Bill Belicheat's Eligible Lineman Loophole

SeatownJay

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
10,745
Reaction score
6
Location
Hagerstown, MD
BlueTalon":10yvv51m said:
If an eligible player reports as ineligible, I suppose that's fine, but then he'd have to line up where the ineligible players line up -- on the line, between the two receivers covering the line -- and then during the play, he wouldn't be able to go past the line of scrimmage. That clearly didn't happen.
Except it did. Look at the screen shot below where it clearly shows everyone is lined up legally, with five ineligible receivers (including the ineligible RB, who is circled) flanked on each side by one eligible receiver, and four players behind the LOS.

B7E1L3XCMAMGacT
 

brimsalabim

Active member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
3
The problem was that the officials didn't hold up their end of the process.
 

Chawks1

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
ringless":f7k7tf35 said:
I'm still confused watching it, I don't even see the RB. I just see 4 blockers and everyone else running down field


It's not just that the RB declared himself ineligibile. The LT reported as an eligible reciever. But them he stayed in and blocked. Totally meant to deceive. It is not illegal but I guarantee the rules committee will review it.
 

SnoCoHawk

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
716
Reaction score
0
Location
Location, Location
Maybe they could just outplay the other team instead of cooking up questionably legal ways to snap the ball before they're ready. Obviously it was against the spirit of the rule, if not the exact verbiage.
 

lobohawk

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
952
Reaction score
0
Came across to me that the main complaint was that they notified the ref of their changes in eligibility and then snapped before Ravens could understand the change. Basically hiding the change as much as possible. Legal, but sneaky more than clever.
 

imnKOgnito

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
0
I'd love for them to try this against the LOB. They'll be ready for it and essentially have a one man advantage on the field, either on the line or in the secondary.
 

BlueTalon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
9,017
Reaction score
1,720
Location
Eastern Washington
imnKOgnito":32kc39b0 said:
I'd love for them to try this against the LOB. They'll be ready for it and essentially have a one man advantage on the field, either on the line or in the secondary.
That's exactly why I'm not worried about it.
 

TDOTSEAHAWK

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
0
Location
Hamilton
Man those plays have done for forever. I remember seeing them and gameplanning for them in high school.
 

BlueTalon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
9,017
Reaction score
1,720
Location
Eastern Washington
SeatownJay":2bxxcsfv said:
BlueTalon":2bxxcsfv said:
If an eligible player reports as ineligible, I suppose that's fine, but then he'd have to line up where the ineligible players line up -- on the line, between the two receivers covering the line -- and then during the play, he wouldn't be able to go past the line of scrimmage. That clearly didn't happen.
Except it did. Look at the screen shot below where it clearly shows everyone is lined up legally, with five ineligible receivers (including the ineligible RB, who is circled) flanked on each side by one eligible receiver, and four players behind the LOS.

B7E1L3XCMAMGacT

OK, so I poorly worded what I was trying to say.

I have never seen a formation involving five linemen that wasn't a contiguous formation. In other words, there's never a gap between them occupied by an eligible receiver that I have seen. That's the crux of my question. Is that legal?
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,205
Reaction score
39
Location
Anchorage, AK
RolandDeschain":t4eaxsg9 said:
I love Emperor Belichick when he pulls stuff like this. Change the rule if you don't like it.

The rules don't need changing. They need to be officiated. This was a penalty not because of the setup but because if this:

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). I

Secondly when this wasn't followed the refs failed again

this occurs, the following procedure will apply:
(a) The Umpire will stand over the ball until the Referee deems that the defense has had a reasonable
time to complete its substitutions.

All of that is in the post above yours.

He is entitled to run the play but it was not allowed and should have been halted
 

brimsalabim

Active member
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
3
What Mike said above. The stunt's success relyed on a group of NFL officials not doing their job correctly. Now I am hoping that the officials as a group will be pissed about this.
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
brimsalabim":2v6yau38 said:
...........The stunt's success relyed on a group of NFL officials not doing their job correctly. ..............
Which is like relying on rain in the Pacific Northwest in January. In other words, about a 100% chance of it happening.
 

seedhawk

New member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,912
Reaction score
0
Simply put, the blame is on the Ravens. Look at the picture. The Ravens failed to identify that Vereen was covered, and the LT was uncovered. Means Vereen can only take a pitch or handoff, and whoever is lined up at the LT position is now eligible.
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
It took watching a few replays and seeing the explanation to really understand what was done here. And it's sneaky as hell. Really clever. Hate to give kudos to the Saban/Kiffin combo down in Tuscaloosa, but they were the genesis of this and it works nicely.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,205
Reaction score
39
Location
Anchorage, AK
Lets remember that Harbough was so pissed about not given an opportunity to adjust to the eligible person that he took a 15 yard unsportsmanslike.

He proceeded afterwards to confirm that they heard the announcement and then the ball was snapped. Looking at the replay the player went up talked to the ref and within 3 secs the ball was snapped.

It was not a gimmick play - which is within the rules - it was outside of the rules an illegal play. You can still call it smart and well done by Bellicheck but it was not legal......
 

LusciousJames

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
BlueTalon":2x4o2bzc said:
SeatownJay":2x4o2bzc said:
BlueTalon":2x4o2bzc said:
I have never seen a formation involving five linemen that wasn't a contiguous formation. In other words, there's never a gap between them occupied by an eligible receiver that I have seen. That's the crux of my question. Is that legal?

Yes; no requirement that the interior linemen have to line up together. (The disadvantage in this formation is that the ineligible player isn't close enough to the ball to protect the QB, can't catch any forward pass, & can't go past the line of scrimmage on a pass that crosses the line.)

The referee apparently announced this all three times it happened at least 7 seconds before the snap. The Pats had already substituted, so I don't think there's any requirement for the umpire to stand over the ball. Looks legal!
 
Top