Illegal Formation on 2 pt play

[Cwby41]

I know this has been beaten to death but could someone explain the rule if this was also an illegal formation? I thought I heard Aikman say that their was more than one penalty on this play besides the illegal touch. He said that if he was eligible that he wasnt covered up by a WR. Can anyone explain if this was a penalty as well?
Thanks

 

[thunderpimp91]

it all goes back to who was declared eligible. If #70 was eligible then yes there were multiple fouls, including illegal formation since #70 had someone to his right on the LOS. If #68 was eligible as the lions claim then there would have been no foul on the play for illegal formation.

 

[Mcsports]

NFL ineligible rule
OFFENSIVE TEAM
The offensive team must be in compliance with the following at the snap:

1. (a) It must have seven or more players on the line
2. Eligible receivers must be on both ends of the line, and all of the players on the line between them must be ineligible receivers

 

[Mcsports]

So in the case of Saturday night, since number 70 was announced to the defense and to both benches (via PA system) as an eligible receiver, the Lions did commit a 5 yard infraction.
Since 68 was not announced, his advancement down field and catching a pass warranted another infraction.

 

[Cwby41]

Ok Great Thanks for the response Appreciate it

 

[vig454]

it all goes back to who was declared eligible. If #70 was eligible then yes there were multiple fouls, including illegal formation since #70 had someone to his right on the LOS. If #68 was eligible as the lions claim then there would have been no foul on the play for illegal formation.

Exactly and why did the lions not correct the refs on who was the eligible receiver? They thought they had scored gold and fooled everyone . But only fooled themselves thinking it would stand.

 

[TheHerd]

Can someone post the all-22 of the formation at the snap? Everything else aside, I think the Lions had 8 men in the LOS if I saw the play correctly in real time.

 

[TD-40]

I realize that three Lions players were over there near the official, but clearly the official is looking at and acknowledging 70 only which was confirmed by the PA system. So just because 68 was present in that little circle doesn't mean that 68 even said anything about being eligible. Being present in that conversation doesn't make you eligible.

Everyone is also mentioning the other infractions on the play such as the Illegal Formation. I am also reading on Jason Whitlock's twitter that Dan Campbell had proposed this play in the pregame to the officials but Brad Allen was not present. So that just keeps this story unfolding and the controversy and scandal is going to continue for years.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Exactly and why did the lions not correct the refs on who was the eligible receiver? They thought they had scored gold and fooled everyone . But only fooled themselves thinking it would stand.

I think they both reported. 1 verbal and 1 non-verbal the universal hands down the stomach sign. So when they announced 70 the Lions got what they wanted an uncovered 68 who reported “eligible”. Which is why DC states in his postgame he was told you can’t have 2 report as eligible. I think thats what led him to say we had the meeting with the refs about this play, but we later find out the head ref Allen wasn’t apart of this meeting in which I’m sure DC would’ve been told by Allen you can’t do that. Since Allen is the one who called the penalty.

 

[jazzcat22]

I heard after the game, and probably one of the few times it was mentioned. Because of the media bias. As well some of our own fans.
There could have been 3 different penalties called. But they focused on the most obvious one. Usually they will announce all the penalties, and which one is accepted.

That is the only screw up the refs made, by not announcing all 3.

 

[acr731]

I realize that three Lions players were over there near the official, but clearly the official is looking at and acknowledging 70 only which was confirmed by the PA system. So just because 68 was present in that little circle doesn't mean that 68 even said anything about being eligible. Being present in that conversation doesn't make you eligible.

Everyone is also mentioning the other infractions on the play such as the Illegal Formation. I am also reading on Jason Whitlock's twitter that Dan Campbell had proposed this play in the pregame to the officials but Brad Allen was not present. So that just keeps this story unfolding and the controversy and scandal is going to continue for years.

I'm not certain of this, but I think since #70 was announced as eligible, he should have been on the outside instead of #68. This might be where the illegal formation thing is coming from. The 2nd penalty stems from #68 catching the ball when, according to the refs, he wasn't 'eligible'. I'm sure I'm repeating things that have already been pointed out numerous times, so apologies for that.

