|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 12:49:21 GMT -5
I didn't see the play before this happened. Do I understand correctly that Hoomanawanui was on the field as an ineligible receiver on the prior play? If Hoomanawanui was on the field on the prior play as an ineligible receiver and did not announce the change in eligibility (i.e. only Vereen announced ineligibility) then it is an illegal substitution. Each player who changes eligibility has to announce the change. However, if Hoomanawanui was on the field in the prior play as an ineligible receiver then he cannot become an eligible receiver on the subsequent play unless one or more conditions were met. I don't see that any condition was met permitting the change. Therefore, it is also an illegal substitution for that reason. See Rule 5(3)(1) and (2). However, regardless of Hoomanawanui's status on the prior play, when Vareen announced his ineligibility the referee, the officials had a duty not to allow the offense to snap the ball until the defense was given a chance to make and complete substitutions. See Rules 5(2)(10) ("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.") So even if the change in eligibility was not an illegal formation the officials failed, seemingly each time the Pats*** did this, to give the defense an appropriate amount of time to make substitutions. The NFL assertion that 6-8 seconds was sufficient is absurd. There's no way the decision to make substitutions and communicate them to the players on the field could even be made in 6-8 seconds. If the NFL really believes that is an appropriate length of time then that all but defeats the multiple rules that clearly states teams are not allowed to use substitutions to create confusion before a snap. It's an unsportsmanlike penalty. Well, at least it is according to the rules. I thoroughly expect that the officials will be instructed next year that they must give defenses more time. seems like your problem is with the NFL rules, not the Pats**. That's not what he saying at all. What he is saying is that the Pats* were not playing 'legal' football, even as per the rules. And harbaugh's allegation puts a point on this - in that he felt the refs were befuddled and were not understanding what was going on and had to walk on the field and take a foul to try and make them realize. C'mon - next you'll be saying that having A-Rod slap the ball out of the 1st baseman's glove is a nice baseball move:)
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 12:59:41 GMT -5
So the Silicon Valley douchebag 'guru' Tim Ferriss 'won' a kickboxing title in 1999. Here's a note about how:
"Ferriss has stated that, prior to his writing career, he won in the 165 lb. weight class at the 1999 USAWKF national Sanshou (Chinese kickboxing) championship[116][117][118] through a process of shoving opponents out of the ring[116] and by dramatically dehydrating himself before weigh in, and then rehydrating before the fight in order to compete several classes below his actual weight - a controversial practice known as "Weight cutting"."
Tim Ferris used his much heavier weight to not actual do any real Sanshou. He would just push opponents out of the ring until they were DQ'd. Not that ANYONE cares - but should we consider Ferriss a 'champion'?
And of course, people who are okay bending the rules are okay bending all of them:
"Ferriss has acknowledged using steroids, specifically "a number of low-dose therapies, including testosterone cypionate," under medical supervision following shoulder surgery, as well as using "stacks" consisting of testosterone enanthate, Sustanon 250, HGH, Deca-Durabolin, Cytomel, and other unnamed ingredients while training."
Another sterling Princeton graduate . . .
Maybe Belidick subscribes to his blog.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 13:00:41 GMT -5
the auto-correct thing is killing all the links:(
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jan 11, 2015 13:05:03 GMT -5
I didn't see the play before this happened. Do I understand correctly that Hoomanawanui was on the field as an ineligible receiver on the prior play? If Hoomanawanui was on the field on the prior play as an ineligible receiver and did not announce the change in eligibility (i.e. only Vereen announced ineligibility) then it is an illegal substitution. Each player who changes eligibility has to announce the change. However, if Hoomanawanui was on the field in the prior play as an ineligible receiver then he cannot become an eligible receiver on the subsequent play unless one or more conditions were met. I don't see that any condition was met permitting the change. Therefore, it is also an illegal substitution for that reason. See Rule 5(3)(1) and (2). However, regardless of Hoomanawanui's status on the prior play, when Vareen announced his ineligibility the referee, the officials had a duty not to allow the offense to snap the ball until the defense was given a chance to make and complete substitutions. See Rules 5(2)(10) ("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.") So even if the change in eligibility was not an illegal formation the officials failed, seemingly each time the Pats** did this, to give the defense an appropriate amount of time to make substitutions. The NFL assertion that 6-8 seconds was sufficient is absurd. There's no way the decision to make substitutions and communicate them to the players on the field could even be made in 6-8 seconds. If the NFL really believes that is an appropriate length of time then that all but defeats the multiple rules that clearly states teams are not allowed to use substitutions to create confusion before a snap. It's an unsportsmanlike penalty. Well, at least it is according to the rules. I thoroughly expect that the officials will be instructed next year that they must give defenses more time. seems like your problem is with the NFL rules, not the Pats*. The rules are what they are. I do not believe the officials did their job in enforcing them on these eligibility substitution plays but it also appears that NE intentionally made illegal substitutions and then ran around bragging about it after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 13:09:09 GMT -5
seems like your problem is with the NFL rules, not the Pats**. The rules are what they are. I do not believe the officials did their job in enforcing them on these eligibility substitution plays but it also appears that NE intentionally made illegal substitutions and then ran around bragging about it after the fact. NE made illegal subsitutions and put the onus on the refs to police and referee things they were not trained for or aware of. To be clear - there isn't much 'grey area' here and the play trades, rather, on essentially duping the refs. Which is PRECISELY what NE tried a few times with the spike-ball-before-defensive-subs thing where the ref had the balls to hold everyone at the line until the defense was set - with Brady barking in his face all the way to the sideline.
