Sports: NFL

[spidysox]

Wow I shure didn't see the Colts beating the Broncos.

Should make for an interesting game next weekend

[peteparkerh]

Originally Posted by spidysox

Wow I shure didn't see the Colts beating the Broncos.

Should make for an interesting game next weekend

I was 4 for 4 this weekend. Killed my routing for the Patriots though...

[Hahma]

I called the Colts winning. My buddies at work thought the Bronco's defense was too good, but as it turned out, the Colts' defense was better, as was Luck.

[XDVincent]

Originally Posted by dok

That's literally the opposite of correct.

An interpretation of a tackle eligible, where Vereen would've been the "LT," and the 'HB' is split beside him, off the LOS.
Link
And this is an example of a team running a sort of similar play, out of the above formation.

A tackle eligible does not require 5 offensive linemen, it require a player who is lined up at the "tackle position" to be an eligible reciever. Which is exactly what Hoomanawanui (sp?) did.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

you cannot expect to persuade people by putting words in the mouth of every single person you appear to disagree with.

Already said, I mis-quoted, and apologized.

Abusing the rules, deceiving, yes. Not cheating.

To be fair, most teams who are successful, in any sport, attempt to do this. But I can't deny that they did this to deceive, just the way Harbaugh spoke, I personally interpreted it as accusing of cheating.

I honestly do hope this rule get's amended, however.

[spidysox]

Originally Posted by 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:

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:

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.

Leaving Spygate out of the discussion (that horse has been beat to death over and over again) what loopholes in rules have the Pats abused in the past?

[Dad_Scaper]

It may have been beaten to death but that doesn't mean you can discard it as an example of Pats rule-pushing. Otherwise I cite to the ESPN source which you quoted, when you quoted my post. Here's another thing they do. And another. And let's not forget the running gag that is Brady's appearance on the injury report.

Root for your team, spidy. Go for it. I don't dislike the Patriots *nearly* as much as most people outside NE do. But don't pretend that they don't push boundaries.

@XDVincent : Normally, aside from the QB, you have 5 offensive linemen and 5 position players. "Tackle eligible" means a 6th offensive linemen, who becomes "eligible" because he is the sixth. He is identified in advance for the defense to adjust accordingly. In the personnel grouping *we're* discussing, though, you have on the field only *4* offensive linemen, and *6* position players. A defense is denied the opportunity to identify who is legally permitted to catch a pass (or receive a handoff), until moments before the snap.

You routinely see "tackle eligible" formations, particularly on the goal line, where a 6th OL, normally a reserve tackle, joins the offense to help pave the way for a running back to get that last yard to paydirt. What I have never, ever seen - and as above, I challenge anyone else to say they have seen it - is an NFL offensive personnel set with 6 skill position players and 4 offensive linemen, in which the the offense at the last moment before the snap reveals which of its 6 weapons it will not be using. Not cheating, but deceptive, and don't expect it to be legal much longer.

edit 2: Russ Dlin, a CBS sports statistician, just posted this, which doesn't surprise me at all.

After speaking w a ton of football coaches today at the College Football Coaches Meetings- the majority (99%) feel that what New England did was "unethical" to the game of football. They believe that you need to report an ineligible receiver BEFORE you break the huddle- not afterwards. All of the coaches believe that the rule will be changed next season.

[kevindola]

I like to think of it like this: Would Bill Belichick use Stinger Denial? Unequivocally yes.

I'm still in a bit of shock with the Colts play over the last two week. After some very up and down play over the last couple of months where they were getting creamed by good teams (Dallas, New England, Pittsburgh), they have put together a semblance of a running game and the defense is playing well enough to give the offense a chance.

I fully expect to steamrolled on the road next weekend, but it is somewhat reminiscent of Indy's only Superbowl winning run where they put it together in the playoffs after some awful regular season showings to come up with a running game, a defense, and the biggest comeback in Championship game history. (also a phenomenal gift game from Rex Grossman)

I must say that it feels somewhat bittersweet to be on the beneficial end of a Peyton led bye team flameout. Hopefully it helps fuel a Colts Superbowl run.

[XDVincent]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

@XDVincent : Normally, aside from the QB, you have 5 offensive linemen and 5 position players. "Tackle eligible" means a 6th offensive linemen, who becomes "eligible" because he is the sixth. He is identified in advance for the defense to adjust accordingly. In the personnel grouping *we're* discussing, though, you have on the field only *4* offensive linemen, and *6* position players. A defense is denied the opportunity to identify who is legally permitted to catch a pass (or receive a handoff), until moments before the snap.

You routinely see "tackle eligible" formations, particularly on the goal line, where a 6th OL, normally a reserve tackle, joins the offense to help pave the way for a running back to get that last yard to paydirt. What I have never, ever seen - and as above, I challenge anyone else to say they have seen it - is an NFL offensive personnel set with 6 skill position players and 4 offensive linemen, in which the the offense at the last moment before the snap reveals which of its 6 weapons it will not be using. Not cheating, but deceptive, and don't expect it to be legal much longer.

edit 2: Russ Dlin, a CBS sports statistician, just posted this, which doesn't surprise me at all.

I agree that a tackle eligible can include a goal line play using a 6th offensive lineman, but in an unbalanced line, where the TE would line up at tackle as an uncovered player, thus making him eligible, which is what the TE was. Now since the Patriots only had 4 linemen, a 5th would be a regularly eligible play, in this case Vereen. A player at the tackle, but uncovered becomes an eligible reciever. It's a tackle eligible play.

I would also like to hear the names, and positions of the coaches Dlin spoke to. When no direct names are quoted, I (and hopefully most others) should be skeptical. I do however agree that the rule should, and will be changed.

