Completely legal substitution aka the "John Harbaugh is a whiny little brat" thread.

[Reverend]

Besides giving the defense more time or allowing for substitutions, the other conceivable rule change I could see would be to mandate the standard 5-man offensive line be used in every formation.  This would be more drastic, but under it the game of football could still be played and be recognizable as such.  It would make me sad though.  I like "trick" plays where a team does something legal but unusual.

 
To clarify, the refs already are supposed to delay the snap after substitutions until the other team has an opportunity to sub by having the umpire stand over the ball.
 

Rule 5, Section 2, Article 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. 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). If, in the
judgment of the officials, 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.

 
Here's the kicker though:
 

Note: The quick-snap rule does not apply after the two-minute warning of either half, or if there is not a substitution by the offense. 
 

 

One the first time, Pats didn't snap until 5 seconds on the play clock, so it's a non-issue. They subbed before the 2nd time when they snapped with 25 on the play clock, though there was a penalty on the play before that and I'm not sure when the ineligible receiver was announced so I dunno if the Ravens were given enough time. On the 3rd time, they snapped with 16 to go and people say that there was about 8-10 seconds between that and the announcement. Is that enough time? I dunno--but if the Ravens didn't decide to sub in response to the announcement, then the umpire would have no reason to delay the play.
 
The key here is that maybe Harbaugh should have subbed, but didn't know to. Sounds like he wanted more time to figure out, but there's nothing for that in the rules.
 

So for subs, there is already a rule in place that is adequate. If the problem is having time for a HC to figure out if he wants to sub, that gets more complicated. I suppose they could allow for a certain amount of time for a coach to decide after delcared eligibility shifts. Because the rule book needs to be longer.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

One of my favorite aspects of this ridiculousness - according to Bruschi, Fauria and other former players - is that when a D is faced with a formation they don't recognize there's a basic, conservative defensive posture they audible to and put themselves in. When Belichick was asked on WEEI if his team has this sort of contingency built in (and drilled in) he just said, with a not exactly subtle, plausibly deniable sigh, "Of COURSE."

 

[Reverend]

 
Harbaugh's point wasn't ultimately about substitution for him, it was about knowing who the eligible receiver was and having time to determine how to defend that receiver.     Given that people have timed it and he had 6-10 seconds, this isn't all that persuasive relative to the time available during a hurry-up....but I do see why he was frustrated.

 
If he wanted to sub and wasn't given time, he has a complaint. If he wanted time to figure out if he wanted to sub, then under the rules, I don't think he does.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
If he wanted to sub and wasn't given time, he has a complaint. If he wanted time to figure out if he wanted to sub, then under the rules, I don't think he does.

 
My guess is that in real-time it was the latter and then after the game he decided to say it was the former.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
If he wanted to sub and wasn't given time, he has a complaint. If he wanted time to figure out if he wanted to sub, then under the rules, I don't think he does.

 
I was just noting his actual objection (which wasn't quite about either of those...but rather about notification of eligibility).   As I've said many times since the game ended, I don't think he has a valid complaint either.

 

[wutang112878]

 
Harbaugh's point wasn't ultimately about substitution for him, it was about knowing who the eligible receiver was and having time to determine how to defend that receiver.     Given that people have timed it and he had 6-10 seconds, this isn't all that persuasive relative to the time available during a hurry-up....but I do see why he was frustrated.

 
But the rules dont afford him that time.  If we go to an unique formation, Johnny isnt entitled to 10 seconds to figure out how to cover it.  Sure it sucks for defenses but thats just life in the NFL right now.  Its not that complicated of a situation to deal with in actuality, it just forces you to switch into a vanilla defense you probably dont like.  You probably have to rush 4 with either a simple zone or in man you cover the 6 you think are eligible and that still leaves you with 1 safety deep.

 

[wutang112878]

 
If he wanted to sub and wasn't given time, he has a complaint. If he wanted time to figure out if he wanted to sub, then under the rules, I don't think he does.

