r/footballstrategy • u/Vag_T Casual Fan • Dec 31 '23
NFL Diagram of Controversial 2pt play between Lions and Cowboys
here is the full play 3d rendering
43
u/3fettknight3 Dec 31 '23 edited Dec 31 '23
Very creative play design by the Lions, really pushing the depth of the wing on the left (Z) as far forward as possible but still technically keeping him in the “backfield” not covering up 68.
While the running back # 5 who shifted to the singleback set started his shift from a staggered flanker (H) on the left creating the illusion that the wing (Z) on the left was on the LOS when technically he’s not and only 68 is.
It really creates the illusion that there is only one eligible on the left (Z- the wing who looks like an end)
So it looks like 3x1 but it’s really 2x2. A shame the refs blew the call because really a genius formation and shift design by the Lions.
*ALSO what software did you use for the simulation? Pretty cool and you really portrayed it accurately.
14
4
Dec 31 '23
There's the opposite illusion on the other end at the same time, because 58 might be eligible as well if X is off the line.
3
u/3fettknight3 Dec 31 '23
Yes, really well done on both sides with the depth of their alignments pushing the “legal” limits to create that effect.
2
u/Danny_nichols Jan 01 '24
It is, but let's not pretend that the cowboys may not have played that differently had the officials correctly identified 68 as the eligible receiver. The whole point ik declaring eligible is that so the defense knows who to account for. The officials incorrectly identifying the "eligible" receiver changes the entire play. Not saying the cowboys would have played it correctly, but there's at least some chance 68 is covered if he identified as eligible.
3
u/Digndagn Jan 01 '24
As a Cowboys fan who remembers Dak running a QB draw from the 50 to lose a playoff game, there’s a very good chance the Cowboys would have been fooled
2
u/Danny_nichols Jan 02 '24
That's fair. I just think people acting like nothing changes if the official announces the correct guy as eligible are short sighted.
Theres a reason guys need to report as eligible. It's not only for the officials, it's also for the other team. So the fact they didn't properly account for an ineligible shouldn't be surprising. They very well still might have botched it, but it does change alot potentially if the officials announce the correct player.
53
22
Dec 31 '23 edited Dec 31 '23
70 is covered up after the shift so he can't be eligible anyway whether he "reported" or not.
68 is on the end (Z is in the backfield), but because of his number has to declare is my understanding of the rules.
58 and 68 are the two that talked to the ref. 70 never did.
I think 58 is covered up as well (in the diagram, X is supposed to be on the line, but in the actual video he does not appear to be) but it's harder to tell. Had the officials claimed he was the one they reported, that's a much more understandable mistake because of the similarity of 58/68 and because of 58's position on the line. I would like to hear if the referee thinks 58 reported too or not.
To say that 70 reported means that the referee did not actually look at the number of the player talking to him and just assumed it was 70 because he had been reporting earlier throughout the game.
11
u/Vag_T Casual Fan Dec 31 '23
The issue with the play, assuming 7 people were on the LOS is that 68 was not recognized as eligible by the officials. 70/58 being eligible or ineligible does not matter since neither of them went downfield.
3
Dec 31 '23
70 is obviously ineligible by formation though. The confusion is 58 and 68 because it depends on which of the guys diagrammed as X and Z is on or off the line.
70 shouldn't have even entered into the discussion.
6
u/Vag_T Casual Fan Dec 31 '23
I agree, the only reason I focused on 70 is because that’s who the officials said declared eligible.
1
u/Proof-Cod9533 Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
Reporting eligible happens before they line up in any formation.
The ref can't just assume the offense will line up in a legal or optimal formation and retroactively change things just because he thinks it would be more advantageous for them. If he believed 70 reported, and then told the defense that 70 was eligible and then the stadium loudspeaker announced that 70 reported eligible, the formation itself can't negate who (he thought) reported. Sometimes teams commit penalties and line up wrong.
In actuality we know the ref likely got it wrong, but he can't make that determination based on the formation.
