Jump to content
ExtremeRavens: The Sanctuary

Pats Trick Play Possible Rule Change


dc.

Recommended Posts

http://m.baltimoreravens.com/mediaItem.html?media-id=914175&media-type

 

Proposed by the competition committee to stop it from "getting it of hand." The new rule would require an eligible receiver who reports as ineligible to stay inside the tackle box when lining up.

 

Seems like a fair compromise. Doesn't change the way the normal rule is used for punts, etc, but also maintains the spirit of the rule as originally intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://m.baltimoreravens.com/mediaItem.html?media-id=914175&media-type

 

Proposed by the competition committee to stop it from "getting it of hand." The new rule would require an eligible receiver who reports as ineligible to stay inside the tackle box when lining up.

 

Seems like a fair compromise. Doesn't change the way the normal rule is used for punts, etc, but also maintains the spirit of the rule as originally intended.

Even Bellicheat said this about the rule:

"It would affect a lot of other plays, the spread punt formation and stuff like

that. Whatever the rule is, it is."

Before the owners meetings Fisher said it would get out of hands if left

alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm with Craven, mother@#$% the Pats, they couldn't play with us so they resorted to a loophole in some obscure rule to deceive. If everyone played that type of football the game we all love would cease to exist. The rule had to me changed because the pats started playing like a bunch of pussies. they changed the spirit of the game when thet started using that tactic and it still "chaps my ass" as Billick would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did it when they were getting the asses kicked by a CB

that wasn't even playing football 3 weeks before. They were

losing by 2 TDs - twice - and the deception contributed to

first downs on the TD drive.

 

Like Webbie said, we must have been doing something right

for them to use trickery like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid rule, just pay attention to the announcement of who reports eligible. We did back in HIGH SCHOOL, what, millionares can't? Just as dumb as saying they, the NFL, doesn't have the money to put four more cameras in the endzone for better coverage........ :sing:

Max, I have to disagree. I make no bones that the play they ran was illegal, but it was beyond the spirit and the correction was needed.

 

To review: they lined a right end as a lineman, a running back as a receiver, called the RB ineligible only after breaking the huddle, then intentionally ran the back on a reverse route to fake a handoff while the lineman/tight end ran a route.

 

In one breath, brilliant. In another, sad.

 

To me, the key was Vereen running the route faking the reverse. Even if our team knew the guy was ineligible and opted not to guard him, in the midst of the play, it's hard to imagine that anyone could keep track of that as he made his way into the backfield and fake a handoff while wearing an eligible number.

 

The rule is simple and fair. No effect on most plays despite BBs comment, if any really. Only keeps the games looking like the games we know.

 

Jmho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used to run, yes, I am dating my self, the fumblusky. either my self, 16, or our full back, 32, would report in as eligable and play center. It wsa normal for me to do this since I snapped for punts & field goals.

 

Any who, the ball would be snapped to the qb under center who would then place it on the ground under which ever of us was runnging the play. The center, one of us, would then pick the ball up without leaving the snapping position, pretend to pull and circle back running the option... It worked..

 

We also ran a fake punt with me snapping the ball and goiing out for a pass; I could because I would report religable.

 

Our coach told us every practice, 1) to report to the officials to declare and 2) to pay attention on defense for who was being declared inelligbale; follow were the lined up.

 

We rarely had an issue, why? Because of proper coaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previous post should have said Tim, not Max. Gettin' the old folks mixed up... must mean I'm becoming one of them. ;)

 

I get your example, but also a bit confused - what position were you? Wouldn't the fullback have been eligible already? Is it legal for an eligible player to snap the ball? Or an ineligible player to be the recipient of a "handoff" (fumble?) And doesn't your consistent success with the play show that it was hard to follow?

 

Separate - do I think these plays would have become incredibly common? Not really, but maybe. Belicheck dropped them once the Ravens were granted the time to sub a bit in repsonse to Harbaugh's PF, but they still worked for one try after that. But I do think that they are not in the spirit of the rules of the game. I'll go back to my thoughts from the day of the game: The point of marking eligible and ineligible - and using numbers to make those distinctions clear - the point of all the substitution rules is to create a level playing field for the defense, who is already at a significant disadvantage in trying to keep up with who is who. The plays run by Belicheck & Co were wonderfully thought out, planned and executed. But they also intentionally subverted and attempted to avoid all of that spirit. People who have compared the plays and the idea of this kind of "deception" to a playfake or a pumpfake are morons.

 

The play was as legal but as "fun" and fair as the old "QB walks away from the ball looking confused and pretending to maybe call a timeout while someone else takes a snap" play. In short - not the kind of game I'm interested in watching.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previous post should have said Tim, not Max. Gettin' the old folks mixed up... must mean I'm becoming one of them. ;)

 

I get your example, but also a bit confused - what position were you? Wouldn't the fullback have been eligible already? Is it legal for an eligible player to snap the ball? Or an ineligible player to be the recipient of a "handoff" (fumble?) And doesn't your consistent success with the play show that it was hard to follow?