 
The refs arent obligated to give him that opportunity if the offense isnt huddling.  The refs are obligated to allow the defense to sub if the offense to sub, but if the defense doesnt take a timeout they dont have to stop play to let them sub.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
But the rules dont afford him that time.  If we go to an unique formation, Johnny isnt entitled to 10 seconds to figure out how to cover it.  Sure it sucks for defenses but thats just life in the NFL right now.  Its not that complicated of a situation to deal with in actuality, it just forces you to switch into a vanilla defense you probably dont like.  You probably have to rush 4 with either a simple zone or in man you cover the 6 you think are eligible and that still leaves you with 1 safety deep.

 
I'm just noting what he actually said, which is a claim I do not think is a claim supported by the rules either.  All of this has been said many times before in this thread and others discussing the situation.

 

[Reverend]

The refs arent obligated to give him that opportunity if the offense isnt huddling.  The refs are obligated to allow the defense to sub if the offense to sub, but if the defense doesnt take a timeout they dont have to stop play to let them sub.

I like the way I said it better. /Jim Morrison

 

[wutang112878]

 
I'm just noting what he actually said, which is a claim I do not think is a claim supported by the rules either.  All of this has been said many times before in this thread and others discussing the situation.

 
My bad.
 
 

One of my favorite aspects of this ridiculousness - according to Bruschi, Fauria and other former players - is that when a D is faced with a formation they don't recognize there's a basic, conservative defensive posture they audible to and put themselves in. When Belichick was asked on WEEI if his team has this sort of contingency built in (and drilled in) he just said, with a not exactly subtle, plausibly deniable sigh, "Of COURSE."

 
After the game this is one of the things I was thinking of because I figured the Ravens would have done this.  During his chat before the game Tedy touched on this:
 

 
Scott (Charlotte, NC)
 
Tedy, would love your take on two things:1) The O Line has to play well and the Offensive game plan has to be creative in terms of where to attack the Ravens and with I hope a wide variance of tempo.2) Stop the run on D, put Steve Smith on Revis Island, Arrington with lots of help on Torrey Smith over the top from McCourty and Browner on Daniels. (unless Arrington can cover Daniels then use Browner to pound T Smith at the line to help inhibit his ability to get free deep.
Tedy  (11:36 AM)
 
You have a lot of good points here, Scott. One thing I want to address is tempo. Sometimes in that hurry-up tempo, the Patriots will use one word, or a series of short phrases, to get their offense lined up quickly to keep the defense off balance. The Baltimore Ravens know how to deal with this tempo. I've been coached by Bill Belichick in dealing with this tempo, and a coach that helped me in that area was Dean Pees, now the Ravens defensive coordinator. So this Ravens defense will be ready for that. They will have their own short phrases or single words that can line up an entire defense. Ever since training camp, playing defense against good tempo is covered by good coaches -- like Belichick, Pees, Patricia. For example, the color white. If you hear that, it's a primary color, and primary colors can mean even fronts. The color white can mean man or zone based on how you want to interpret it. So if a linebacker communicates "white" to a front, it can easily mean "even front, man coverage in the back." So instead of having to say "even! even!" to the front, making line calls -- you have one color and everyone knows what they are doing. Another key thing is this: When you know they're in hurry-up, you don't match in coverage; you play sides, left and right. These nuances are things Dean Pees knows. I remember hurry-up run plays against Baltimore that were stopped in the past matchups. What I'm saying is that they will be ready for tempo.

 
 
Which makes me think this might have really been a battle of chess going on.  The Pats might know what the Ravens base sets are, or what Pees always uses as these sets, and they might know that the only 5 of the 6 are eligible thing would completely screw them up if say 4 of those receivers were on the same side of the field.  
 
It actually reminded me of the Josh McDaniels 'Wild Horses' defense that he used against the Pats because conceptually it was the same: force defense to check to known audible and then exploit the known weakness of the audible.
 