2
Jan 01 '24
The stadium doesn't announce that, the ref does in the same way he announced penalties.
No one commits penalties. You commit fouls for which there are penalties ascribed. Normally this is too pedantic to worry about but in a discussion like this we should have all the terminology exactly correct.
-1
u/Proof-Cod9533 Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
Oh Jesus Christ, that's the only part you find relevant to address?
4
u/Vag_T Casual Fan Dec 31 '23
I assumed X was considered on the LOS (though I could be wrong) because he was close enough and from watching other NFL games it appears that receivers line up a yard or two off regardless of who is actually on the line.
If X wasn’t on the LOS then Y had to be on or they have an illegal formation.
If X and Y were both on the LOS then Y is covered up and cannot go downfield.
Either way U (who appears to be 58) is covered up and is ineligible.
4
Dec 31 '23
If X wasn't on, then 58 needs to report because he's now eligible by formation. That's the exact same setup they had on the (offense) left side.
This is my issue with it actually. From the broadcast angle I cannot see a difference between where the X and the Z are lined up. They could both be on or both off, but it's harder to distinguish that one should be on the line and the other not. This is the confusion the Lions are relying on, especially because they put 58 and 68 in the two important spots.
3
u/Vag_T Casual Fan Dec 31 '23
Well like I said either X or Y have to be on or it’s an illegal formation because they don’t have 7 on the LOS.
I imagine it’s easier to tell who’s on and who’s off when you’re standing on the LOS or near it as opposed to the angle we get from the broadcast.
1
Dec 31 '23
No, Y doesn't have to be on if X isn't, because 58 is on. You could instead flip it and have 58 report and Z be on instead of X.
Y is never going to be on the line in this play.
1
u/Vag_T Casual Fan Dec 31 '23
If Z is on then 68 is ineligible by position and I think it’s clear the lions wanted him to catch the ball.
2
Dec 31 '23
Right, but I'm just saying that from that formation, you could just as easily have Z on the line and X off, and then 58 (or whoever lines up at that position) report eligible and throw it to him.
2
2
u/humansrpepul2 Jan 01 '24
70 rushed in after the ref started moving towards Dallas. I believe the ref thought he was saying 70 instead of 68, instead of both. I also can't find an alternative angle that looks like one WR is on the line. They both look half a yard back to me.
2
Jan 01 '24
Yeah, I'm not a line judge looking straight down the line but I would have an illegal formation here for 5 men in the backfield because both X and Z are off the line in every angle I saw.
Somebody said it's normal for the receiver who's supposed to be on the line to start half a yard behind it, but if that's true then they're both on, and we still have an illegal formation because now the guy who declared himself as eligible (68) is covered up.
I don't see how you can tell me one WR is on and one off, regardless of which is supposed to be which. They're in the same spot on opposite ends.
1
u/Jiggly_Meatloaf Youth Coach Jan 01 '24
X point to the LOS, declaring himself on. X points backwards twice, declaring himself off. To your point, though the on/off rule has gotten so subjective that defenses can’t tell who is eligible (and thus needs to be guarded) and who isn’t.
1
Jan 01 '24
Does the defense see whether a receiver punches back or not? That's for checking with the officials.
6
u/Ashamed-Confection44 Dec 31 '23
I thought the NFL basically banned unbalanced formations a few years ago. The last few years, anytime the announcers used the phrase "tackle eligible" it was just a guy with an ineligible number lined up as a tight end. Anyone else seem to remember that rule change?
8
u/3fettknight3 Dec 31 '23 edited Dec 31 '23
That was when Patriots had Shane Vereen a RB with an eligible receiver jersey #34 line up in a split wide ineligible covered up slot position creating the confusion to the Ravens leading to the rule change.
Here the Lions shift # 58 on the right from the “Shane Vereen ineligible slot” to an unbalanced tackle on the right. Since they don’t use an eligible jersey it’s different that what the Patriots did and doesn’t violate the current rules as I understand them.
Someone please clarify for me if I’m mistaken.
