RIP Shell Game - NFL Bans Eligible/Ineligible shuffle. (1 Viewer)

[Run It Up]

You will be missed

NFL owners have passed the rule proposal banning the use of ineligible receivers like the Patriots did in the AFC divisional playoffs.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

It served it's purpose anyway

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So the Patriots cheated pre-emptively this time?

 

[Run It Up]

So the Patriots cheated pre-emptively this time?

Seems so.

Its only a matter of time before only the QB can throw forward passes. Its too confusing for the defense.

 

[Flying Elvis]

Can't have coaches using innovative thinking to gain an advantage. That's far too advantageous.

 

[Flying Elvis]

Also - lmao at all the 'ravens are [salty] [bitter] [crybaby]' responses in that link.

 

[Freelove]

I'm okay with the Pats' having exploited the rule, and with the rule change.

It was clever, but hardly something that would make games more enjoyable if it were to become endemic.

Good work, but good riddance, IMO.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

guess you are not allowed to try and trick anybody in this game......let's do away with the play action pass......don't you dare fake like you are going to hand it off and then throw it.....

glad they want every game plan/strategy/plays calls/ etc to look the same.......if you think outside the box it confuses people and makes the game too exciting....we like boring same ol' same ol' vanilla.....don't make the other team adjust or god forbid call a timeout......

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm okay with the Pats' having exploited the rule, and with the rule change.

It was clever, but hardly something that would make games more enjoyable if it were to become endemic.

Good work, but good riddance, IMO.

This is exactly where I come out. Kudos to Belichick for exploiting a loophole to maximum effect. It's part of what makes him such a genius. But the game is better without it.

 

[Run It Up]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

 

[Pipes]

guess you are not allowed to try and trick anybody in this game......let's do away with the play action pass......don't you dare fake like you are going to hand it off and then throw it.....

glad they want every game plan/strategy/plays calls/ etc to look the same.......if you think outside the box it confuses people and makes the game too exciting....we like boring same ol' same ol' vanilla.....don't make the other team adjust or god forbid call a timeout......

Oh come on now. This really isn't that big of a deal and, with pretty much every recent rule change benefiting the offense, I have no problem with throwing the defense a bone now and then.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I'm okay with the Pats' having exploited the rule, and with the rule change.

It was clever, but hardly something that would make games more enjoyable if it were to become endemic.

Good work, but good riddance, IMO.

This is exactly where I come out. Kudos to Belichick for exploiting a loophole to maximum effect. It's part of what makes him such a genius. But the game is better without it.

how so....?

how did it make the game bad/worse...?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

"Just for the sake of doing so"? Come on man, the defense is already at a huge disadvantage. There's simply no good way to inform the defense who is actually eligible on every play if this was allowed to stand, which means that the defense basically has to treat EVERY offensive player as eligible. And that's simply not fair and won't make for good football.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

guess you are not allowed to try and trick anybody in this game......let's do away with the play action pass......don't you dare fake like you are going to hand it off and then throw it.....

glad they want every game plan/strategy/plays calls/ etc to look the same.......if you think outside the box it confuses people and makes the game too exciting....we like boring same ol' same ol' vanilla.....don't make the other team adjust or god forbid call a timeout......

Oh come on now. This really isn't that big of a deal and, with pretty much every recent rule change benefiting the offense, I have no problem with throwing the defense a bone now and then.

usually a pretty big deal when they put a rule in place to address it......it's not changed in high school or college, but boy oh boy our professionals need it to be less "confusing"......

 

[VarsityBlues123]

this shows how much smarter and better at the strategy game bill is than other coaches. they have to make rules to outlaw the way he thinks up genius plays.

the league hates the patriots and they win in spite of it.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

"Just for the sake of doing so"? Come on man, the defense is already at a huge disadvantage. There's simply no good way to inform the defense who is actually eligible on every play if this was allowed to stand, which means that the defense basically has to treat EVERY offensive player as eligible. And that's simply not fair and won't make for good football.

not true.....depending on the level of football, eligibility is determined by number and/or where you line up....covered up, reporting as eligible etc....it's really only a matter of knowing the rules.....NFL is bailing teams out here for not wanting to know/take the time to learn the rules and play/adjust accordingly.....

some of the nice plays are seeing the big uglies catch a pass....fake FG's or punts.....making it easier to defend these actually makes the game more boring IMO and requires less strategy......not sure that makes for "good football".....but I guess to each his own......I like seeing outside of the box thinking and plays/things that challenge the other team to adjust and stratigize.....I wish we saw more risk taken, more flea flickers, more fake FG's, etc....changing rules like this doesn't help make for "good" football....