1. Hold your "Wild Horses": Josh McDaniels' knowledge of the Patriots' defense was clearly the difference in this game. His plan to take away the aggressiveness of defenders by making them think and adjust to multiple offensive formations was brilliantly executed. The "Wild Horses" formation used by the Broncos put the Patriots' defense in the same audible they would call versus the Wildcat formation used by the Miami Dolphins. Whatever defense is called in the huddle is trumped by the audible that is called by the signal-callers of the defense once the Wild Horses formation is recognized. The problem with this adjustment occurred when Kyle Orton motioned back to the quarterback position from the receiver position and ran traditional plays. Once it recognizes that the offense is in a traditional set, the defense must go back to the original defense called. Recognizing and adjusting to those gadget offensive formations is one thing, but getting back to the original defense called is one of the most difficult checks a defensive signal-caller has to make. So difficult, in fact, that the Patriots burned three timeouts during the game to settle themselves down -- two in the first quarter and one in overtime. The result was that the Patriots played on their heels most of the game in vanilla zone coverages that the Broncos' offense had no problems recognizing and executing against.
 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Besides giving the defense more time or allowing for substitutions, the other conceivable rule change I could see would be to mandate the standard 5-man offensive line be used in every formation.  This would be more drastic, but under it the game of football could still be played and be recognizable as such.  It would make me sad though.  I like "trick" plays where a team does something legal but unusual.

 
Ahhh, the "Cafardo Gambit"!  I like it!

 

[soxfan121]

FC should be putting something out on it that goes over just how successful the whole sequence in the drive was.

 
Indeed, thanks for the teaser. New author looks at the entire sequence: 
http://soshcentral.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs/2015/01/14/reporting-ineligible-appreciation/
 

 

In truth, all three of the plays proved successful, accounting for 46 of the Patriots 80 yards on the critical scoring drive. The results rested far more on subtlety and creative trickeration than has generally been explored. Specifically:

1. They employed two different versions of declared ineligible players, while targeting the same spot on the field.
2. To increase the deception, all three had running back Shane Vereen play-acting as a decoy.

For all the controversy sparked by those who don’t know the rules and how they apply to the formation, the strategy has actually perhaps been under-appreciated, with the whole sequence worthy of a deeper look.
 

 

[loshjott]

Harbaugh will be coaching the AFC in the Pro Bowl so I look forward to seeing a few of these plays, and hearing Jason Garrett whine about it later.

 

[Stitch01]

I think they actually ran four plays.  Hooman reported ineligible on the 11 yard pass to Edelman, second receiver in from the right.

 

[DJnVa]

 
If he wanted to sub and wasn't given time, he has a complaint. If he wanted time to figure out if he wanted to sub, then under the rules, I don't think he does.

 
 
But unless Vereen (or Hooman, or whoever it was on the particular play) ran directly from sidelines, to ref, to lineup, then Harbaugh should shut up. He doesn't get to watch subs come in, huddle, then lineup and then decide to sub.
 
The process is:
 
1--Offense subs
 
DEFENSE GETS CHANCE TO SUB-"Hey look, Vereen is coming in...and they took off an OL. WTF is Belichick doing? Maybe we should bring in our base defense until we see what they're doing."
 
2--Huddle
 
3--Break huddle, player alerts ref
 
4--Player lines up.
 
Harbaugh wanted the chance to sub after #4. He doesn't get that, and at this point, neither NE nor the ref is under any obligation to give the defense time to adjust to the formation. Did defense get the chance to sub when some offense ran the wildcat?
 
Harbaugh was embarrassed, that's the bottom line.

 

[lexrageorge]

The last post is 100% correct.  The NFL rulebook is very clear:  the defense gets time to adjust to offensive substitutions.  There is no rule that states the D gets extra time to adjust to the offensive line formation or the announcement of eligible or ineligible players.  

 

[wutang112878]

 
Indeed, thanks for the teaser. New author looks at the entire sequence: 
http://soshcentral.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs/2015/01/14/reporting-ineligible-appreciation/
 
 
 

 
First off, awesome break down.  
 