The unfortunate thing about this, is that three plays are all people seem to be talking about. Not the fact that it was a great game, full of emotion, and suspense. Instead of one of the better games played in a long time, it's going to be the "Vereen Rule Game"

Also, congrats to the Colts, played a great game, and really looks like a contender right now.

Edit: Because I'm gonna hammer this to death, since it is a tackle eligible play, or interpretation, a couple of examples, from two teams, one whose formation is near identical.


The highlighted player is covered by another player, and thus ineligible, while the tight end is uncovered an eligible.



Again, same deal, and very similar to New Englands, obviously those OL's would be Vereen.

[Dad_Scaper]

It'll be remembered as a great game. The only reason we're still talking about this narrow issue now is that you're insisting that it wasn't an abuse of the rules, and a deceit.

Tell me, @XDVincent , if the college teams (is that the best you could find? college teams?) had personnel groupings on the field with 6 skill position players and 4 offensive linemen. The issue isn't who was eligible, it was who was eligible *in the context of the personnel grouping*.

I don't know who Dlin spoke to and don't need to; so far everything I've found says more or less the same thing: this was the exploit of a loophole, not cheating, expect it to be changed so it's no longer legal. Find me something to read, I'll look at it.

[dok]

Originally Posted by XDVincent

An interpretation of a tackle eligible, where Vereen would've been the "LT," and the 'HB' is split beside him, off the LOS.
Link
And this is an example of a team running a sort of similar play, out of the above formation.

A tackle eligible does not require 5 offensive linemen, it require a player who is lined up at the "tackle position" to be an eligible reciever. Which is exactly what Hoomanawanui (sp?) did.

The play you link is not a "tackle eligible" play, because (wait for it, wait for it...) the tackle is not eligible. That's a play where a lineman is split wide, but he has a lineman number, and he is ineligible unless he reports otherwise. The 5 eligible receivers on that play are the 5 players who have receiver and running back numbers. (X, Y, Z, HB, TE in your diagram)

That said, that play (which is, again, not a tackle eligible play) is indeed a similar misdirection play to what the Patriots did. The big difference is that when the Patriots ran it, the player split out was NOT a tackle. He was a skill position player who then reported at the last minute as ineligible. So, unlike the Auburn play you linked, which players were eligible was not clear from looking at the jersey numbers.

What the Patriots ran was not a tackle eligible play. It was a skill player ineligible play. Again, literally the opposite of a tackle eligible play.

[XDVincent]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

It'll be remembered as a great game. The only reason we're still talking about this narrow issue now is that you're insisting that it wasn't an abuse of the rules, and a deceit.

Never said that, in fact I did concede it was an abuse of a loophole, seen here.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Tell me, @XDVincent , if the college teams (is that the best you could find? college teams?) had personnel groupings on the field with 6 skill position players and 4 offensive linemen. The issue isn't who was eligible, it was who was eligible *in the context of the personnel grouping*.

1. College plays have use in the NFL, one team routinely does this and apparently has a "revolutionary" offense. So to say that when I do find proof, it's college, doesn't make sense to me.

2. That team, the eagles, have used a lineman split out wide.

Ans please don't say, well that's one play, because I have now shown you plays at two levels, both using a player split wide.

3. I can understand the gripe, but I have seen (sorry I can't find examples) of a player, such as a Tight End as a Lineman, but this was in an emergency situation. I can understand that with Vereen declaring late, this being the deceiption, is very irregular.

dok, now undertand, that in this play, there are only 4 linemen, so there has to be some wiggle room in your definition. Considering the player in the normal LT position, is a TE, he in a normal situation would have been an ineligible tackle.

In this play, the Colts this season, Use a similar concept.
Here it shows a play with Castonzo as a traditional tackle eligible. Except with a twist.



Now please excuse the pre-k look of this, I quickly threw it together in Paint, but it works, Now in this play Castonzo is a Tackle eligible in an overloaded line. Now obviously it's not the same, but it shows the concept. I do like your name though "skill player ineligible." It probably covers the concept better.

Also, I found footage of that Auburn game, and the highlighted player is an offensive lineman.

The image would be from 27:44 in.

EDIT: also adding to my Point 1, pretty sure the read option was a huge factor, as was the Wildcat, etc. Most misdirection plays are initially College plays anyways.

[dok]

Originally Posted by XDVincent

dok, now undertand, that in this play, there are only 4 linemen, so there has to be some wiggle room in your definition.

No, there does not. A tackle eligible play is a play where a tackle reports as an eligible receiver. This isn't some crazy, arcane idea. That's what makes a tackle eligible play a tackle eligible play.

Originally Posted by XDVincent

Considering the player in the normal LT position, is a TE, he in a normal situation would have been an ineligible tackle.

In this play, the Colts this season, Use a similar concept.
Here it shows a play with Castonzo as a traditional tackle eligible. Except with a twist.



Now please excuse the pre-k look of this, I quickly threw it together in Paint, but it works, Now in this play Castonzo is a Tackle eligible in an overloaded line. Now obviously it's not the same, but it shows the concept.

No, it doesn't. That actually is standard tackle eligible play. Presumably Castonzo reported as eligible.

The only twist there is the unbalanced line, but that is really window dressing. If it had been a tight end in Castonzo's spot, then (assuming there's no illegal formation rule that would be violated, which I don't think there is) the Colts would be able to run a play out of that formation without announcing anything.

Originally Posted by XDVincent

I do like your name though "skill player ineligible." It probably covers the concept better.

Also, I found footage of that Auburn game, and the highlighted player is an offensive lineman.

Yeah, I know. That's the point. That's why they could run that play without announcing anything. They had 5 ineligibles, all lined up on the line of scrimmage.

That Auburn play is, indeed, the best analogue to what the Patriots did. The twist is the skill player reporting as an ineligible. That's what takes it from a misdirection play into the realm of a rules exploit.