 

[Leroy Hoard]

You have to take care of the incompetent coaches somehow.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

one of the biggest compliments you can receive is having something like this done.....

I'll be honest....a little part of every coaches DNA....no matter what sport....should include a part that actually takes the time to look at the rule book (or rules in place for that particular league) and think about ways they can exploit them and use them to their advantage in ways that other teams/coaches aren't.....

heck, most fantasy football players look for things like this in the rules.....golfers look for things like this, etc....

 

[GroveDiesel]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

"Just for the sake of doing so"? Come on man, the defense is already at a huge disadvantage. There's simply no good way to inform the defense who is actually eligible on every play if this was allowed to stand, which means that the defense basically has to treat EVERY offensive player as eligible. And that's simply not fair and won't make for good football.

not true.....depending on the level of football, eligibility is determined by number and/or where you line up....covered up, reporting as eligible etc....it's really only a matter of knowing the rules.....NFL is bailing teams out here for not wanting to know/take the time to learn the rules and play/adjust accordingly.....

some of the nice plays are seeing the big uglies catch a pass....fake FG's or punts.....making it easier to defend these actually makes the game more boring IMO and requires less strategy......not sure that makes for "good football".....but I guess to each his own......I like seeing outside of the box thinking and plays/things that challenge the other team to adjust and stratigize.....I wish we saw more risk taken, more flea flickers, more fake FG's, etc....changing rules like this doesn't help make for "good" football....

The offense starts every single play with a huge advantage just in having the football and knowing exactly what play they're running. Rule after rule has been put into place giving them more and more advantages. There have to be some checks in place to create balance. Watching a chess match where the rules are stacked in favor of one side isn't entertaining. There's plenty of areas teams can still be creative in offensively.

One of the effects of what the Patriots were doing was to severely limit what their opponent was doing defensively. The expansion in what the Patriots were doing forced the defense to be more conservative and limit their creativity. If anything, the rules need to be changed to encourage more defensive creativity.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

"Just for the sake of doing so"? Come on man, the defense is already at a huge disadvantage. There's simply no good way to inform the defense who is actually eligible on every play if this was allowed to stand, which means that the defense basically has to treat EVERY offensive player as eligible. And that's simply not fair and won't make for good football.

not true.....depending on the level of football, eligibility is determined by number and/or where you line up....covered up, reporting as eligible etc....it's really only a matter of knowing the rules.....NFL is bailing teams out here for not wanting to know/take the time to learn the rules and play/adjust accordingly.....

some of the nice plays are seeing the big uglies catch a pass....fake FG's or punts.....making it easier to defend these actually makes the game more boring IMO and requires less strategy......not sure that makes for "good football".....but I guess to each his own......I like seeing outside of the box thinking and plays/things that challenge the other team to adjust and stratigize.....I wish we saw more risk taken, more flea flickers, more fake FG's, etc....changing rules like this doesn't help make for "good" football....

The offense starts every single play with a huge advantage just in having the football and knowing exactly what play they're running. Rule after rule has been put into place giving them more and more advantages. There have to be some checks in place to create balance. Watching a chess match where the rules are stacked in favor of one side isn't entertaining. There's plenty of areas teams can still be creative in offensively.

One of the effects of what the Patriots were doing was to severely limit what their opponent was doing defensively. The expansion in what the Patriots were doing forced the defense to be more conservative and limit their creativity. If anything, the rules need to be changed to encourage more defensive creativity.

