The ineligible package...

unoriginal · Jan 11, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Good luck playing zone vs "6 wides"
I think the pats will take that every time.

Given this discussion presupposes the defense has messed up their personnel package and is one guy too heavy for 4 OL and has a short corner to the QB, I think they'll take a short zone every time too.

Chatham's analysis recently posted is that the Ravens should have gone to a safe zone too. I think the Pats do as well if the situation is reversed.

QuantumMechanic · Jan 11, 2015

manxman2601 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vereen could still be used as a runner couldn't he.

Absolutely. All players, eligible or not, can take a handoff or receive a backwards pass or lateral.

mikey m · Jan 11, 2015

unoriginal said:
Because that's what they did. You can't line up and then have an outside receiver whisper to a linesman "hey, #34 is ineligible" just before the ball's snapped. The refs will flag that as illegal procedure every time. Ineligible/eligible has to be declared at the latest as the players are going to line up, which is when Vereen declared.

In the case of a substitution, the player must declare before he can even join the huddle. I don't have the game on tape, but I assume Vereen was in the game on the previous play, allowing him to legally hold off on declaring until the play was "in," which is the rationale for allowing late reporting for field players vs. the declaration required for subs, who must declare before they can join the huddle.

I believe the Pats carefully managed the reporting requirements so they could gain an advantage through deception, rather than exploiting a matchup advantage. (I.e. the Ravens moving their DE out over Vereen because he's an "OT.")

OK good points and yes vereen was in for the previous play. Just looked to me like he got the play call, then left the huddle before it broke and told the ref he was ineligible. He cant declare himself ineligible before he gets the play call so I felt like he basically did it at the earliest possible moment (as soon as he knew what the play would be). Of course, under those circumstances, earliest moment vs last possible moment is a difference of seconds.

bresna · Jan 11, 2015

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:
Later @RapSheet cam on to straighten everyone on the panel out saying they announced it IN THE STADIUM.

I was there and in case you couldn't hear it on the TV broadcast, it was the head ref making the announcement just as the huddle broke that "number XX is ineligible". It was announced over the stadium speakers just like penalties so everyone could hear it. By the third time he made the announcement, he added "The defense does not have to cover him". The crowd was pretty much laughing at it by then.

n6249c · Jan 12, 2015

shmessy said:
.....and the Head Coach whose reputation most indelibly and permanently tarred by a technicality written as an addendum to the NFL rulebook just gave the league and their lawyers a very public F.U. on national television with this.

Well played William!

Karma's a ***** and BB is one wily bastard.

That's the best part of this, Goodell has to be seething inside about it. Payback's a real *****.

mayoclinic · Jan 12, 2015

More from BB in the ineligible package:

Belichick bristled at the notion that the league could look into the matter further and have that type of play officiated differently, as Harbaugh suggested after the game.

"Like what?" Belichick said twice when asked how adjustments could be made in that regard.

"I don’t know what you’re talking about," he said. "I mean, that happens all the time. You come in on a punt team, ineligible guys report as eligible. They line up as guards and tackles on the punt team. The center, the center’s numbers in the NFL are eligible players that report ineligible. Then they cover punts. We’ve seen it on offense. We see it particularly a lot on special teams, the kicking game, punting game — not so much on the field goals because you have your linemen protecting there. But I’d say it happens every game on the punt team. You’re allowed to do that. I don’t really understand what the question is. If you want to talk about the rules, you should talk to the NFL rules people about that. They’ll tell you about it."

According to Belichick, it's a more common practice than it has been made out to be.

"Yeah. I think you see it every week," he said. "I’d venture to say I couldn’t remember a time that I haven’t seen that, having a receiver report as an ineligible player in the National Football League. I’d say that happens every week."

When asked if he had any comment on Harbaugh's comments from Saturday night, Belichick kept it brief.

"No."

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/..._on_ineligible_receiver_formation_id_say_that

Implicit in this is that John Harbaugh, a former ST coach, shouldn't be so naive.

rochrist · Jan 12, 2015

Avenger said:
NCAA 15, came here to post that same thing

Interestingly, that makes it crystal clear why it isn't rocket science to see who's eligible. If you're on the line of scrimage and you're covered, you're ineligible. End of story.

rochrist · Jan 12, 2015

Oinko said:
Somebody spoon feed me on this point. Vereen actually is ineligible on that play because he's not on the end and he's not lined up off the line, right? The only reason the notifying the ref thing happens is that his number is one of the automatically could be eligible variety, right? And so the only thing that would confuse the defense is that Vereen would typically be eligible, right? If you know the rules of formation, he's not eligible on that play.

Do I have it right?

