It would have been 3rd and 7 without that call. Yes bad call but there were other bad calls both ways and it was hardly game changing. Enough already.
When the offense substitutes, the officials hold up the snap until the defense has had a chance to match up. So long as defensive players are running on/off, the snap will be held up. Usually the snap will be held up for in a like-for-like manner, so if the offense makes one late sub the defense will be given 3 seconds or so to run one guy on/off.I don't understand the rule rrhatding the delay of game on the punt attempt after the offense subbed out. KC had 12 men on the field as well.
It did make me wonder if Reid had planned for this, and told his team to make an APPARENT effort to change, but not to rush. Flip the tables on that Pat strategy.When the offense substitutes, the officials hold up the snap until the defense has had a chance to match up. So long as defensive players are running on/off, the snap will be held up. Usually the snap will be held up for in a like-for-like manner, so if the offense makes one late sub the defense will be given 3 seconds or so to run one guy on/off.
With the punt play, the Patriots ran the entire team off the field. So KC is allotted the time required to run the entire 11 off and get 11 fresh guys on. If the play clock expires while the snap is being held, too bad, the offense should have started their substitutions earlier.
12 men on defense is not a foul so long as the 12th player is attempting to get off (at least not until the snap). It is a dead ball foul if there are 12+ in formation for several seconds with nobody attempting to get off the field.
Is this really the rule? That if the clock expires....sucks to be you? Thats shocking to me. I can see maybe stopping the clock at 5 seconds or something and restarting it as soon as the Defense is set. Especially considering the pats where at the line and ready. But as Saints Rest pointed out the Pats (or any well trained team) potentially gets screwed by a team who (could be/) is confused and unprepared (or cunningly prepared...).With the punt play, the Patriots ran the entire team off the field. So KC is allotted the time required to run the entire 11 off and get 11 fresh guys on. If the play clock expires while the snap is being held, too bad, the offense should have started their substitutions earlier.
As far as I can tell, there's not really any other fair way to write it. If you stop the play clock, the offense could just send in a late sub in order to get more time when they are about to take a delay of game. If you don't stop the offense from snapping after a late sub, then the defense has no ability to match substitutions. The offense could rotate in fresh players to quick snap while the defense gets no similar opportunity to rest.Is this really the rule? That if the clock expires....sucks to be you? Thats shocking to me. I can see maybe stopping the clock at 5 seconds or something and restarting it as soon as the Defense is set. Especially considering the pats where at the line and ready. But as Saints Rest pointed out the Pats (or any well trained team) potentially gets screwed by a team who (could be/) is confused and unprepared (or cunningly prepared...).
Happens all the time. Defensive coaches will tell their players to slow up if the offense subs late. When the rule first came out college teams would try to get away with 15-20 second defensive substitutions.It did make me wonder if Reid had planned for this, and told his team to make an APPARENT effort to change, but not to rush. Flip the tables on that Pat strategy.
Good Catch but you could then just say if they do that its an illegal sub penalty.If you stop the play clock, the offense could just send in a late sub in order to get more time
That's only sort of true, though. The defense has the ability to slow down guys getting off (which in fact was clearly the case in the Pats-Chiefs game) and cause a penalty not because the offense waited too long, but because the defense did not hustle off. In other words, "equitable" does not mean "as long as it takes the defense"As far as I can tell, there's not really any other fair way to write it. If you stop the play clock, the offense could just send in a late sub in order to get more time when they are about to take a delay of game. If you don't stop the offense from snapping after a late sub, then the defense has no ability to match substitutions. The offense could rotate in fresh players to quick snap while the defense gets no similar opportunity to rest.
The current rule makes substitutions equitable, but with the caveat that if you sub late you are at risk for taking a delay. You have 40 seconds, there is no conceivable, non-deceptive reason why you couldn't figure out who to sub for in the first 20-25 seconds.
Shhhh@CFB_Rules - What would be the ruling on this....
Fourth down. Pats offense on the field. 14 seconds on the play clock. Their whole unit then begins to sprint off the field. In response, the defense begins to sprint off the field too. But....none of the Patriots' players *actually* leave the field. And as the defense has a mish-mash of personnel on the field, the Pats' offense sprints back to the line of scrimmage.
