So apparently Solder TD shouldn't have counted

I looked at the plays and the rulebook, it seems the complaint is correct. It should have been deemed an illegal substitution.

Nightmare scenario: Someone asks TB about this tomorrow and he replies, "Maybe the refs should learn the rulebook."

The rule is badly written, in that it talks about "changes" and "returns" to eligibility status and positions, and does so using language that sounds narrower than is probably meant. But by the likely intent of the rule, Fleming cannot be ineligible on a play immediately after one in which he was eligible, unless there was a timeout or similar play stoppage inbetween.

patriot1136 said:

please do this "trickery" again to the stupid Seahawks

Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure the best is yet to come. This isn't something that was thought up overnight.

We know BB is the kind of person who thinks football 24/7 and is always watching, observing, and taking notes. He also would know to keep the best wrinkles up his sleeve for the playoffs, and the best for the last.

This was a long time in forming- not just developing the concepts, but more importantly, finally having some consistency on offense, and also with the coaching staff, to the point where they were confident enough to then start installing complex concepts, through the various coaches.

If you've observed closely, you'll realize that the eligibility wrinkle in the Colts game is a modification of the one in the Baltimore game- they're not the same. It's pretty much a given that BB knew that whoever won the Colts/Denver game would prepare for an eligible lineman, so he flipped Hooman (from eligible in the Ravens game to ineligible in the Colts game) and kept Fleming indefinitely eligible even though he didn't go downfield once, and then with one slight tweak (moving Lafell off the LOS, making Solder an eligible receiver) nailed the Colts. They did run the four linemen trick twice, but I feel that both plays were throwaways because the Colts were looking for that.

And for the Superbowl- well, they have two weeks. Whatever is coming, is going to come right out of left field.

Baboon said:

I looked at the plays and the rulebook, it seems the complaint is correct. It should have been deemed an illegal substitution.

Nightmare scenario: Someone asks TB about this tomorrow and he replies, "Maybe the refs should learn the rulebook."

Click to expand...

Fleming was not ineligible at any point in the game. The one time a penalty was called was because Lafell was on the line, not off it.

Vacate the win.

Suspend Brady until he turns 50.

Execute Belichick.

They cheated.

PP2 said:

Fleming was not ineligible at any point in the game. The one time a penalty was called was because Lafell was on the line, not off it.

Click to expand...

That's an example of the vagueness in the rule wording. It can be construed to say that he was ineligible the moment he put on a jersey with an ineligible number, before he'd participated in any plays.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/dungy-nfl-needs-to-restrict-new-england’s-substitution-game.1115517/

Per Dungy, Vereen at times stayed on the field as eligible after having reported as ineligible, I think in the Ravens game. I haven't checked as to whether he's correct.

If he's right, then I foresee a point of emphasis for the refs next season ...

Fencer said:

That's an example of the vagueness in the rule wording. It can be construed to say that he was ineligible the moment he put on a jersey with an ineligible number, before he'd participated in any plays.

Click to expand...

Don't think there's anything vague about that particular rule- see rule 5 section 3 article 1.

An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50–79 and 90–99) is permitted to line up in the position of an eligible pass receiver (1–49 and 80–89), and an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the change in his eligibility status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team.

He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.

Click to expand...

Flemming was lined up as a ineligible player in the screen cap I posted above. Eligible receivers have to be on the ends of the lines and every player in between is ineligible. Gronk, an eligible receiver by number, covered him on the line of scrimmage, making Flemming ineligible. Because he had reported as eligible on the prior play, he needed to go off the field to return to ineligible status.

Belichick and McDaniels had a little confab after the play. I think Belichick saw the mistake.

Pat Kirwin thinks what the Pats are doing with this eligible/ineligible stuff is the story going into the SuperBowl. He thinks it's great stuff, but it's putting extreme pressure on the defenses AND the officials (which is kind of the whole idea). The goal of any offense is to put the defense under pressure.

You can download the complete Game Log with the play by play here:

http://prod.static.patriots.clubs.nfl.com/assets/docs/gamebooks/2014/20150118_NE_Gamebook.pdf

The TV broadcast completely failed to highlight the extreme nature of the tactic. By my count, the Pats reported a player as either ELIGIBLE or INELIGIBLE on 28 different offensive plays. That is a non-stop barrage. The goal clearly was to lull the defense to sleep when Solder reported as ELIGIBLE on the TD play. At the very least, it's 28 times the defense has to stop and think about who or who not to cover. The Seahawks have to spend considerable time practicing for this.