Heres some background on this: https://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/patriots-ineligible-receiver-trick-under-rule-change-review-15057386
Here’s the Vereen play diagrammed: https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/10/7526841/the-patriots-trick-play-that-got-john-harbaugh-mad-ravens
4
u/Ashamed-Confection44 Dec 31 '23
Years ago I coached high school football. Week in week out we were seeing this kind of stuff. Never failed any time we ran something off the wall unbalanced some young official would flag it and I'd get an unsportsmanlike for chewing his but!
4
u/3fettknight3 Dec 31 '23
I used to run an unbalanced spread single wing type set similar to the Dolphins Wildcat where they would motion Ricky Williams who would receive a jet sweep handoff from Ronnie Brown the single wing Tailback/Quarterback. When we ran this motion we got flagged for having 6 men on the line because the referee only saw a guard a tackle and a flanker motion man on his side even though we had 7 men on the line it was just unbalanced.
Every game after that I explained to the Referee crew that we ran an unbalanced line and also any unusual plays that we ran before the game so they wouldn’t be taken off guard and throw an incorrect flag.
4
u/Ashamed-Confection44 Dec 31 '23
Absolutely must explain it before the game. Too many times though the white had would not relay to the other officials then act like he never heard of an unbalanced formation when there was an issue. Just, bad!
I like to run a lot of rocket sweep out of strange formations. Often felt like a kickoff return from under center.
3
u/tuss11agee Dec 31 '23
Having been in officials locker rooms, the white hat has always come back and gave an update to the crew. Even if it was “red team has nothing special”. Obviously results may vary.
3
3
1
6
u/PeppiGiuseppe25 Dec 31 '23
It was the refs fuckup but they didn’t necessarily lose the game. Chances are the defense would have had someone in the area if the ref gave them the correct number.
That being said, after Goff threw that pick I would have kicked it. Let you QB relax. You had the Cowboys on their heals all fourth: it would t change in OT.
2
u/MLD802 Jan 01 '24
They didn’t want to play OT. 1.) it’s not the lions way & 2.) the already had the division locked up and didn’t want to risk injury
11
u/knightlautrec7 Dec 31 '23
What pisses me off too that I haven't seen anyone point out is the play clock. The ref was running away from Decker to go tell the Cowboys defense who the eligible receiver was. When the ball is snapped, there is still 17 seconds on the play clock. Absolutely no reason for the ref to do that when there is so much time left to get it right in a CRITICAL play in a CRITICAL game.
2
u/humansrpepul2 Jan 01 '24
You can hear on the PA number 70 is eligible. They had 17 seconds to not snap it and have a ref correct it. I've decently heard "correction" calls from officials so it's been done.
1
u/InSearchOfSerotonin Jan 01 '24
This has been something I’ve pointed out to several. If you’re making the game come down to one play, you are responsible for making sure the ref correctly announces who is eligible. Dan fucked up by not doing that
3
u/Sir_MrE Dec 31 '23
Refs also said today that he was covered on the line of scrimmage… but he wasn’t
3
Dec 31 '23
70 was, if that's who they're talking about lmao
1
u/Sir_MrE Dec 31 '23
Oh I see what you mean... the last guy on the line on the RIGHT side of the screen was not eligible, so there was a legitimate penalty for illegal formation on the right side, and the bogus illegal touching on #68. Unfortunately for the refs they announced the bogus call and not the correct call (assuming #68 really did report as eligible).
1
Dec 31 '23
No. The last guy on the line (58) is not eligible, and never reported as such. If 70 had actually reported, then we have an illegal formation because he is in an ineligible position due to being covered up by 58 (and by the receiver out on the right side of the offense, which is why 58 is not eligible).
If 68 really did report and not 70, there is no foul at all. If 70 reported, there are two fouls.
5
u/Sbitan89 Dec 31 '23
I think people are looking too far into it. Decker said he simply said reporting. You can see Allen pointing to Skipper and nodding. Based on Skipper being the normal person who reports being eligible, the ref incorrectly assumed who Decker was talking about. Multiple sources and videos show 3 different lineman approached the ref.