Would the official hold up the snap until the defense could get their correct personnel on the field if NONE of the Pats' players actually left the field of play? Let's assume the D cannot call time out (say they have none left or whatever).
Thanks, and that is fair---though I think it points up the problem with "reasonable" as the standard, really. As you watch the replay do you think the referee is waiting for D to get on field and get set, or for the extra guy to get off? The former would be reasonable (though to my eyes, he waited after that to step away, and that's the error here); I'd say the latter would not be reasonable in my mindSo I went and looked at the play. The first Patriot sub steps onto the field with 14 seconds left on the play clock. The officials recognize the substitution and start holding up the snap with 11 seconds remaining. The Umpire steps away from the ball with 2 seconds left. Giving the defense 12 seconds to sub the entire unit off the field and get the return team in the correct position doesn't feel unreasonable.
The general guideline is the defense is allowed time for a substitute to physically run to the player being replaced, notify him of the replacement, and have the replaced player run off the field. Personnel grouping may change based on how the offense is substituting, so different players may need to stay on or off. The last chiefs player hustles off almost as soon as his replacement gets there, I really don't see any undue delay at all by the defense. Fact is running a substitute on with 14 seconds is like running a play inbounds with 14 seconds left. You might get to snap, but there's no guarantee and much of it is out of your control.Thanks, and that is fair---though I think it points up the problem with "reasonable" as the standard, really. As you watch the replay do you think the referee is waiting for D to get on field and get set, or for the extra guy to get off? The former would be reasonable (though to my eyes, he waited after that to step away, and that's the error here); I'd say the latter would not be reasonable in my mind
It’s not a substitution. So I vote NO.@CFB_Rules - What would be the ruling on this....
Fourth down. Pats offense on the field. 14 seconds on the play clock. Their whole unit then begins to sprint off the field. In response, the defense begins to sprint off the field too. But....none of the Patriots' players *actually* leave the field. And as the defense has a mish-mash of personnel on the field, the Pats' offense sprints back to the line of scrimmage.
Would the official hold up the snap until the defense could get their correct personnel on the field if NONE of the Pats' players actually left the field of play? Let's assume the D cannot call time out (say they have none left or whatever).
I don't know the answer but this is exactly what he Colts did on that hilarious "trick play" that blew up in their faces.@CFB_Rules - What would be the ruling on this....
Fourth down. Pats offense on the field. 14 seconds on the play clock. Their whole unit then begins to sprint off the field. In response, the defense begins to sprint off the field too. But....none of the Patriots' players *actually* leave the field. And as the defense has a mish-mash of personnel on the field, the Pats' offense sprints back to the line of scrimmage.
Would the official hold up the snap until the defense could get their correct personnel on the field if NONE of the Pats' players actually left the field of play? Let's assume the D cannot call time out (say they have none left or whatever).
Yessir.... Also, I totally posted this in the wrong tread... Oops.St. Louis. Whatever dome. Wembley Gillette superdome. Atlanta Benz dome. Foxborough
It would appear that way, yes. However, that is not what they were trying to do. Many teams, from youth through high school and college run this play called the swinging gate. It is designed mostly to catch the defense completely unprepared. A lot of times they don’t even run a play after they get into the formation. However, there are actually a bunch of plays that can be run out of this formation, so the defense has to be prepared for anything. When I was coaching HS ball, there was a team in our conference that ran this pretty much every game. We just had to be ready.I don't know the answer but this is exactly what he Colts did on that hilarious "trick play" that blew up in their faces.
The Colts punter told the whole story on his Barstool podcast (it's also on YouTube). The only goal of that play was to get too many men on the field. They were never supposed to snap unless the Pats were caught. But the snapper got hurt and his replacement went by what was in the playbook which explained differently.It would appear that way, yes. However, that is not what they were trying to do. Many teams, from youth through high school and college run this play called the swinging gate. It is designed mostly to catch the defense completely unprepared. A lot of times they don’t even run a play after they get into the formation. However, there are actually a bunch of plays that can be run out of this formation, so the defense has to be prepared for anything. When I was coaching HS ball, there was a team in our conference that ran this pretty much every game. We just had to be ready.