I can see we are going to have to just disagree on the type of football we prefer to watch, but there is IMO so much wrong with your post I could counter much of it.....and believe me, I am actually on your side when thinking the offense has been given a few too many breaks, but's more in that I think the NFL has gone a little to far with illegal contact downfield, etc.....for instance, I am so glad they did away with the "pushed out" rule, where they would still call it a completion if the officials "thought" the WR would have come down in bounds if not pushed out by the defense....that may have been the worse rule EVAH in football.......throw it somewhere else if you can't come down in bounds...

anyway, back to your post....

in many sports the offense has the ball and the defense doesn't know whats coming.....thats what actually makes it fun to watch.....it would kind of suck if the defense knew what was coming......but let's not pretend it doesn't go both ways.....often the offense adjusts to what the defense is showing......thousands of offensive plays called in the huddle never happen.....

in fact, one could argue that in football, it is the defense that dictates what play is actually run by the offense....

the defense can do whatever they want....they are not limited by anything....they can be creative as they want......they often dictate what you see happen...

 

[ShamrockPride]

this shows how much smarter and better at the strategy game bill is than other coaches. they have to make rules to outlaw the way he thinks up genius plays.

the league hates the patriots and they win in spite of it.

Ohhhh STOP. The league loves the Pats. You're delusional if you think they don't know having them in the super bowl exponentially boosts ratings, even by super bowl standards, or that more people tune into their playoff games just to watch them possibly lose.

 

[Run It Up]

They love them so much, they leaked partial, out of context and in some instance just completely fabricated information for a whole week the week before the big game.

 

[ShamrockPride]

They love them so much, they leaked partial, out of context and in some instance just completely fabricated information for a whole week the week before the big game.

If you were the league you wouldn't have done the same thing? What's the alternative? Keep it hush hush until all the way after the investigation is done which would be way after the super bowl and then have the public raging for another asterisk and illegitimate championship? It was better to get what they could say out of the way and have everyone be sure that the biggest 4 hours in television is a fairly played football game.

 

[Run It Up]

They love them so much, they leaked partial, out of context and in some instance just completely fabricated information for a whole week the week before the big game.

If you were the league you wouldn't have done the same thing? What's the alternative? Keep it hush hush until all the way after the investigation is done which would be way after the super bowl and then have the public raging for another asterisk and illegitimate championship? It was better to get what they could say out of the way and have everyone be sure that the biggest 4 hours in television is a fairly played football game.

Do you need a timeline or something, the league did nothing - except for leak intentionally out of context incriminating information.

 

[ShamrockPride]

They love them so much, they leaked partial, out of context and in some instance just completely fabricated information for a whole week the week before the big game.

If you were the league you wouldn't have done the same thing? What's the alternative? Keep it hush hush until all the way after the investigation is done which would be way after the super bowl and then have the public raging for another asterisk and illegitimate championship? It was better to get what they could say out of the way and have everyone be sure that the biggest 4 hours in television is a fairly played football game.

Do you need a timeline or something, the league did nothing - except for leak intentionally out of context incriminating information.

As far as I remember, it came out the day after the colts/pats. And stuff kept leaking the rest of that week. Idk which particular piece of info has you in a tizzy, but I would like to find out.

 

[Run It Up]

They love them so much, they leaked partial, out of context and in some instance just completely fabricated information for a whole week the week before the big game.

If you were the league you wouldn't have done the same thing? What's the alternative? Keep it hush hush until all the way after the investigation is done which would be way after the super bowl and then have the public raging for another asterisk and illegitimate championship? It was better to get what they could say out of the way and have everyone be sure that the biggest 4 hours in television is a fairly played football game.

Do you need a timeline or something, the league did nothing - except for leak intentionally out of context incriminating information.

As far as I remember, it came out the day after the colts/pats. And stuff kept leaking the rest of that week. Idk which particular piece of info has you in a tizzy, but I would like to find out.

Pretty much every piece of information was wrong that leaked the week prior, and it was all incriminating. The week of the Superbowl pretty much everything the week prior had been completely debunked. It was a ####show witch hunt, perpetrated by Ryan Grigson and Mike Kensil. Goodell could have put a stop to it and didn't. They'd rather talk about some bull#### deflated football ghost story instead of the rampant PEDs and domestic violence that plagues the league - or you know, the biggest game of the year between the two best teams in the league.

 

[Joe Summer]

The rule change doesn't prevent teams from shuffling eligible/ineligible players into the game -- it just prevents teams from putting an ineligible player more than 2 yards from an offensive lineman.

