- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 992
- Reaction score
- 332
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.Jeff Howe @jeffphowe 9s9 seconds ago
On ineligible receivers, Vinovich: "I made announcement: Do not cover 34." Blandino: "Which we won't do (in SB)." Vinovich: "We won't?"
Also:
Jeff Howe @jeffphowe now3 seconds ago
Blandino said Pete Carroll misunderstood the message about a new ineligible received signal. It was used in the AFCCG.
Next thing you know they're going to announce Vince McMahon as the new head of refs
I have a feeling the refs will be taking their sweet ass time on this particular part, just to let the Seahawks do the 1+1 math in their heads and adjust accordingly.
Though, I agree with most of the guys here. I'll be surprised if we see this trick at all on Sunday. It has pretty much exhausted itself.
“We don’t want that to happen if we can help it, so we made a call in and asked about that,” Carroll said. “They came with a very clear response about having a new signal that designates when a player with an ineligible number is eligible — that’s the same — and when an eligible number is now ineligible, they’re now going to make a new declaration to the players on the field so they can clearly identify that.”
Blandino obviously realized that telling a team not to cover another player basically undoes the deceptive aspect of this.
I think the bigger thing is that it is an outright WRONG thing to say. The ineligible man can take a lateral or handoff, so they defense may well want to cover him after all. It's not like the only thing he's allowed to do is block.
So, BB is going to use the same formation, then lateral to Vereen?
Office League Mouthpiece and the Omissioner's Suck Up Boy said:In the middle of the third quarter, the bizarre New England formation occurred: Tight end Michael Hoomanawanui lined up at left tackle, eligible. Running back Shane Vereen reported on the field and said clearly to Vinovich: “I’m reporting INeligible. INeligible.”
“It obviously caught me off guard,” Vinovich said. “I’m not gonna say what the Ravens should or shouldn’t have done. I mean, the easiest thing [for them] to do would have been to call timeout and let them match up. Basically it was just a brilliant play on Bill Belichick’s part and it caught them off guard. That’s why you have to be able to think quickly. Not only did I say he’s not eligible, I said, ‘Do not cover 34 [Vereen].’ But the DBs were obviously confused. What’s going through my mind is, Can he do this legally? Was Vereen in the previous play? All these different things start going through my mind. Then I realize that going from eligible to ineligible, you don’t have to be out one play before. The other way, coming back ineligible to eligible, you have to be out of play. Now he can’t go back to eligible without going out for a play, which he did. Some of the stuff they throw at you, you just go, whoa. That’s the great part of officiating—it’s always changing. Someone’s gonna think of something different to do. But the play was legal, totally legal.”
Vinovich is aware that some critics—Harbaugh, for one, who thinks the Ravens weren’t given sufficient time to match up; and also Tony Dungy, who felt the same way—didn’t like New England being able to use that play. But he also knows on those three plays, the Ravens had at least seven seconds per play to adjust. So he’s sure he made the right call. “I don’t know how else we could have handled that,” he said. “You’re not going to put the umpire over the ball at that point. We told the Ravens the back was ineligible.”