|
|
|
Post by suprjet on Jan 11, 2015 13:14:21 GMT -5
Don't worry though because the NFL will come up with a rule next year so this doesn't happen again, just like the tuck rule... Unreal
If you don't think this pattern doesn't prove the NFL is rigged I have a bridge to sell you. The Pats skirt the rules for over 10 years and NFL/Goddel continues to cover it up.
For another playoff game to come down to a controversial call is atrocious.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 13:21:59 GMT -5
Don't worry though because the NFL will come up with a rule next year so this doesn't happen again, just like the tuck rule... Unreal If you don't think this pattern doesn't prove the NFL is rigged I have a bridge to sell you. The Pats* skirt the rules for over 10 years and NFL/Goddel continues to cover it up. For another playoff game to come down to a controversial call is atrocious. Ya - I'd rather beat someone at football than at the rule book. But that's just me . . .
|
|
|
Post by gandwfan on Jan 11, 2015 13:42:32 GMT -5
Don't worry though because the NFL will come up with a rule next year so this doesn't happen again, just like the tuck rule... Unreal If you don't think this pattern doesn't prove the NFL is rigged I have a bridge to sell you. The Pats** skirt the rules for over 10 years and NFL/Goddel continues to cover it up. For another playoff game to come down to a controversial call is atrocious. Ya - I'd rather beat someone at football than at the rule book. But that's just me . . . +1 Well said. In a nutshell. I beleive the reason cheating is so prevalent with the Pats comes from Bill Belidick's background. His Dad was a scout at Annapolis. He was brought up in that environment. In the military, there are no "rules" for defeating an enemy. Everything is fair game. Unfortunately that does not translate that great to an actual sport. Gaining any advantage, no matter what rules are skirted, is OK on the actual battlefield. Not so in sports. Someone should tell Belechcik.
|
|
|
Post by adpz on Jan 11, 2015 13:47:30 GMT -5
Ya - I'd rather beat someone at football than at the rule book. But that's just me . . . +1 Well said. In a nutshell. I beleive the reason cheating is so prevalent with the Pats* comes from Bill Homeless Hoodie's background. His Dad was a scout at Annapolis. He was brought up in that environment. In the military, there are no "rules" for defeating an enemy. Everything is fair game. Unfortunately that does not translate that great to an actual sport. Gaining any advantage, no matter what rules are skirted, is OK on the actual battlefield. Not so in sports. Someone should tell Belechcik. That's a great point. Lots of great coaches and players - both past and current. None ever had this stench of rule-breaking and bending hanging around them - at least in the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by cleatmarks on Jan 11, 2015 14:07:28 GMT -5
There's another wrinkle to what they did that didn't even play out that shows you how well thought out this is.
So they had some guys split out wide. For instance, when Vereen was split out wide, he was declared ineligible as a receiver. The first adjustment that you might consider is to ignore him if he's split out wide and cover the other 5 receivers because he can't catch a pass...that would be a mistake too. What the Pats did was they had the ineligible receiver step back deeper than Brady like a bubble screen once the ball was snapped. If the Ravens didn't cover him, and left him out there on an island, they could lateral to him. Remember, you can lateral to anyone. If you leave the ineligible guy open, you lateral to the guy and he takes the ball.
I'm not saying the NFL won't put in the substitution rule like they did after the league whined about Manning substituting but if you're seeing this for the first time (everyone was), it's incredibly difficult to defend. You've got 5 guys eligible for a pass and another guy who can possibly take a lateral. Imagine if you have a qb who can run as well. As a football fan and former defensive guy, I'm completely impressed by its design and its difficulty in preparing for it. It's a nightmare.
