SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.please do this "trickery" again to the stupid Seahawks
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."
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.
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.
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.
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...."
He's not right there was a penalty negating need for vereen to leave field. That is the explanation I heardhttp://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 ...
Don't think there's anything vague about that particular rule- see rule 5 section 3 article 1.
Fleming (an eligible receiver,) is covered by Gronk (an eligible receiver,) making Fleming ineligible, and by rule, an illegal substitution. http://imgur.com/dvxORhIFleming 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.
Fleming was not ineligible at any point in the game.
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.
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.
Good spot, Gumby.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.