 

Separate - do I think these plays would have become incredibly common? Not really, but maybe. Belicheck dropped them once the Ravens were granted the time to sub a bit in repsonse to Harbaugh's PF, but they still worked for one try after that. But I do think that they are not in the spirit of the rules of the game. I'll go back to my thoughts from the day of the game: The point of marking eligible and ineligible - and using numbers to make those distinctions clear - the point of all the substitution rules is to create a level playing field for the defense, who is already at a significant disadvantage in trying to keep up with who is who. The plays run by Belicheck & Co were wonderfully thought out, planned and executed. But they also intentionally subverted and attempted to avoid all of that spirit. People who have compared the plays and the idea of this kind of "deception" to a playfake or a pumpfake are morons.

 

The play was as legal but as "fun" and fair as the old "QB walks away from the ball looking confused and pretending to maybe call a timeout while someone else takes a snap" play. In short - not the kind of game I'm interested in watching.

 

 

I played tight end on offense, was the long snapper and on field goals, line backer on defense. Yes, so long as one reported to the official, since I wore the number 16, I could snap the ball. The rule is that the ball must touch the qb's hands when he is under center. Thus, snapping it to him, him setting it on the ground. It's an old play, a small college team actually pullled it off last season. The full back is simply a misdirection...

 

 

You are correct, these trick plays are against the spirit of the rules. However, there used to be, may still be a rule that says an offensive or defensive cannot do anything that would "trick" the oppossing team. Generally we see this called when a defensive player mimics the snap caddance, when a quarterback bobbs his head too hard to similate a snap, or when a center moves the ball ever so slightly.

 

The Cowboys, way back, used to have their linemen set up bent over and when the qb would say "ready" they would stand up then get into their stance. This became norm for them, but was designed to draw defenders off sides. It worked for a bit, every now & then, they eventually went away from using it.

 

My only point is that all the defenders had to do was listen to who was reorting inelligable, and not cover that player no matter where he lined up. Proper coaching would teach that, especially against Bill B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Landry invented that Dallas stunt on the line. There was nothing illegal or

tricky about it because they did it every time for years. It was

dropped because the team was considered finesse and they wanted

to be more physical and smash mouth on the line, especially on

running plays and it didn't fool any one after a while anyway.

 

Landry also invented the 4-3 which was designed to stop Jim Brown

by putting an extra man on the line.

 

He also invented the flex defense. NOthing tricky about it. Tom Matte

beat it by 30 points in the playoff bowl in Miami as the instant QB

when Unitas and his backup both went down for the year.

 

Shula laughed all the way home that Matte didn't even know what

a flex defense was.

 

Here, we're talking about the bending of the rules which was eventually

called illegal and changed. Nobody cared about Dallas' line stunt, same

as on defense when the players run stunts and flea flickers which all

teams use on offense and the post play where the TE runs to the post

and the guy covering has to look for the goal post so he doesn't crush

his head running into it. Now some tactics like Ordell Brasse's slap to the

head and the fore arm smash to the throat have been banned.

 

NE used the flea flicker too in the same game and nobody

complained about that except the fans on the bad coaching HARBs

did once again in NE and not preparing his guys.

 

That's not the bending ofthe rules, just different and legal plays.

 

Not only did NE bend the rules but they used a quick snap count so

the defense while in a confused state couldn't figure it out on time.

 

Somebody here was the long snapper in high school? Maese of the

Ravens was the first long snapper drafted in the pro game, In high

school we just called it snapping on punts, which I did. Not the easiest

thing bending over and looking under your ass and getting it back to

the punter with a guy breathing down your throat in front of you.

 

Ravens won a SB putting a guy in front of the snapper. Remember

Del Misso's 3 missed FGs that won it for us. That was banned too.

You can't put a man over the center any more on punts. Ravens

laughed on TV when Keith Mills discussed the rule change

saying we won a SB doing that.

 

 

 

Joe Maese

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Maese
Wikipedia
He was the first pure long snapper ever drafted and the only long snapper drafted that ... Following his professional football career, Joe was employed as a firefighter in ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I played tight end on offense, was the long snapper and on field goals, line backer on defense. Yes, so long as one reported to the official, since I wore the number 16, I could snap the ball. The rule is that the ball must touch the qb's hands when he is under center. Thus, snapping it to him, him setting it on the ground. It's an old play, a small college team actually pullled it off last season. The full back is simply a misdirection...

 

 

You are correct, these trick plays are against the spirit of the rules. However, there used to be, may still be a rule that says an offensive or defensive cannot do anything that would "trick" the oppossing team. Generally we see this called when a defensive player mimics the snap caddance, when a quarterback bobbs his head too hard to similate a snap, or when a center moves the ball ever so slightly.

 

The Cowboys, way back, used to have their linemen set up bent over and when the qb would say "ready" they would stand up then get into their stance. This became norm for them, but was designed to draw defenders off sides. It worked for a bit, every now & then, they eventually went away from using it.

 

My only point is that all the defenders had to do was listen to who was reorting inelligable, and not cover that player no matter where he lined up. Proper coaching would teach that, especially against Bill B.

 

I guess I was confused because technically you were the TE so you had to report as INeligible to be the snapper, right? Is it legal for the QB to give the ball to a lineman? I guess so if it touches the ground - then its a fumble? Besides the point, ultimately.

 

Anyway - I don't entirely disagree with your gist. But I think it becomes harder when the whole D knows not to lineup against #12, a receiver who can't touch the ball. But in the midst of a play, when #12, who can't touch the ball, runs all the way across the field and pretends to catch the ball, does anyone on the D even see that it's #12? I mean, how is Suggs on the far side of the field supposed to not get drawn into a run fake on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...