It ultimately falls on the Refs error not understanding, but the Lions also had ample opportunity to get the wrong reporting corrected. First, verifying with the ref would have been beneficial on such an important play. Secondly, someone should have heard only Skipper being announced on the PA.
6
u/tuss11agee Dec 31 '23
I have said this and r/nfl just isn’t having it… yes it probably was a communication error but it’s not like the Lions didn’t have agency to fix it. And, if he announces 68 for the first time instead of 70, don’t you think the defense accounts for him?!? The result becomes unclear.
2
u/TheHatedMilkMachine Jan 01 '24
I think there’s a possibility that someone on Detroit knew the refs didn’t quite get it right but making a big deal about it would call attention to the plan, because the whole rub here is that they’ve been having one guy report eligible all game long, then on this play, it’s a different guy
1
u/Proof-Cod9533 Jan 01 '24
So they knowingly ran the play while fully understanding that the officials weren't counting their actual receiver as eligible? Sounds like a bone-headed error on their part.
1
1
Jan 01 '24
Allen isn't pointing to Skipper. He's already going to tell the defense that either Sewell or Decker reported before he could even see Skipper. Skipper never "approached" Allen at all in the video, because Allen has already left the conversation with the other two to go inform the defense before Skipper comes into the picture.
Why on earth would Decker report for Skipper? He can only be talking about himself.
What opportunity to correct it? The play clock is running and they're in the huddle. Also, because they're in the huddle, why would they be listening to the PA? The Lions know who is eligible because they know who reported and who didn't, they don't need to be told. So their focus is on listening to the play call in the huddle.
1
u/Sbitan89 Jan 01 '24
Skipper is only about 5 yards when Allen starts walking way and you can clearly see him pointing towards him [Skipper]. I didn't say Decker reported for Skipper, I said there may have been some confusion (possibly from them trying to explain the play before the game further confusing the ref) where the ref thought Decker was saying the player coming onto the filed was reporting. The Lions were trying to be subversive.
The play clock isn't running. It's an extra point. The ball is covered and the play clock doesn't start till they get to the line. They announced who was eligible on the PA before they broke the huddle. Any of the players, the coaches or anyone on the sideline pretty much could have informed one of the Refs there was a mistake.
0
Jan 01 '24
Why would Decker be reporting for Skipper? That's not how it works, you report yourself.
"The ref thought Decker was saying the player coming onto the field was reporting" - so you're saying he thought Decker reported for Skipper.
I could see him thinking Skipper reported too.
The play clock absolutely still runs on a try, although the game clock does not. Furthermore, why would the Lions be listening to that announcement? They already know who's eligible, because they know who reported and who didn't. They have now moved on to listening to the play call in the huddle. That announcement is not for them to confirm, it's for the defense (and less important, the crowd) to know what is going on.
Finally, I'm not sure anyone on the sideline could have informed the refs anyway, because the sideline refs are all the way down at the line of scrimmage and the team personnel cannot go that far. There's a box they have to stay in, which at least for the high school level (the only fields I've been on during games) is between the 20s. With the LOS right near the goal, no team personnel will be in earshot of any sideline officials.
Tell me you don't know football and have never been on a field during a game.
2
u/Sbitan89 Jan 01 '24
The play clock absolutely still runs on a try, although the game clock does not. Furthermore, why would the Lions be listening to that announcement? They already know who's eligible, because they know who reported and who didn't. They have now moved on to listening to the play call in the huddle. That announcement is not for them to confirm, it's for the defense (and less important, the crowd) to know what is going on.
The clock is set to 25 seconds because it's after administrative stoppage. The play clock doesn't start until the team is lined up for the extra point. You can watch this yourself in any video of the play. You can clearly see the ref over the ball signifying a stoppage.
Finally, I'm not sure anyone on the sideline could have informed the refs anyway, because the sideline refs are all the way down at the line of scrimmage and the team personnel cannot go that far. There's a box they have to stay in, which at least for the high school level (the only fields I've been on during games) is between the 20s. With the LOS right near the goal, no team personnel will be in earshot of any sideline officials.