Mark my words -- Belichick WILL find a way to exploit the new rule.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

Well in fairness almost every single rule change has benefitted offense since about 1990.

 

[espnespn]

this shows how much smarter and better at the strategy game bill is than other coaches. they have to make rules to outlaw the way he thinks up genius plays.

the league hates the patriots and they win in spite of it.

Ohhhh STOP. The league loves the Pats. You're delusional if you think they don't know having them in the super bowl exponentially boosts ratings, even by super bowl standards, or that more people tune into their playoff games just to watch them possibly lose.

The Patriots being in the SB doesn't boost ratings exponentially -- ratings are trending up in general, regardless of the teams playing. Please stop making baseless assumptions.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/216526/super-bowl-us-tv-viewership/

Btw, the Patriots "illegal formation" that Salty Haters cried about, was nearly identical to what the Lions did in Week 6.

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776177/another-nfl-team-used-four-offensive-linemen-set

Funny how crickets were chirping after a non-Patriots team runs that play, but the Salty Haters come out of the woodwork and loudly complain when the Patriots run that play. In fact, several teams whined about the Patriots, pressuring the league to make it illegal.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12556985/new-england-patriots-formation-now-ruled-illegal-substitution

I'm not sure how anyone can think that the league loves the Patriots. It's pretty obvious that there's a double-standard working against the Patriots.

 

[Run It Up]

I don't think the league hates the Pats, one of their best franchises. I do think there are a few higher ups who have a vendetta against them and Goodell's incompetence lets those few smear them freely.

 

[Rimez]

its a copy cat league and every team would be doing it, which would drastically slow the flow of the game down (for very little gain) since every play would now need a ref mic'ing up and calling out the eligible receivers. it was only mildly cheating because the refs didnt spot what was happening, the pats tricked the refs and it was the refs that screwed over the ravens defense. the next game when they were pulling similar trickery they got away with the nate solder touchdown which was an illegal play when reviewed after they game. again the refs messed up.

BB outsmarted the rulebook and the league, but these trickster/######/clever/cheating/genius/broken formations had to be banned or suddenly were not watching dez bryant or jimmy graham screaming down the field high pointing a pass anymore, instead they are standing around on the line being a decoy while the center runs a deep post with his 10 second 40-yard dash. doesnt sound enteraining to me, sounds more like 8 hours of beer commercials and refs diddling their mic switch with a few seconds of rugby every 5 minutes.

 

[espnespn]

its a copy cat league and every team would be doing it, which would drastically slow the flow of the game down (for very little gain) since every play would now need a ref mic'ing up and calling out the eligible receivers. it was only mildly cheating because the refs didnt spot what was happening, the pats tricked the refs and it was the refs that screwed over the ravens defense. the next game when they were pulling similar trickery they got away with the nate solder touchdown which was an illegal play when reviewed after they game. again the refs messed up.

BB outsmarted the rulebook and the league, but these trickster/######/clever/cheating/genius/broken formations had to be banned or suddenly were not watching dez bryant or jimmy graham screaming down the field high pointing a pass anymore, instead they are standing around on the line being a decoy while the center runs a deep post with his 10 second 40-yard dash. doesnt sound enteraining to me, sounds more like 8 hours of beer commercials and refs diddling their mic switch with a few seconds of rugby every 5 minutes.

Um, the NFL said the Patriots formations vs. the Ravens was legal. Period. It was not cheating at all.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24954397/nfl-patriots-ran-legal-formations-vs-ravens

You are correct that there was a missed penalty on the Nate Solder TD vs. the Colts, because one of his teammates was illegally on the field, and the refs missed it. But that doesn't make it "cheating" any more than, say, the refs missing a holding penalty.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2015-01-30/nate-solder-new-england-patriots-illegal-touchdown-indianapolis-colts-deflategate-afc-championship

 

[biju]

I love the innovation personally.

Having said that, they squashed it too early--I would have loved to see how it played out next season *against* the Patriots.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

when are they going to outlaw johnny football down the sideline as a receiver?

they can slow us down but they can't stop us --- looking fwd to next year's rule changes.......

 

[Pipes]

The rule change doesn't prevent teams from shuffling eligible/ineligible players into the game -- it just prevents teams from putting an ineligible player more than 2 yards from an offensive lineman. Mark my words -- Belichick WILL find a way to exploit the new rule.

