League to consider making Patriots' trick play illegal in future.

[HoustonRaven]

It was a brilliant, legal and effective strategy by the Pats, who almost certainly stole it from Alabams who did it in an SEC game a few months earlier.. Those Ravens fans who believe it to be illegal or unfair "trickery" might want to remember Earl Weaver's manipulation of the rulebook to gain an advantage. We loved it when Earl did stuff like the Pats did. My favorite is in the link below.
https://prestonjg.wordpress.com/2009...d-the-dh-rule/

Agreed.

[Ravenswintitle]

It's a little inaccurate to say the plays didn't affect the outcome when they were a large part of a scoring drive when the Pats had already given up running the ball and their passing game had become entirely predictable. I'll go so far as to say without those two plays and Edelman's pass, the Ravens win that game.

my point exactly. There were 3 times they used it which, I believe, all resulted in a first down. And Harbaugh was so upset he drew a penalty over it. It was a big advantage for them IMO

[winnipegraven]

why not just change the signals for eligible/ineligible?

[ERey]

It was a brilliant, legal and effective strategy by the Pats, who almost certainly stole it from Alabams who did it in an SEC game a few months earlier.. Those Ravens fans who believe it to be illegal or unfair "trickery" might want to remember Earl Weaver's manipulation of the rulebook to gain an advantage. We loved it when Earl did stuff like the Pats did. My favorite is in the link below.
https://prestonjg.wordpress.com/2009...d-the-dh-rule/

I'm not seeing it. If anything the article supports voting against New England's formation.

"Weaver used a pitcher as his DH 21 times over a 22-game stretch," ... "Never once did the “phantom DH” pay off for Weaver, in that never was the opposing starter relieved before the DH position came to the plate."

It never worked to his advantage and a rule was put in place anyway thereby supporting the notion of getting rid of that type of rule manipulation.

In the December 27, 1980, issue of The Sporting News, there is an item noting that the Official Playing Rules Committee had amended the DH rule to ban the phantom DH and said Weaver had been “accused of making a travesty of the rule” (although it did not say by whom). The change to rule 6.10(b) reads:

The designated hitter named in the starting lineup must come to bat at least one time, unless the opposing club changes pitchers

Imagine if the O's won a final game of a playoff series based on that tactic with the rule being changed anyway. Sure, as O's fans we'd all cheer. But the the rule would have been changed anyway. Home fans will always defend their team.

The reality I don't think there's any right or wrong here. It's a matter of one's personal preference on how they want the game to be played.

[Mark]

I'm not seeing it. If anything the article supports voting against New England's formation.

"Weaver used a pitcher as his DH 21 times over a 22-game stretch," ... "Never once did the “phantom DH” pay off for Weaver, in that never was the opposing starter relieved before the DH position came to the plate."

It never worked to his advantage and a rule was put in place anyway thereby supporting the notion of getting rid of that type of rule manipulation.

In the December 27, 1980, issue of The Sporting News, there is an item noting that the Official Playing Rules Committee had amended the DH rule to ban the phantom DH and said Weaver had been “accused of making a travesty of the rule” (although it did not say by whom). The change to rule 6.10(b) reads:

The designated hitter named in the starting lineup must come to bat at least one time, unless the opposing club changes pitchers

Imagine if the O's won a final game of a playoff series based on that tactic with the rule being changed anyway. Sure, as O's fans we'd all cheer. But the the rule would have been changed anyway. Home fans will always defend their team.

The reality I don't think there's any right or wrong here. It's a matter of one's personal preference on how they want the game to be played.

I didn't mean to suggest anythng about voting for the proposed NFL rule. Both Earl and Bellichick (probably McDaniels) exploited loopholes and many of the same people who thought Earl was a genius think the Pats are guilty of evil trickery. To my eye, it's the same thing and I admire both of them for being creative. . . and knowing the rules better than their opponents.

[WrongBaldy]

PATS FANS EVEYWHERE LOL

[Complex]

I don't think the League ever said it was legal. I believe the issue was the officials did not see it. I would think they assumed he was going off the field, but he did not. The way I understood the play was that any player lined up at the line of scrimmage was required to have his shoulders squared forward to the line of scrimmage at the snap event or something like that. Sneaky for sure - it sucks if it happens against your team, but the coach is a genius if your catch does it!

So the league is saying that some deception is legal and other deception is not (Manziel going to the sideline and staying on the field for the snap and catch)

Should change the Patriot logo to a female also. Seems there is more than just can't hit Lady Brady going on.

[lovefootball]

I don't think the League ever said it was legal. I believe the issue was the officials did not see it. I would think they assumed he was going off the field, but he did not. The way I understood the play was that any player lined up at the line of scrimmage was required to have his shoulders squared forward to the line of scrimmage at the snap event or something like that. Sneaky for sure - it sucks if it happens against your team, but the coach is a genius if your catch does it!

Trying to change the rule after the game is over is basically admitting they(NFL) screwed up. But as Complex points out, it worked to help the pats achieve what they needed. Same as the cowboys getting away with PI against the lions. Any regular game, that penalty is called, but the nfl let a line judge overrule the call on the field. Nfl in NY didn't even make an effort to review the play, a failure on the league's promise of making sure the penalty called is correct.

Hoping that fan unhappiness lights a fire under the nfl's ass to do better in the future.

[AirFlacco]

Ravens aren't the only team that want the rule changed.
Fisher said this could get out of hand unless guide lines
are inserted.

From the Ravens site:


Competition Committee member and St. Louis Rams Head Coach Jeff Fisher was asked if the rule proposal stems from the Ravens-Patriots playoff game.

“A lot of these proposals are generated from surveys from clubs and there was a concern on behalf of a number of clubs and a number of coaches and Coach Madden’s subcommittee that unless we had some guidelines in place, that this thing may get out of hand,” Fisher said.

[Greg]

So the league is saying that some deception is legal and other deception is not (Manziel going to the sideline and staying on the field for the snap and catch)

Should change the Patriot logo to a female also. Seems there is more than just can't hit Lady Brady going on.

The Manziel play is not allowed under the rules. The refs missed it.

[Purpleguy]

Another Patriot rule! Bellicheck should be a tax attorney. I've never seen someone so proficient at finding loopholes in the rules or just outright ignoring them until he gets caught.

[WrongBaldy]

Another Patriot rule! Bellicheck should be a tax attorney. I've never seen someone so proficient at finding loopholes in the rules or just outright ignoring them until he gets caught.

if u aint cheating u aint trying