Exactly. It isn't that hard to figure out who is ineligible.

rochrist · Jan 12, 2015

PatriotSeven said:
Sorry if it's been posted, I didn't see it. I thought many would want to digest it and this is a great article that explains it.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/...-trick-play-that-got-john-harbaugh-mad-ravens

Vereen is covered by the receiver on his right, thus pretty easy to identify as ineligible. Notice Vereen pulling back on his route to make sure he doesn't get called for the foul.

It also explains the difference between this version, and the one Alabama used to beat LSU in overtime. The difference is we only used 4OL, they still had 5, so BB is even more bad ass for taking that risk.

It's interesting how well Brady was protected in that they were missing a guy, although he did get it out quickly.

PatriotSeven · Jan 12, 2015

rochrist said:
It's interesting how well Brady was protected in that they were missing a guy, although he did get it out quickly.

Yah that was key. He treated it just like a typical blitz. Hew knew who his open man would be and got it out of there quick. It's pretty risky on our part to put ourselves in that position.

PatsFanSince74 · Jan 12, 2015

unoriginal said:
I think its perfectly true that the point of that package is to deceive the defense into covering an ineligible receiver.

Just like the point of any good blitz is to deceive the offense into blocking the wrong guys.

fnordcircle · Jan 12, 2015

Remember:

Disguising blitzes is just good gamesmanship it's the offense's fault if they do their protections wrong.
Openly declaring someone as ineligible is pretty much high treason.

The Gr8est · Jan 12, 2015

rlcarr said:
Absolutely. All players, eligible or not, can take a handoff or receive a backwards pass or lateral.

Cool!

So next time have Edelman be ineligible, then take a lateral or handoff and hit another TD pass!

PatriotSeven · Jan 12, 2015

rochrist said:
Interestingly, that makes it crystal clear why it isn't rocket science to see who's eligible. If you're on the line of scrimage and you're covered, you're ineligible. End of story.

Makes it all the more funny the Ravens and their coach couldn't figure out something so simple and fundamental. And couldn't figure out a time out is all it would have took, would have cost him less than a 15 yard penalty and the gashing his team endured.

It's really more of a play to force the opposing coach into taking a timeout. He was checkmated and had to do it, and chose not to, because he didn't recognize he was in that position. Sometimes you have to know when you are checkmated, and he chose to make the matter worse by whining and causing his team a costly penalty.

Ring 6 · Jan 12, 2015

mayoclinic said:
More from BB in the ineligible package:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/..._on_ineligible_receiver_formation_id_say_that

Implicit in this is that John Harbaugh, a former ST coach, shouldn't be so naive.

Not to take a position of superiority, but if that happened to the Patriots, our organization would be taking blame for not figuring out how to defend it, not whining that we should get help from the officials.

hwc · Jan 12, 2015

rexxar said:
Frickin' genius!

Where do ya guys watch the post game interviews?

The New England Patriots official website has the full video of every press conference, during the week and after games. Click on Multimedia or Video.

Belichick's press conferences are "must watch TV". It's so much better to hear it for yourself rather than filtered through the mediots.

The audio is also available on the Patriots iTunes podast feed. I often cue up all the week's interviews for entertainment while hiking or whatever.

The Gr8est · Jan 12, 2015

mayoclinic said:
More from BB in the ineligible package:

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/..._on_ineligible_receiver_formation_id_say_that

Implicit in this is that John Harbaugh, a former ST coach, shouldn't be so naive.

BB is so smooth at calling people stupid without actually using those words.

PatsFanSince74 · Jan 12, 2015

For once, though, the mediots jumped to Belichick's defense. On the Sunday pregame, Jimmy Johnson scoffed at Harbaugh's comments saying that he'd been "using that play since Picayune High School." Boomer Esiason actually said that it was an example of why Belichick was the "best Head Coach in the history of the game" and that if Harbaugh didn't think his players were ready, he should have called a time out instead of pulling his stunt of running on the field.

patchick · Jan 12, 2015

PatriotSeven said:
Yah that was key. He treated it just like a typical blitz. Hew knew who his open man would be and got it out of there quick. It's pretty risky on our part to put ourselves in that position.

Yep, it's almost like blitzing yourself, with the advantage that you know which receiver should be left uncovered -- assuming the defense falls for it. If they don't, it's a fast lateral to Vereen and hope for the best.

That the defense would fall for it three times then throw an unsportsmanlike conduct hissy fit was surely beyond their dreams.

rochrist · Jan 12, 2015

AndyJohnson said:
Not to take a position of superiority, but if that happened to the Patriots, our organization would be taking blame for not figuring out how to defend it, not whining that we should get help from the officials.

Exactly, BB would say 'we've got to coach it better and we've go to play it better'.

The ineligible package...

In the Starting Line-Up

Burn it all down!

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

The poster who James White said inspires him.

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

Moderatrix

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Similar threads