I've watched the video a dozen times and I don't see the ref looking at #70 as he approaches the initial conversation between #58, #68, and the ref. The ref had already started walking away before #70 even gets there. So I'm trying to understand how the ref announced #70 as eligible when he wasn't part of the conversation.

My opinion? I think this was totally on the ref's. Audio between #58, #68, and the ref before #70 walks up would certainly clear it up, but that doesn't exist. Only the ref announcing #70 as eligible is there.

 

[MWH1967]

Sorry for being off topic but, what's equally disappointing is that CD fumbled a half yard behind the pilon instead a half yard Infront.

 

[RomoIsGod]

I'm not certain of this, but I think since #70 was announced as eligible, he should have been on the outside instead of #68. This might be where the illegal formation thing is coming from. The 2nd penalty stems from #68 catching the ball when, according to the refs, he wasn't 'eligible'.

I've watched the video a dozen times and I don't see the ref looking at #70 as he approaches the initial conversation between #58, #68, and the ref. The ref had already started walking away before #70 even gets there. So I'm trying to understand how the ref announced #70 as eligible when he wasn't part of the conversation.

My opinion? I think this was totally on the ref's. Audio between #58, #68, and the ref before #70 walks up would certainly clear it up, but that doesn't exist. Only the ref announcing #70 as eligible is there.

Exactly and Detroit said nothing if that was a mistake til after the fact. That's on them at that point. Game management error on Dan Cambell's part. Playing the blame game against the refs and literally throwing Allen under the bus.

 

[TheHerd]

Sorry for being off topic but, what's equally disappointing is that CD fumbled a half yard behind the pilon instead a half yard Infront.

That rule has to change. It benefited us earlier this year and I said the same thing. It’s bs that the defense gets the ball on a play where they didn’t recover the fumble

 

[TheHerd]

NFL ineligible rule
OFFENSIVE TEAM
The offensive team must be in compliance with the following at the snap:

1. (a) It must have seven or more players on the line
2. Eligible receivers must be on both ends of the line, and all of the players on the line between them must be ineligible receivers

Among all other issues, the Lions also had 8 men on the LOS at the snap

 

[droopdog7]

Can someone post the all-22 of the formation at the snap? Everything else aside, I think the Lions had 8 men in the LOS if I saw the play correctly in real time.

I can’t post direct pic but here it is

 

[droopdog7]

it all goes back to who was declared eligible. If #70 was eligible then yes there were multiple fouls, including illegal formation since #70 had someone to his right on the LOS. If #68 was eligible as the lions claim then there would have been no foul on the play for illegal formation.

Still not clear. If both 70 and 68 were eligible like the lion claim they should have been, then no violation?

In other words, were the lions wrong regardless, or only because of the miscommunication with who was eligible? This is the important part that is basically yes or no.

 

[Ranching]

I know this has been beaten to death but could someone explain the rule if this was also an illegal formation? I thought I heard Aikman say that their was more than one penalty on this play besides the illegal touch. He said that if he was eligible that he wasnt covered up by a WR. Can anyone explain if this was a penalty as well?
Thanks

They had 3 players talking to the ref. Trying to fool the Cowboys. Ref walked away and dis not see 68. The lions screwed up!

 

[JD_KaPow]

Still not clear. If both 70 and 68 were eligible like the lion claim they should have been, then no violation?

In other words, were the lions wrong regardless, or only because of the miscommunication with who was eligible? This is obviously important.

No, the Lions didn't claim that. They claimed that they declared 68 eligible but the officials named the wrong guy (70).

They couldn't declare them both eligible because in that case there wouldn't be enough ineligible receivers (5) on the field.

 

[acr731]

Still not clear. If both 70 and 68 were eligible like the lion claim they should have been, then no violation?

In other words, were the lions wrong regardless, or only because of the miscommunication with who was eligible? This is obviously important.

Depends who you want to believe, the Lions or the refs. Refs claim #70 was the one reported as eligible when he wasn't even in the little circle jerk conversation. Lions claim #68 reported as eligible, which explains why they lined up the way they did on the LOS.

I dunno for certain, but I think the refs just announced the wrong person.