You're wearing me out, Craig.craig11152 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:14 pmYes this is what he should have done.moldyoldie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:31 amIf Campbell did indeed hear the ref announce Skipper as the tackle-eligible, what was he supposed to do? Was he supposed to jump up and down screaming "NO! NO! NO! IT'S DECKER THAT'S ELIGIBLE, YOU DOOFUS!".
It was already announced to the crowd through his microphone that #70 was eligible AND he clearly walked over to the defense and told them something after walking away from 2 Lions, neither of which was #70. Presumably he told them some tackle was eligible, since, much to my surprise a couple days ago, that is required under league rules.moldyoldie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:31 amAt that point, the defense would surely get the message, not to mention the rest of the crowd and viewing public. Any semblance of deception and "gamesmanship" would be lost.
Since the defense is informed by the officials of an eligible tackle there is no semblance of deception. Which is why I have suggested you might as well play two tight ends who have better hands and better mobility than a tackle does.
Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.A tackle-eligible would at least keep the defense guessing; is he in there for extra blocking (most likely) or is he gonna pull a fast one and break off into a short route?
Linemen are required to wear uniform numbers in a certain range to designate them as ineligible receivers. An offense can use an extra lineman as a receiver, but he first must report to the ref as eligible and the defense alerted to it. Dems da rules!
My latest response was in reference to the NFL's contention that Campbell was at fault for exercising excessive "deception and gamesmanship" and not the ref's fault for misinterpreting who was reporting as a tackle-eligible.
If Campbell demonstrably protested the ref's announcement, the defense would certainly be tipped off that the play was designed to go to Decker, all surprise is lost.