Yep and good for him for doing so.

 

[Shutout]

Don't know why people are calling this an "exploit" or a "pre-emptive cheat". It was just a legal action that they were smart enough to employ and had the personnel to di it with when nobody else did.

To me, it's like the NBA when the triangle offense meshed well with the Bulls or when the NBA literally changed its rules because they had never seen some dominant players that came into the league that basically broke the balance (Chamberlain, Jabar, and I think they made a change re: Shaq too).

It was there for the taking by ANYBODY who had the skill or smarts to employ it and somebody finally did. If anything, it is a shame that the league, as a whole, folded like a lawn chair and made a change instead of saying "Ok, make our product better by showing you can counter this."

 

[Flying Elvis]

its a copy cat league and every team would be doing it, which would drastically slow the flow of the game down (for very little gain) since every play would now need a ref mic'ing up and calling out the eligible receivers. it was only mildly cheating because the refs didnt spot what was happening, the pats tricked the refs and it was the refs that screwed over the ravens defense. the next game when they were pulling similar trickery they got away with the nate solder touchdown which was an illegal play when reviewed after they game. again the refs messed up.

BB outsmarted the rulebook and the league, but these trickster/######/clever/cheating/genius/broken formations had to be banned or suddenly were not watching dez bryant or jimmy graham screaming down the field high pointing a pass anymore, instead they are standing around on the line being a decoy while the center runs a deep post with his 10 second 40-yard dash. doesnt sound enteraining to me, sounds more like 8 hours of beer commercials and refs diddling their mic switch with a few seconds of rugby every 5 minutes.

I hit the 'like' on this post b/c it's obviously sarcasm and the mental imagery of Dez as a decoy while a center runs a deep post brightened what has otherwise been a not-so-bright day.

If I'm wrong and you truly think there was 'mild cheating' (whatever the F that may mean) then . . . . idk - I rescind my 'like', I guess?

 

[CalBear]

Don't know why people are calling this an "exploit" or a "pre-emptive cheat". It was just a legal action that they were smart enough to employ and had the personnel to di it with when nobody else did.

To me, it's like the NBA when the triangle offense meshed well with the Bulls or when the NBA literally changed its rules because they had never seen some dominant players that came into the league that basically broke the balance (Chamberlain, Jabar, and I think they made a change re: Shaq too).

It was there for the taking by ANYBODY who had the skill or smarts to employ it and somebody finally did. If anything, it is a shame that the league, as a whole, folded like a lawn chair and made a change instead of saying "Ok, make our product better by showing you can counter this."

It wasn't cheating, but it was silly, and it was a violation of the general concept of eligible/ineligible receivers. The reason you have any ineligible receivers at all is that the defense is supposed to not have to account for linemen.

 

[Freelove]

Don't know why people are calling this an "exploit" or a "pre-emptive cheat". It was just a legal action that they were smart enough to employ and had the personnel to di it with when nobody else did.

To me, it's like the NBA when the triangle offense meshed well with the Bulls or when the NBA literally changed its rules because they had never seen some dominant players that came into the league that basically broke the balance (Chamberlain, Jabar, and I think they made a change re: Shaq too).

It was there for the taking by ANYBODY who had the skill or smarts to employ it and somebody finally did. If anything, it is a shame that the league, as a whole, folded like a lawn chair and made a change instead of saying "Ok, make our product better by showing you can counter this."

It wasn't cheating, but it was silly, and it was a violation of the general concept of eligible/ineligible receivers. The reason you have any ineligible receivers at all is that the defense is supposed to not have to account for linemen.

It wasn't against the rules. It was against the spirit of the rule. That sort of thing is, of course, perfectly legal. But once exploited, it's then up to the league to fix the rule so it more closely matches the spirit they were shooting for.

The league did.

Nobody wanted to watch CB's beat WR's to death at the line of scrimmage when Mel Blount turned that tactic into the ultimate "shutdown corner" technique in the 70's. They fixed it, and the passing game has become the most popular facet of modern football. Sometimes the league actually gets stuff right.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So they just made ineligible receivers .... Ineligible?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just realized that OP is a tweet from the Ravens, that is sad.