I'm no football savant, but it seems to me they were playing a Cover 2 because on the play to Hooman it looks like 41 (not sure if thats his number) is back pedaling.  Were the [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]Ravens in zone on those plays?  I'm curious because I wonder if the Pats knew the default 'we dont know what to do' defense for Pees was Cover 2 so not only did they want to do this to confuse them, but they also figured they would be an extra step ahead because they knew the coverage they would be in.[/SIZE]

 

[soxfan121]

 
First off, awesome break down.  
 
I'm no football savant, but it seems to me they were playing a Cover 2 because on the play to Hooman it looks like 41 (not sure if thats his number) is back pedaling.  Were the [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]Ravens in zone on those plays?  I'm curious because I wonder if the Pats knew the default 'we dont know what to do' defense for Pees was Cover 2 so not only did they want to do this to confuse them, but they also figured they would be an extra step ahead because they knew the coverage they would be in.[/SIZE]

 
Yeah, they are definitely in some sort of zone (I rely on SuperNomario to tell me which one) because if you watch Mosley ("covering" Vereen) he goes out there and then sort of stops because he's supposed to either watch Vereen into the flat OR rush...and he can do neither with Vereen sprinting into the backfield.

 

[Harry Hooper]

The ineligible Vereen waving for the ball is akin to a baserunner who has already been put out continuing to round the bases (and confusing the fielders).

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
 
But unless Vereen (or Hooman, or whoever it was on the particular play) ran directly from sidelines, to ref, to lineup, then Harbaugh should shut up. He doesn't get to watch subs come in, huddle, then lineup and then decide to sub.
 
The process is:
 
1--Offense subs
 
DEFENSE GETS CHANCE TO SUB-"Hey look, Vereen is coming in...and they took off an OL. WTF is Belichick doing? Maybe we should bring in our base defense until we see what they're doing."
 
2--Huddle
 
3--Break huddle, player alerts ref
 
4--Player lines up.
 
Harbaugh wanted the chance to sub after #4. He doesn't get that, and at this point, neither NE nor the ref is under any obligation to give the defense time to adjust to the formation. Did defense get the chance to sub when some offense ran the wildcat?
 
Harbaugh was embarrassed, that's the bottom line.

 
Did Harbaugh actually say he wanted a chance to substitute at that point, rather than a chance to identify who was eligible?    I have not seen this.

 

[Super Nomario]

An actual example of exploiting a loophole (and I liked it even though I hated the circumstances) would be putting 12 men on the field in a situation where giving up five yards basically had zero deterrent value.  This is simply playing football.

Why stop at 12? Rex and Rob's dad is a smart dude:

 

 
This brings up something I must be too stupid to understand. ... Why did they use those plays in the first place? I know they said "we thought it was something that would work," and normally that would be enough.
 
But they were moving the ball pretty well as it was. Were those three plays really that necessary in those circumstances?

It was a pretty desperate situation, down 14 in a playoff game where you really have to score that drive. I am curious as to how long this has been cooking; was it something they thought Baltimore would be specifically susceptible to, or just something they were keeping in their back pocket in case of emergency?
 
One thought I have is that Steve Maneri, though he wasn't active for the game, would be the perfect player to use in the Hoomanawanui "LT" role. He's big enough (6'6" 275) that teams actually tried converting him to OT his first couple seasons in the league. He signed before Week 16; perhaps that is not unrelated to the introduction of this package.
 

 
Harbaugh's point wasn't ultimately about substitution for him, it was about knowing who the eligible receiver was and having time to determine how to defend that receiver.     Given that people have timed it and he had 6-10 seconds, this isn't all that persuasive relative to the time available during a hurry-up....but I do see why he was frustrated.

While the refs call out the eligible receiver on a tackle-eligible play (someone who normally would not require attention who does as a result), on these plays, the refs were calling out the ineligible player, someone that didn't need attention. The defense then has to take the extra step of figuring out who is the unexpectedly-eligible guy. That's basically the crux of the deception. I certainly don't think the Patriots did anything wrong here, but I can see why the Ravens feel like it wasn't in the spirit of how eligibility / ineligibility is normally announced, which is presumably to eliminate this particular kind of deception.
 