I'm pretty sure that Kirwin's attitude would be, "if the refs can't officiate the rules as written, that's on the NFL. Maybe they should take about half the junk out of the rulebook so the officials CAN handle it...."

hwc said:

I'm pretty sure that Kirwin's attitude would be, "if the refs can't officiate the rules as written, that's on the NFL. Maybe they should take about half the junk out of the rulebook so the officials CAN handle it...."

Click to expand...

I have come to LOVE Pat Kirwin and Jim Miller. Best talk radio out there, and makes the XM payments worth it.

Fencer said:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/dungy-nfl-needs-to-restrict-new-england’s-substitution-game.1115517/

Per Dungy, Vereen at times stayed on the field as eligible after having reported as ineligible, I think in the Ravens game. I haven't checked as to whether he's correct.

If he's right, then I foresee a point of emphasis for the refs next season ...

Click to expand...

He's not right there was a penalty negating need for vereen to leave field. That is the explanation I heard

Definitely. Kirwin/Miller's daily show is, by far, the best football analysis/discussion you'll find. They are quite correct that this eligible/ineligible dance Belichick is playing creates some real problems for the Seahawks and that there is even more to come.

They've been saying since the Baltimore game that shame on the defense for not having an emergency bailout call (like "Omaha") to check to a vanilla zone defense when they see a formation that is confusing. The idea is to always have a check call to a base defense where at least you aren't leaving receivers completely uncovered. And, that's after the guy upstairs (like Ernie Adams) has failed in his job to alert the sideline.

PP2 said:

Don't think there's anything vague about that particular rule- see rule 5 section 3 article 1.

Click to expand...

Didn't Fleming go from eligible to ineligible without sitting out a play? That's what would seem to be prohibited by the rules ...

... but the matter depends upon whether he was an ineligible receiver just by virtue of suiting up with an ineligible number, or if he only became one once he played a snap as ineligible.

PP2 said:

Fleming was not ineligible at any point in the game. The one time a penalty was called was because Lafell was on the line, not off it.

Click to expand...

Fleming (an eligible receiver,) is covered by Gronk (an eligible receiver,) making Fleming ineligible, and by rule, an illegal substitution. http://imgur.com/dvxORhI

The formation above is the one the original poster was referring to. If you look at that formation, it is easy to see that Gronk lined up too close to the los. He should have been back a bit more.

Also, the one time they were called for illegal formation, Gronk ran motion from left to right, uncovering Solder (whom had not reported as eligible.) This created an illegal formation.

PP2 said:

Fleming was not ineligible at any point in the game.

Click to expand...

Really? He and Solder were both eligible on that play?

Baboon said:

Fleming (an eligible receiver,) is covered by Gronk (an eligible receiver,) making Fleming ineligible, and by rule, an illegal substitution. http://imgur.com/dvxORhI

The formation above is the one the original poster was referring to. If you look at that formation, it is easy to see that Gronk lined up too close to the los. He should have been back a bit more.

Also, the one time they were called for illegal formation, Gronk ran motion from left to right, uncovering Solder (whom had not reported as eligible.) This created an illegal formation.

Click to expand...

If 87 was back (off the LOS) they would not have had 7 on LOS -also illegal formation. Problem was as OP stated-that Fleming didn't check out for a play, assuming there was in fact none of the 'intervening events' between prev play and solder TD.

Baboon said:

Fleming (an eligible receiver,) is covered by Gronk (an eligible receiver,) making Fleming ineligible, and by rule, an illegal substitution. http://imgur.com/dvxORhI

The formation above is the one the original poster was referring to. If you look at that formation, it is easy to see that Gronk lined up too close to the los. He should have been back a bit more.

Click to expand...

It still would have been illegal. If Gronk had been off the line, there only would have been six players on the line of scrimmage. Have to have seven to be a legal formation.

Gumby said:

If 87 was back (off the LOS) they would not have had 7 on LOS -also illegal formation. Problem was as OP stated-that Fleming didn't check out for a play, assuming there was in fact none of the 'intervening events' between prev play and solder TD.

Click to expand...

Good spot, Gumby.

Alternatively, Fleming shouldn't have declared eligible the play before. I guess Josh and Fleming are bound to get confused at some point using all those clever calls.

Regardless of blame, the substance of the original post is correct: the pats slipped one passed the refs. (Edit: I am not insinuating they did it intentionally. I bet they just got confused too.)

How many days and how many views of the game did it take for them to come up with this? I could come up with something on just about every play.....a hold or an illegal contact......

Man these clowns have become obsessed with the pats.......pats should get royalties for all the airplay this is getting