the Pats won. There were shenanigans involved. I'm pleased the Ravens pushed them so hard that they had to reach into their trick bag like that.

Brady carrying on like a sore winner after the fact makes me less sympathetic to them. I really want to like the Pats, because Gronk is A-OK with me. As are Edelman and Wilfork. I wish Belichick and Brady didn't make it so hard to like them.

edit: It is *not* a "tackle eligible" play. It is the inversion of a tackle eligible play, and I have never ever seen one before used on offense (though they are used on punts, as I understand). I have never, ever seen an NFL team run 4 OL's onto the field and 6 skill position players, and immediately before the snap one of the 6 pronounce himself "ineligible." Never seen that before in an NFL game, ever, and I challenge any of you to say you have (edit: and be telling the truth).

It's not a big deal, overall. Certainly it's not what decided the game, and even if it was, it wasn't illegal anyway. Congrats, congrats, congrats. The Patriots won, with the help of the use of a loophole in the rules. It's a win. Again, .

[spidysox]

My question then would be...

How can people on a board game web site possibly have any clue at all as to what the intention of the competition committee was when making a rule?

I'm a fan of football and an over the top one of my team, but when people, who are just fans like me, start talking like they know other peoples intent it just comes off sounding ridiculous.

And saying Brady was carrying on?

These were his comments.

"Maybe those guys gotta study the rule book and figure it out," Brady said. "We obviously knew what we were doing and we made some pretty important plays. It was a real good weapon for us. Maybe we'll have something in store next week."

Brady didn't sound too worried about whether or not the NFL might look into what the Patriots did.

"They'll look at it then," Brady said. "I don't know what's deceiving about that. [They] should figure it out."

If that's carrying on...

[Dad_Scaper]

He knows perfectly well that the whole point of that exercise was to deceive the defense by using a loophole of the rules. He can be gracious and acknowledge that, or he can be a putz and attack them. You can talk kindly about an opponent after the game is over, or you can say, having sneaked one past them, that they "gotta study the rule book and figure it out."

They didn't cheat; they won the game. The final whistle blew. Quit talking trash, Tom.

edit: Repeating that it's legal doesn't make it any less of an exploitation of a loophole.

[Dignan]

I don't think Brady was "carrying on", but he was being a complete douche bag about the whole thing. I don't know why that guy can't just be classy about a win like most of the other NFL elite quarterbacks. I should be a huge fan of the Pats due to how the execute and perform, but they are just such a huge bag of dicks it's impossible to cheer for them.

F those guys.

[Kinseth]

Was dirty , plain and simple

[XDVincent]

This is dirty.

I'll concede that the play is a loophole, but knowing the rules, and how they work, then running a play, that is legal, and having success with it is not dirty.

Plus I don't see how people can be upset with Brady for defending himself, and his team when they didn't do anything wrong, but then when Harbaugh complains after the game to say New England cheated without actually checking if they did is fine. Can't we just accept that it was a great game, that had a couple of poor choices by the officiating crew that affected both teams, negatively and positively. Three plays don't win a game.

Edit: sorry he didn't say cheating, he said deceived, but potato potahto

[dok]

Originally Posted by XDVincent

It's called a tackle eligible play. They've been used for years.

That's literally the opposite of correct.

Originally Posted by XDVincent

I'll concede that the play is a loophole, but knowing the rules, and how they work, then running a play, that is legal, and having success with it is not dirty.

Agreed; it's not dirty in that sense, but it's an exploit, and it's probably the last time we'll see that play in the NFL before the exploit is patched.

Originally Posted by XDVincent

sorry he didn't say cheating, he said deceived, but potato potahto

Potato potahto? It *is* deceiving. That's the point of the play; to deceive. Nobody would run that play if the defense was allowed time to identify the eligible receivers.

[Dad_Scaper]

XDVincent, you cannot expect to persuade people by putting words in the mouth of every single person you appear to disagree with. It wasn't "cheating," it wasn't a "tackle eligible" play. To use dok's word, it was an "exploit." Here is a brief discussion off an ESPN blog, which I think is a fair summary, and nothing John Harbaugh said contradicts it:

One of the primary jobs of the NFL competition committee is to ensure that league rules can't be manipulated to one team's advantage. The NFL rulebook is the most complicated in sports in part due to exceptions and caveats that have been inserted in reaction to similar instances. I'm sure the committee will review the Patriots' strategy, but from this perspective, it seems the most we can expect is a reinforcement that referees must give defenses appropriate time to adjust to substitutions.

The Patriots' reputation as NFL rule-pushers, punctuated by their 2007 discipline for videotaping opponents illegally, surely has played a role in Sunday's swelling emotions. In the end, however, there isn't much to dispute here. Their scheme was legal and sound. Vinovich handled it as well as could have been expected. A creative innovation caught the Ravens by surprise, and they didn't adjust in time. So it goes.

Here is why Harbaugh was upset during the game, and this is also why (as I observed earlier here, or maybe it was somewhere else) that officials will stand over the ball to stop the snap so defenses can adjust to pre-snap shenanigans:

After the second such instance, Harbaugh ran onto the field and took an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, he said later, so that he could implore Vinovich to provide the Ravens more time to adjust to the unconventional ineligible receiver. Harbaugh appeared to be referencing Rule 5, Section 2, Article 10, which begins:

"If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions. While in the process of a substitution [or simulated substitution], the offense is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a defensive foul [i.e., too many men on the field]."

LINK

Nobody said cheating. Abusing the rules, deceiving, yes. Not cheating. Nobody here is whining; neither was Harbaugh. It's just worth noting that the rules in this area can be exploited, and it has to be addressed. I expect it will be.

I got nothing against fans of the Patriots, one of them is my brother and I love him. But if you're going to be one, don't kid yourself: they push the rules envelope. They find weaknesses in the rules and exploit them. I'm not judging, it's what they do, and it's institutional in Foxborough. They are the divining rod for weaknesses in the rules, because they'll find them and exploit them.

Finally, on the subject of Brady's response, he wasn't "defending himself," because nobody was attacking him. The opposing coach pointed out that something the Patriots had done was unheard of and was a deceptive surprise. All true! That's the whole point of running the play! So mocking him by saying he should read the rulebook is unnecessarily mean.

Go ahead and root for your favorite team, but don't blind yourself to what's happening out there.