One of my favorite aspects of this ridiculousness - according to Bruschi, Fauria and other former players - is that when a D is faced with a formation they don't recognize there's a basic, conservative defensive posture they audible to and put themselves in. When Belichick was asked on WEEI if his team has this sort of contingency built in (and drilled in) he just said, with a not exactly subtle, plausibly deniable sigh, "Of COURSE."

Usually that's a conservative zone look, but I think the Patriots had designed the play to beat that sort of zone. On the second play, Gronkowski (as the "LT") was accounted for, but the zone was overloaded so covering Gronk left Edelman open. A basic Cover 2 or whatever is only going to shut down this play if they've correctly identified who's eligible and thus how the underneath zone defenders should be distributed, which didn't happen here.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Did Harbaugh actually say he wanted a chance to substitute at that point, rather than a chance to identify who was eligible?    I have not seen this.

 
I'm not sure what more Harbaugh could ask for than the official pointing at Vereen.
 

 

[tims4wins]

While the refs call out the eligible receiver on a tackle-eligible play (someone who normally would not require attention who does as a result), on these plays, the refs were calling out the ineligible player, someone that didn't need attention. The defense then has to take the extra step of figuring out who is the unexpectedly-eligible guy. That's basically the crux of the deception. I certainly don't think the Patriots did anything wrong here, but I can see why the Ravens feel like it wasn't in the spirit of how eligibility / ineligibility is normally announced, which is presumably to eliminate this particular kind of deception.

 
They didn't need to figure out who was "unexpectedly eligible" though. It wasn't like the Pats had the traditional 5 OL on the field and one of them was suddenly eligible and they had to figure out who. The Pats had 4 OL, a QB, and 6 skill players on the field, and one of the 6 was declared ineligible; by default the other 5 are all eligible. This isn't rocket science. What was there to figure out?

 

[Super Nomario]

 
They didn't need to figure out who was "unexpectedly eligible" though. It wasn't like the Pats had the traditional 5 OL on the field and one of them was suddenly eligible and they had to figure out who. The Pats had 4 OL, a QB, and 6 skill players on the field, and one of the 6 was declared ineligible; by default the other 5 are all eligible. This isn't rocket science. What was there to figure out?

That's easy to say now that the play has been broken down and people know what to look for, but it was obviously more confusing at the time. And I say "obviously" because it fooled the Ravens, and also because the Patriots wouldn't have run it if they thought it didn't have at least a decent chance of fooling the Ravens.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
 
While the refs call out the eligible receiver on a tackle-eligible play (someone who normally would not require attention who does as a result), on these plays, the refs were calling out the ineligible player, someone that didn't need attention. The defense then has to take the extra step of figuring out who is the unexpectedly-eligible guy. That's basically the crux of the deception. I certainly don't think the Patriots did anything wrong here, but I can see why the Ravens feel like it wasn't in the spirit of how eligibility / ineligibility is normally announced, which is presumably to eliminate this particular kind of deception.

 
That's the precise point I've been making---it is not actually a complaint about 'substitutions' in the sense several are suggesting it is about eligibility to go into a pass pattern (post-substitution, in some cases).   People have, I think, gotten confused by Harbaugh calling it a 'substitution trick' but even when he said that, his next sentence clarified that the issue was about time to adjust post-substitution.

For those asking 'what did he want' it is, as SN notes, time to adjust the same way the rules allow time to adjust during a hurry-up offense.   And since there is not a specifically comparable rule here, he is out of luck here!

 

[tims4wins]

That's easy to say now that the play has been broken down and people know what to look for, but it was obviously more confusing at the time. And I say "obviously" because it fooled the Ravens, and also because the Patriots wouldn't have run it if they thought it didn't have at least a decent chance of fooling the Ravens.