 

[Run It Up]

I just realized that OP is a tweet from the Ravens, that is sad.

The Ravens were the first to announce the change. Annoying, but I'm sure it's not as annoying as blowing a 14pt lead twice.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I just realized that OP is a tweet from the Ravens, that is sad.

I had no idea

thx for catching that

DAT SALT!!

comments are hilarious -- I <3 internet

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Kris ‏@5kl Mar 25

.@Ravens Too bad you weren't this mad when a woman got beat.

Mick Scafidi ‏@Hophead_67 Mar 25

@Ravens @Marc_Bertrand can't beat'em? change the rules.

Danny Goldberg ‏@dannygberg Mar 25

@Ravens U MAD???

fictionalninja ‏@fictionalninja Mar 25

.@Ravens The old rules say that they deeply regret the role that they played the night of the incident.

R ‏@Luarismo_ Mar 25


.@Ravens JAJAJAJA momento de ir al psicologo.

Kyle ‏@KD9512 Mar 25

“@Ravens: NFL owners have passed the rule proposal banning Tom Brady like the Patriots used in the AFC divisional playoffs.”

Randy Wittman Fan ‏@Jay_Sanin Mar 25

.@Ravens the ineligible receivers regret their role in the incident

Riley Eichhorst ‏@RileyEich Mar 25

@Dave_Cavallaro @Ravens classless, I'd say. However they do condone murderous pigs like Ray so I'm not too surprised they tweet this

rpm002 ‏@rpm002 Mar 25

@DrewFustin Packers should propose a rule that anytime it is fourth and goal from inside the 2 in the 1st half, you can't kick a FG.

 

[Anarchy99]

I just realized that OP is a tweet from the Ravens, that is sad.

I had no idea

thx for catching that

DAT SALT!!

comments are hilarious -- I <3 internet

They were so excited to tweet it, the original tweet spelled ineligible wrong.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

maybe it's sizzle on that account

 

[FUBAR]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

"Just for the sake of doing so"? Come on man, the defense is already at a huge disadvantage. There's simply no good way to inform the defense who is actually eligible on every play if this was allowed to stand, which means that the defense basically has to treat EVERY offensive player as eligible. And that's simply not fair and won't make for good football.

Excuse the ignorant question but why isn't every player eligible? Would it really destroy the game if the linemen could be targeted?

 

[Run It Up]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

"Just for the sake of doing so"? Come on man, the defense is already at a huge disadvantage. There's simply no good way to inform the defense who is actually eligible on every play if this was allowed to stand, which means that the defense basically has to treat EVERY offensive player as eligible. And that's simply not fair and won't make for good football.

Excuse the ignorant question but why isn't every player eligible? Would it really destroy the game if the linemen could be targeted?

The league can't even define what a ####### catch is, if there were more than 6 players eligible to receive a catch I'm confident the competition committee would stroke out.

 

[ShamrockPride]

I don't see how the game is better without it. I don't see how the rule change positively affects the game.

I don't see how this is anything other than giving ground back to the defense for the sake of doing so.

"Just for the sake of doing so"? Come on man, the defense is already at a huge disadvantage. There's simply no good way to inform the defense who is actually eligible on every play if this was allowed to stand, which means that the defense basically has to treat EVERY offensive player as eligible. And that's simply not fair and won't make for good football.

Excuse the ignorant question but why isn't every player eligible? Would it really destroy the game if the linemen could be targeted?

The league can't even define what a ####### catch is, if there were more than 6 players eligible to receive a catch I'm confident the competition committee would stroke out.

Well I think it more has to do with keeping the game interesting. Otherwise you could have 11 vs. 10. At that point what? You have the D-line cover the O-line and there's no (or 1) guy rushing the QB? Sounds lame.

 

[theplayer11]

I'm okay with the Pats' having exploited the rule, and with the rule change.

It was clever, but hardly something that would make games more enjoyable if it were to become endemic.

Good work, but good riddance, IMO.

This is exactly where I come out. Kudos to Belichick for exploiting a loophole to maximum effect. It's part of what makes him such a genius. But the game is better without it.

there wasn't any exploitation..He played totally within the rules..cry babies didn't like it because they are too stupid to figure things out.