That clip of McAfee explaining it is hysterical. In addition to what you said, Pagano told the kid who was going to receive the snap to give a hard count. He told him this as he was running onto the field. And, he's the only one he told this to.The Colts punter told the whole story on his Barstool podcast (it's also on YouTube). The only goal of that play was to get too many men on the field. They were never supposed to snap unless the Pats were caught. But the snapper got hurt and his replacement went by what was in the playbook which explained differently.
It was a perfect storm of events, but there was no play there.
That was incredible, thanks. Great to start the morning with a huge laugh.That clip of McAfee explaining it is hysterical. In addition to what you said, Pagano told the kid who was going to receive the snap to give a hard count. He told him this as he was running onto the field. And, he's the only one he told this to.
I was always wondering why the up man wasn't counting how many defenders were on the field and if he counted 12 (as the announcers claimed there were) to just snap the ball the second the umpire allowed it and get the free 1st down. 2 seconds is plenty of time to get a snap off assuming your only goal is a too many men penalty.So I went and looked at the play. The first Patriot sub steps onto the field with 14 seconds left on the play clock. The officials recognize the substitution and start holding up the snap with 11 seconds remaining. The Umpire steps away from the ball with 2 seconds left. Giving the defense 12 seconds to sub the entire unit off the field and get the return team in the correct position doesn't feel unreasonable.
Amazing story telling, had never heard this full recap of the story. Funny stuff.That clip of McAfee explaining it is hysterical. In addition to what you said, Pagano told the kid who was going to receive the snap to give a hard count. He told him this as he was running onto the field. And, he's the only one he told this to.
There is a risk of a bad snap, and there is no guarantee that the officials notice the extra defender, or decide to call it even if they do see it.I was always wondering why the up man wasn't counting how many defenders were on the field and if he counted 12 (as the announcers claimed there were) to just snap the ball the second the umpire allowed it and get the free 1st down. 2 seconds is plenty of time to get a snap off assuming your only goal is a too many men penalty.
You can challenge too many men though so if they were certain, (perhaps they weren't, never saw a clear replay), then they should have snapped it.There is a risk of a bad snap, and there is no guarantee that the officials notice the extra defender, or decide to call it even if they do see it.
It's one of those plays were if Plan A doesn't work, Plan B is to simply punt or delay of game.
You can challenge 12 men on the field though.There is a risk of a bad snap, and there is no guarantee that the officials notice the extra defender, or decide to call it even if they do see it.
It's one of those plays were if Plan A doesn't work, Plan B is to simply punt or delay of game.
Not according to this: https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/health/laser-pointer-airplane-pilot-vision-study/index.htmlI'm actually glad the NFL is trying to get the local DA to throw the book at the guy. People get multiple years in prison for shining laser pointers at airplane and helicopter cockpits, and not infrequently give pilots permanent eye damage.
However they do say that green lasers are more dangerous than red, so fuck that guy.Those laser pointers people aim at planes flying overhead can't permanently damage a pilot's vision, according to a medical study published Tuesday, casting doubt on government advisories to the contrary.
While green lasers are unlikely to permanently damage a pilot's eyesight due to the distances involved, they can still disrupt a pilot's vision at a critical time during landing. And they are still not something to screw around with inside a football stadium.Not according to this: https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/health/laser-pointer-airplane-pilot-vision-study/index.html
However they do say that green lasers are more dangerous than red, so fuck that guy.
And now he is in legal trouble – a 64 year old dude:
Caught the idiot with the laser pointer and he has been banned from Arrowhead Stadium.
In that part of the country...rural Missouri, they are most likely all related.And now he is in legal trouble – a 64 year old dude:
Relatedly, I searched the name “dwyan morgan” on FB as sometimes you can get a flavor for what that person is like. Not sure if it’s him but there are multiple FB accounts of what look to be the same dude who lives in that part of the country. Which is weird.