 
Right, I completely agree, but that is the genius of it - the Ravens had no clue what was going on, but when broken down on film it is all so simple, which gives the Ravens basically no ground whatsoever to stand on. Ref says 34 ineligible, you don't pay attention to him, and suddenly the defense has an advantage.
 
As Reiss pointed out earlier this week, the Lions tried this against the Vikings, and it led to a sack. Hmm.
 
Edit: perhaps someone with Game Rewind could find this on the All 22 and post???

 

[wutang112878]

I'm sure it wasnt easy on the first play, but after that?  I mean they see the 6 skills guys, one is ineligible so they know they need to cover 6.  The confusing part was probably this:
 
 

 
Yeah, they are definitely in some sort of zone (I rely on SuperNomario to tell me which one) because if you watch Mosley ("covering" Vereen) he goes out there and then sort of stops because he's supposed to either watch Vereen into the flat OR rush...and he can do neither with Vereen sprinting into the backfield.

 
They probably still thought they needed to account for that ineligible in case he got a lateral which could effectively allow them to run a screen.  I guess its not as simple as 'just dont cover Vereen' and maybe thats another step they could take.  Run the 6 skill but only 5 eligible but run a screen by throwing a lateral to the ineligible, the defense would really have to be on their toes to deal with that.

 

[wutang112878]

 
As Reiss pointed out earlier this week, the Lions tried this against the Vikings, and it led to a sack. Hmm.

 
Have the Eagles run something similar?  I swear I saw a formation where they only had 4 offensive lineman

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Did Harbaugh actually say he wanted a chance to substitute at that point, rather than a chance to identify who was eligible?    I have not seen this.

 
No Harbaugh did not say anything about substitutions.  What he has said is this (bold added):
 

“My thoughts are the same as they were during the game and after the game. It was about the mechanics of the officiating,” Harbaugh said. “I never had an issue with the formation. I never even brought that up. It wasn’t even about the formation at all."
 
* * * *
“I had a chance to talk to [head referee] Bill Vinovich during the game, and he addressed it. And he said that was right,” Harbaugh said. “There’s a certain timing that goes with that, in terms of the referee getting back in position to referee the game. The ball was being snapped so quickly that he didn’t have a chance to do that. Plus, the other interesting thing is that the signal for an eligible receiver and an ineligible receiver is the same. So it’s a little difficult to determine what the officials actually signal in the heat of battle when it’s done that quickly.
 
“Bill was great about it, and he said he would slow it down. I think he went over and told their sideline the same thing, and we didn’t see it after that.”

 

 
I'm not sure what more Harbaugh could ask for than the official pointing at Vereen.
 

 
I haven't had a chance to look at the FC article yet but my memory is that the Ravens at least covered the ineligible receiver and left the TE wide open.  (In fairness, the Ravens left a lot of receivers wide open during the game so it wasn't that unusual to me.)
 
I think the issue is that in a screaming loud stadium, getting the information on eligible/ineligible to everyone on the defensive secondary across the field was challenging in that context. 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
Have the Eagles run something similar?  I swear I saw a formation where they only had 4 offensive lineman

 

 
They had 5, but split two of them out wide.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Eagles ran vs Redskins earlier this year.
 
At the most simple level, like any play, it works because it creates uncertainty which delays the defensive response---the mechamism for creating that uncertainty here is just novel and more complex than most plays.   Pats likely suspected (or knew, from film and knowledge of Pees) that Ravens weren't likely to fall back into a safe zone, and certainly after this didn't happen on the first play were going to push until Ravens figured that out.
 
The right defensive play, as has been noted, is likely to call a 'safe zone' for pass defense and take advantage of the lack of lineman in the pass rush.  If Pats use it again (which would surprise me a little, because teams will be ready for it now) I'd imagine they'll have to add an additional twist to again make execution a surprise---perhaps it's a lateral to the ineligible player, but more likely it's a whole different setup.

 

[tims4wins]

Research request: can someone with all 22 access find the play in the Detroit-Vikings game in week 6 where Detroit ran something similar to the Pats and it resulted in a sack?
 