I want to see if its used again, how it's defended, and if anyone else picks up on it (assuming they don't change the rules). It's probably the most interesting thing I've seen since the wildcat.
|
|
|
Post by rexneffect on Jan 11, 2015 14:27:18 GMT -5
There's another wrinkle to what they did that didn't even play out that shows you how well thought out this is. So they had some guys split out wide. For instance, when Vereen was split out wide, he was declared ineligible as a receiver. The first adjustment that you might consider is to ignore him if he's split out wide and cover the other 5 receivers because he can't catch a pass...that would be a mistake too. What the Pats* did was they had the ineligible receiver step back deeper than SparklePony like a bubble screen once the ball was snapped. If the Ravens didn't cover him, and left him out there on an island, they could lateral to him. Remember, you can lateral to anyone. If you leave the ineligible guy open, you lateral to the guy and he takes the ball. I'm not saying the NFL won't put in the substitution rule like they did after the league whined about Forehead substituting but if you're seeing this for the first time (everyone was), it's incredibly difficult to defend. You've got 5 guys eligible for a pass and another guy who can possibly take a lateral. Imagine if you have a qb who can run as well. As a football fan and former defensive guy, I'm completely impressed by its design and its difficulty in preparing for it. It's a nightmare. I want to see if its used again, how it's defended, and if anyone else picks up on it (assuming they don't change the rules). It's probably the most interesting thing I've seen since the wildcat. This is where I see a rule change to prohibit these kind of plays, such as a rule that prohibits ineligible receivers from being split out wide. Not because it turns the NFL into sort of an A11 type game but because it's going to create situations where the refs are going to have to make a lot of close calls on whether the lateral was a lateral or a forward pass. If the ball is even one degree forward of a parallel throw then it's a forward pass. It's going to result in a lot of disputed calls and challenges and that risks more negativity towards the NFL's officiating. Should this hang around for a season or two, like the wildcat, you'll see teams deploy defensive packages to neutralize it.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Jan 11, 2015 14:41:14 GMT -5
+1 Well said. In a nutshell. I beleive the reason cheating is so prevalent with the Pats** comes from Bill Homeless Hoodie's background. His Dad was a scout at Annapolis. He was brought up in that environment. In the military, there are no "rules" for defeating an enemy. Everything is fair game. Unfortunately that does not translate that great to an actual sport. Gaining any advantage, no matter what rules are skirted, is OK on the actual battlefield. Not so in sports. Someone should tell Belechcik. That's a great point. Lots of great coaches and players - both past and current. None ever had this stench of rule-breaking and bending hanging around them - at least in the NFL. You would think there'd be some kind of coaches/football code of conduct, unwritten "rules" that everyone plays by. I can't imagine how the rest of the league feels about Belidick and his ill gotten 'wins'.
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Jan 11, 2015 14:49:18 GMT -5
Very hard to find a bigger scumbag anywhere in the entire entertainment industry than that asshole.
|
|
|
Post by rangerous on Jan 11, 2015 14:49:24 GMT -5
There's another wrinkle to what they did that didn't even play out that shows you how well thought out this is. So they had some guys split out wide. For instance, when Vereen was split out wide, he was declared ineligible as a receiver. The first adjustment that you might consider is to ignore him if he's split out wide and cover the other 5 receivers because he can't catch a pass...that would be a mistake too. What the Pats** did was they had the ineligible receiver step back deeper than SparklePony like a bubble screen once the ball was snapped. If the Ravens didn't cover him, and left him out there on an island, they could lateral to him. Remember, you can lateral to anyone. If you leave the ineligible guy open, you lateral to the guy and he takes the ball. I'm not saying the NFL won't put in the substitution rule like they did after the league whined about Forehead substituting but if you're seeing this for the first time (everyone was), it's incredibly difficult to defend. You've got 5 guys eligible for a pass and another guy who can possibly take a lateral. Imagine if you have a qb who can run as well. As a football fan and former defensive guy, I'm completely impressed by its design and its difficulty in preparing for it. It's a nightmare. I want to see if its used again, how it's defended, and if anyone else picks up on it (assuming they don't change the rules). It's probably the most interesting thing I've seen since the wildcat. This is where I see a rule change to prohibit these kind of plays, such as a rule that prohibits ineligible receivers from being split out wide. Not because it turns the NFL into sort of an A11 type game but because it's going to create situations where the refs are going to have to make a lot of close calls on whether the lateral was a lateral or a forward pass. If the ball is even one degree forward of a parallel throw then it's a forward pass. It's going to result in a lot of disputed calls and challenges and that risks more negativity towards the NFL's officiating. Should this hang around for a season or two, like the wildcat, you'll see teams deploy defensive packages to neutralize it. other teams can use it. the issue i see is the game is already so biased for the offense plays like this shouldn't be needed. and if there was one issue it's that the patsies were not giving the ravens time to adjust to the formation. if the ravens had better corners maybe it doesn't work so well either.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jan 11, 2015 15:04:59 GMT -5
seems like your problem is with the NFL rules, not the Pats**. The rules are what they are. I do not believe the officials did their job in enforcing them on these eligibility substitution plays but it also appears that NE intentionally made illegal substitutions and then ran around bragging about it after the fact. I would have to disagree on the word "substitutions", they merely changed the designations. If the Ravens can't react in the time allowed by the rules, that's on them.
|
|