Official Louisvile Postgame Thread

swampsting said:
As noted earlier, not unlike a formation PJ ran with two receivers on the line. The inside guy is ineligible, so he can't catch the ball but I think he can go a couple of yards downfield. The Patriots have done it too in the past and ran out of it. You have to have at least seven men on the line of scrimmage. Is it illegal to put 10 on the line and just have the QB or a wildcat RB in the backfield?
Click to expand...
Got it. So, legal formation but a lot of ineligible receivers.
 
gtleviathan said:
Got it. So, legal formation but a lot of ineligible receivers.
Click to expand...
Yes. CPJ ran that formation against the dwags and they completely fell for it.

The entire purpose for lining up that way is to take a defender out of the play.
 
gtleviathan said:
It's illegal if a forward pass is attempted. (In that case, only 7 can be on the line of scrimmage.) In the NFL, it's illegal whether or not a forward pass is attempted, if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. The minimum you can have on the LOS is 7. You can have as many people on the LOS as you want, but only the outside 2 on the line are eligible receivers. It's not illegal to throw a pass in that situation, but only the two outside guys can run routes down the field, or it's an ineligible man downfield penalty. Teams use weird formations like this all the time to confuse defenses too. They'll put folks out on guys that aren't eligible and that gives the offense and advantage to the inside or the other side. Also if it's a called run play or a screen pass, it doesn't matter who is on the line or where.
 
gtleviathan said:
IMG_2248.jpeg


Here’s one example. So, on rewatch, I think the top receiver did motion slightly to the side judge that he was off the LOS. Maybe that’s what’s happening each time I see this and I’m just missing it. But if I were judging this formation without that context I’d say there were 8 men on the LOS here.

I will say that every time it looks really close like this that I’ve noticed, it’s been a run, not a pass. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, though.
Click to expand...
This play did get flagged for ineligible receiver downfield. This was the pass to Beetham that got to the 1 yard line. Leo Blackburn and Isaih Canion up top both ran routes and Leo has Canion covered up. One of them was supposed to be off the line. I think Leo "thinks" he's off like you said he motioned to the ref and he's slightly behind the other receiver, but probably not back far enough. Pretty ööööty though if he told the ref he's off, usually the ref will tell you step back a little more. If he told the ref he's on, then Canion is the one lined up incorrectly. I have no idea what the ref was talking about when he said "85 was covered up." 85 (Hawes) didn't go into a route, he blocked at the LOS.

Now that I just rewatched it, I think the ref granted Leo his "off the line" status, and thought it was 85 that went out and caught the pass. 85 is on the line and ineligible, but Beetham (17) is the one off the line right outside of him and IS eligible. There was sort of a rub there with 17 going around 85 and I bet that ref thought that 85 was the one that went out and caught the pass, and they never deliberated and realized he wasn't the one that went out for a pass.

This was a huge moment too because it would have been 1st and goal at the 1, but instead we didn't convert the 3rd down then Birr missed the FG. Another huge point swing.
 
GoGATech said:
This play did get flagged for ineligible receiver downfield. This was the pass to Beetham that got to the 1 yard line. Leo Blackburn and Isaih Canion up top both ran routes and Leo has Canion covered up. One of them was supposed to be off the line. I think Leo "thinks" he's off like you said he motioned to the ref and he's slightly behind the other receiver, but probably not back far enough. Pretty ööööty though if he told the ref he's off, usually the ref will tell you step back a little more. If he told the ref he's on, then Canion is the one lined up incorrectly. I have no idea what the ref was talking about when he said "85 was covered up." 85 (Hawes) didn't go into a route, he blocked at the LOS.

Now that I just rewatched it, I think the ref granted Leo his "off the line" status, and thought it was 85 that went out and caught the pass. 85 is on the line and ineligible, but Beetham (17) is the one off the line right outside of him and IS eligible. There was sort of a rub there with 17 going around 85 and I bet that ref thought that 85 was the one that went out and caught the pass, and they never deliberated and realized he wasn't the one that went out for a pass.

This was a huge moment too because it would have been 1st and goal at the 1, but instead we didn't convert the 3rd down then Birr missed the FG. Another huge point swing.
Click to expand...
D'oh. I was fast-forwarding looking for the formation and when I found it I didn't even look at the resulting play. So, I guess we do actually pass out of it.

Things I've learned from this discussion:

  • We probably are meaning to only have 7 players on the LOS but maybe some of our receivers really push the boundary with how close they are getting to the line.
  • The actual funky part of the formation is the ineligible TE.
  • We do pass out of this sometimes.
  • We are just as liable to fool the refs with this as we are to fool the defense. Be ready to challenge ineligible receiver calls if needed (assuming that is a reviewable penalty?)
 
gtleviathan said:
D'oh. I was fast-forwarding looking for the formation and when I found it didn't even look at the resulting play. So, I guess we do actually pass out of it.

Things I've learned from this discussion:

  • We probably are meaning to only have 7 players on the LOS but maybe some of our receivers really push the boundary with how close they are getting to the line.
  • The actual funky part of the formation is the ineligible TE.
  • We do pass out of this sometimes.
  • We are just as liable to fool the refs with this as we are to fool the defense. Be ready to challenge ineligible receiver calls if needed (assuming that is a reviewable penalty?)
Click to expand...
I wondered too about whether that's reviewable because on the replay they clearly showed that 85 was at the LOS blocking and that's who they called the penalty on. I don't understand how that isn't reviewable if things such as intentional grounding are (where they will go back and look to see if the QB was outside of the tackle box or whether the ball made it to the LOS). That doesn't seem to be very different. The refs very well could have just not noticed, or like I said possibly granted Leo "off the line" and mistakenly thought 85 went out for a pass.

Also, one other thing... sometimes guys just line up wrong and are supposed to be off/on and get it wrong.
 
gtleviathan said:
IMG_2248.jpeg


Here’s one example. So, on rewatch, I think the top receiver did motion slightly to the side judge that he was off the LOS. Maybe that’s what’s happening each time I see this and I’m just missing it. But if I were judging this formation without that context I’d say there were 8 men on the LOS here.

I will say that every time it looks really close like this that I’ve noticed, it’s been a run, not a pass. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, though.
Click to expand...

Wow, this does look like an obvious running formation,It has TWO TEs -with one being a blocking back -at 250 , he's not a real receiving threat.THat's why big fast TEs are so valuable..
otoh- if our split 2 WRs can't get open with 1 on 1 , then we have real problems there.
 
Our offensive linemen stand straight up and don’t go anywhere. They looked really bad out there.
 
Lost because the team was tired from the FSU game travel, just like the Syracuse loss.
 
GTYJ said:
Lost because the team was tired from the FSU game travel, just like the Syracuse loss.
Click to expand...

Not the travel, but teams wear down after 5 games. UL was on game 3. We were definitely more dinged up than them. Even so, we had to punch ourselves in the dick with dumb plays and decisions to lose like we did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top