Here are the Minnesota sacks that game:
2nd quarter, 4:16 remaining
3rd quarter, 8:59 remaining
3rd quarter, 7:36 remaining
4th quarter, 14:19 remaining

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The right defensive play, as has been noted, is likely to call a 'safe zone' for pass defense and take advantage of the lack of lineman in the pass rush.  If Pats use it again (which would surprise me a little, because teams will be ready for it now) I'd imagine they'll have to add an additional twist to again make execution a surprise---perhaps it's a lateral to the ineligible player, but more likely it's a whole different setup.

 
I'd be surprised if such a formation was unveiled against the Colts, as I think a great deal of its effectiveness stems from the element of surprise and confusion. I'm sure the Pats will be happy that the Colts have to spend at least a little bit of time this week going over such plays and accounting for their reaction, but I suspect this formation is one-and-done for this year.

 

[BlackJack]

Indeed, thanks for the teaser. New author looks at the entire sequence: 
http://soshcentral.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs/2015/01/14/reporting-ineligible-appreciation/

Great read - loved the 'Mind the Gronk' line.

 

[BigJimEd]

Research request: can someone with all 22 access find the play in the Detroit-Vikings game in week 6 where Detroit ran something similar to the Pats and it resulted in a sack?
 
Here are the Minnesota sacks that game:
2nd quarter, 4:16 remaining
3rd quarter, 8:59 remaining
3rd quarter, 7:36 remaining
4th quarter, 14:19 remaining

it was at 8:59 in the third according to Yates and was a lineman split out.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=new-england-patriots&id=4776177

 

[tims4wins]

Research request: can someone with all 22 access find the play in the Detroit-Vikings game in week 6 where Detroit ran something similar to the Pats and it resulted in a sack?
 
Here are the Minnesota sacks that game:
2nd quarter, 4:16 remaining
3rd quarter, 8:59 remaining
3rd quarter, 7:36 remaining
4th quarter, 14:19 remaining

 
It was the 3rd quarter 8:59 sack according to Yates http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776177/another-nfl-team-used-four-offensive-linemen-set
 
Edit: beaten by BigJimEd. I would love to see the play since it resulted in a sack and not crying over who was eligible.

 

[Stitch01]

Why stop at 12? Rex and Rob's dad is a smart dude:

 

Yeah I remember reading that afterwards, I had wanted to see someone put like 15 players on the field for years and was sad that I was beaten to it and then sadder in the situation in was actually used.  

 

[MainerInExile]

Trick plays are awesome. They either lead to something wonderful (like these did, or like the Rams fake punt return) or something wonderfully terrible (like the Jets having a guy lay down in the green endzone).  It makes the game more fun.
 
As a Pats fan, I'm happy they're emptying the playbook.  Leaving no stone unturned.

 

[DJnVa]

The ineligible Vereen waving for the ball is akin to a baserunner who has already been put out continuing to round the bases (and confusing the fielders).

 
Eh, I don't buy this. A runner that has been put out on a play is not allowed to interfere with gameplay. Vereen is one of the 11 players "live" in the play. A put out baserunner is not.
 

 

[soxfanSJCA]

On inside the NFL, Harbaugh is shown telling his players on the sideline "if he is ineligible, don't cover him".
 
Harbaugh appears to be tweaking his narrative in an effort to avoid responsibility for not knowing the rules, and for failing to adjust appropriately.
All the bleach in the world is not going to clean this up, or drag this epic coaching fail into a different light.
 
Thanks for the 15 yard penalty and thanks for losing.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!

 

[cshea]

If I'm reading everything correctly, it seems like the Pats are the first team to actually take a lineman off the field, right? The Lions and Eagles examples were with 5/6 OL but the lineman split out wide in an unusual formation. Do I have this right?

 

[DJnVa]

 
No Harbaugh did not say anything about substitutions. 