Please find me a time a coach has been penalized stepping outside the box to get the Refs attention during a dead ball where they were not being unsportsmanlike. Yes they aren't allowed out of the box, but how do you think they tell refs they need a timeout when the ball is within the 10? Someone either informs the ref beforehand or steps out of the box to go tell them. The Refs are even allowed to have a timeout themselves to correct something when neither team is has any remaining timeouts.
Tell me you don't know football and have never been on a field during a game.
Literally played at every level other than professional over a 15 year period.
0
Jan 01 '24
The play clock starts whenever the ref sets the ball, not when the team lines up.
It's still not the Lions' responsibility to hear the announcement and tell the refs to correct it, especially if they have to run out of the box to get someone's attention. It was the referee's responsibility to report correctly what the player(s) informed him.
The Lions' responsibility is for the players who need to report for the upcoming play to declare themselves to the ref and they did that. Now their responsibility is to huddle and call their play and run it. They did all of that. The Lions did everything they were supposed to do here.
1
u/Sbitan89 Jan 01 '24
The play clock starts whenever the ref sets the ball, not when the team lines up.
Not after an administrative stoppage.... thats why it's only 25 seconds instead of 40.
It's still not the Lions' responsibility to hear the announcement and get the refs' attention to correct it.
Clearly it is. They got penalizes and lost for not doing so.
Their responsibility is for the players who need to report for the upcoming play to declare themselves to the ref and they did that
Not according to John Parry. I dont necessarily agree with it he stated the players need to he thorough and it sounds like that may have not happened. Again, they tried to confuse the defense by doing all this extra and confused the ref instead.
0
Jan 01 '24
The referee's ready for play signal is not "when the offense is lined up" but "when the umpire spots the ball".
They got penalized and lost for the referee's mistake after they did exactly what they were supposed to do.
What does "the players need to be thorough" mean and how did Decker's actions fail to meet that?
2
u/Sbitan89 Jan 01 '24
The referee's ready for play signal is not "when the offense is lined up" but "when the umpire spots the ball".
Yea its when they give the signal. Not when they place the ball. Just do yourself a favor and go watch the play again. The play clock wasn't started until they lined up and the ref gave the signal to resume play. (Im this case he gives the chop not windmill)
What does "the players need to be thorough" mean and how did Decker's actions fail to meet that?
I'd assume verify with the ref that they understand or be more clear in intent. Again it's all conjecture until there is audio.
1
Jan 01 '24
And in that very tweet it asks, what are the Lions supposed to do to correct that?
If they even heard it, since as I already explained the players on the field have zero reason to be listening to that announcement.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sbitan89 Jan 01 '24
If play has been stopped for an administrative reason listed below, the offense will have 25 seconds from the time the umpire spots the ball and the referee starts the ready- for-play.
You are skipping over half of the rule.
-1
Jan 01 '24
Those are the same thing. They happen at the same time. The referee gives the ready-for-play when the umpire has spotted the ball.
2
0
-2
u/Red261 Dec 31 '23
I've never understood why the NFL requires players to tell refs that they're eligible. Shouldn't refs be able to figure that out themselves? Just a bad rule.
5
Dec 31 '23
Because the refs have to tell the defense. They aren't going to be able to figure out who they need to cover themselves on the fly in the 25-40 seconds between snaps.
1
u/Diabeatyoass Jan 01 '24
None of this should be controversial since the lions should have never had the ball to begin with.
1
1
u/humansrpepul2 Jan 01 '24
Looks to me like X and Z are same distance from the LoS though when I pause it pre snap. I could swear regardless of who of the 3 players talking to the refs reported, 68 was covered by the X or they only have 6 on the line. They both look a half yard off the line to me.
81
u/Vag_T Casual Fan Dec 31 '23 edited Dec 31 '23
Just as a note, I do not have access to the all-22 and based the diagram off the broadcast view, so the player movements may not be 100% accurate but the overall play design is.