 
He most certainly did:
 
 
 

So they don’t give you the opportunity, they don’t give you the chance to make the proper substitutions and things like that 

 
 
As I pointed out above, he gets that chance to make those subs when Vereen enters, not when he lines up. If his problem is that he couldn't make subs when he's allowed to, it should have nothing to do with the ineligible receivers because by the time Vereen tells the ref, the substitution chance has already come and gone.
 
Whether or not those guys reported ineligible or not the chance to make subs has already passed. That chance is NOT post-huddle.

 

[Stitch01]

BigJimEd is right, the Pats ran the same play but the Lions actually had six linemen on the field and made the tackle in the Hooman role report eligible.  Pats did a really creative twist on that.
 
Goddamn the more this is discussed the more brilliant I think this was.

 

[Bergs]

 
Indeed, thanks for the teaser. New author looks at the entire sequence: 
http://soshcentral.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs/2015/01/14/reporting-ineligible-appreciation/
 
 

 
 
"I'm open"
"Don't care"
 
That really cracked me up.

 

[doc]

 
Indeed, thanks for the teaser. New author looks at the entire sequence: 
http://soshcentral.com/nfl/nfl-playoffs/2015/01/14/reporting-ineligible-appreciation/
 

 

I have a question about the rules on this.  If the lined up this same way initially with Hoo-man reporting as ineligible and Vereen eligible and just before the snap the receiver outside of Vereen steps back while the receiver in the backfield outside of Hoo-man  would this be legal?  

 

[soxfan121]

I have a question about the rules on this.  If the lined up this same way initially with Hoo-man reporting as ineligible and Vereen eligible and just before the snap the receiver outside of Vereen steps back while the receiver in the backfield outside of Hoo-man  would this be legal?  

 
No, the ineligible player has to declare himself ineligible to the ref pre-snap and then he is pointed out by that ref to the defensive captain.

 

[tims4wins]

Hat tip to jerbear for this:
 
GIF of Lions-Vikings play
 
Lions had 5 OL, 6th split wide. Vikings, shaking in their boots, were fooled into sacking Stafford.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Eagles ran vs Redskins earlier this year.
 
At the most simple level, like any play, it works because it creates uncertainty which delays the defensive response---the mechamism for creating that uncertainty here is just novel and more complex than most plays.   Pats likely suspected (or knew, from film and knowledge of Pees) that Ravens weren't likely to fall back into a safe zone, and certainly after this didn't happen on the first play were going to push until Ravens figured that out.
 
The right defensive play, as has been noted, is likely to call a 'safe zone' for pass defense and take advantage of the lack of lineman in the pass rush.  If Pats use it again (which would surprise me a little, because teams will be ready for it now) I'd imagine they'll have to add an additional twist to again make execution a surprise---perhaps it's a lateral to the ineligible player, but more likely it's a whole different setup.

 
Or Blitz the shit out of the line since they are short one guy. Granted, that's more risk / reward based upon the situation but it's the right move often. 
 
The great thing about this is that the offense is putting themselves down a man in order to gain an advantage in lack of understanding by the D.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

As I pointed out above, he gets that chance to make those subs when Vereen enters, not when he lines up. If his problem is that he couldn't make subs when he's allowed to, it should have nothing to do with the ineligible receivers because by the time Vereen tells the ref, the substitution chance has already come and gone.
 
Whether or not those guys reported ineligible or not the chance to make subs has already passed. That chance is NOT post-huddle.

 
You are misunderstanding what Harbaugh said and why he said it.  It is more complicated than just the ability to substitute.

 

[DJnVa]

 
You are misunderstanding what Harbaugh said and why he said it.  It is more complicated than just the ability to substitute.

 
Since Harbaugh keeps moving the goalposts, I'd be pretty impressed if anyone understood exactly what he said and why he said it.
 
That said, explain what is more complicated. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself correctly, because reading your other posts, I think we agree. Harbaugh wants to match up to formations and eligible receivers. He said exactly that: "they don’t give you the chance to make the proper substitutions"
 
By the time the huddle breaks and Vereen talks to ref why could Harbaugh not have made proper subs since this clearly wasn't a hurry up situation?