Doc Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Huh? doc, illegal formation was called on 4th down. NE declined the penalty. Colts turn it over on downs. Yes, because they got stuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Yes, because they got stuffed. If the Colts had scored a TD on that play, the result would have been the same. Illegal formation. Penalty declined. Turned over on downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 If the Colts had scored a TD on that play, the result would have been the same. Illegal formation. Penalty declined. Turned over on downs. If the Colts scored a TD and the Cheaters declined the penalty, which they would never do, why would they get the ball on downs? That makes even less sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) If the Colts scored a TD and the Cheaters declined the penalty, which they would never do, why would they get the ball on downs? That makes even less sense. Doc, the pats declined the penalty on 4th down, how do you suppose the Colts get to replay the down? It has nothing to do with being stuffed. they had to snap the ball Edited October 20, 2015 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Doc, the pats declined the penalty on 4th down, how do you suppose the Colts get to replay the down? It has nothing to do with being stuffed. You realize this thread is about the fake punt, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Belichik will troll everyone by calling the Swinging Gate play next week, and executing it to perfection Right? Belichick ***** gold plated turds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 if the colts did NOT snap the ball, they would have not run a play, they may have gotten a penalty for delay of game, but if they didn't snap it, there would have been no illegal formation play. with no play being run, NE would have HAD to take the delay of game penalty moving INDY back 5 yards and replaying 4th down. Because the ball was snapped the illegal formation penalty could have and was declined, turning the ball over on downs. I THINK the whole point of the argument was the center was NOT supposed to snap the ball, had the center done what he was supposed to do, INDY would have been 5 yards back replaying the down. Doc, the pats declined the penalty on 4th down, how do you suppose the Colts get to replay the down? It has nothing to do with being stuffed. they had to snap the ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 if the colts did NOT snap the ball, they would have not run a play, they may have gotten a penalty for delay of game, but if they didn't snap it, there would have been no illegal formation play. with no play being run, NE would have HAD to take the delay of game penalty moving INDY back 5 yards and replaying 4th down. Because the ball was snapped the illegal formation penalty could have and was declined, turning the ball over on downs. I THINK the whole point of the argument was the center was NOT supposed to snap the ball, had the center done what he was supposed to do, INDY would have been 5 yards back replaying the down. Thank you. I have no idea why WEO thinks that the illegal formation penalty means the Cheaters would have gotten the ball regardless. As I said and you corroborated, no snap, no illegal formation penalty, while any penalty assessed and accepted (like delay of game) would have led to a replay of 4th down with a loss of yardage, except for grounding. Which means that snapping the ball and getting stuffed were the issues with the play. Had he run for a first down or TD, the Cheaters would definitely have accepted the illegal formation penalty and made the Colts replay the down, 5 yards back. But you can decline a delay of game penalty, and the Cheaters may have wanted to do that so the punter would kick the ball into the endzone and not pin them inside the 20. Which makes me wonder why teams don't just false start, which can't be declined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) I love controversies - when other teams have them. Nice cartoon Poojer! Reminds me of the Nintendo version of the Mets/Sox World Series Bill Buckner Blunder. I couldn't resit looking it up: Edited October 20, 2015 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 And then he disappears into a cloud of smoke. Hopefully forever. Wishful thinking, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thank you. I have no idea why WEO thinks that the illegal formation penalty means the Cheaters would have gotten the ball regardless. As I said and you corroborated, no snap, no illegal formation penalty, while any penalty assessed and accepted (like delay of game) would have led to a replay of 4th down with a loss of yardage, except for grounding. Which means that snapping the ball and getting stuffed were the issues with the play. Had he run for a first down or TD, the Cheaters would definitely have accepted the illegal formation penalty and made the Colts replay the down, 5 yards back. But you can decline a delay of game penalty, and the Cheaters may have wanted to do that so the punter would kick the ball into the endzone and not pin them inside the 20. Which makes me wonder why teams don't just false start, which can't be declined. You're right. Too many cases last night.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thank you. I have no idea why WEO thinks that the illegal formation penalty means the Cheaters would have gotten the ball regardless. As I said and you corroborated, no snap, no illegal formation penalty, while any penalty assessed and accepted (like delay of game) would have led to a replay of 4th down with a loss of yardage, except for grounding. Which means that snapping the ball and getting stuffed were the issues with the play. Had he run for a first down or TD, the Cheaters would definitely have accepted the illegal formation penalty and made the Colts replay the down, 5 yards back. But you can decline a delay of game penalty, and the Cheaters may have wanted to do that so the punter would kick the ball into the endzone and not pin them inside the 20. Which makes me wonder why teams don't just false start, which can't be declined. I believe false starts can be declined as well. In fact, I don't think there are any penalties that explicitly cannot be declined. We just don't see false starts ever declined because there just aren't any situations where that makes any sense. Except perhaps this one, where the defense doesn't want the offense to move back 5 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 where did you find this. That is awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 You're right. Too many cases last night.. I believe false starts can be declined as well. In fact, I don't think there are any penalties that explicitly cannot be declined. We just don't see false starts ever declined because there just aren't any situations where that makes any sense. Except perhaps this one, where the defense doesn't want the offense to move back 5 yards. I looked it up agan and you're right, you can decline FS penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I looked it up agan and you're right, you can decline FS penalties. But what Rubes said! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BmarvB Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The WTFake punt ... love it!lmaoooooooooooooooooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 @Colts . @PatMcAfeeShow clarifies intent of fake punt with a big new detail: http://indcolts.co/vsRTQm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 @Colts . @PatMcAfeeShow clarifies intent of fake punt with a big new detail: http://indcolts.co/vsRTQm It's even more dumb running the play without the guy who was practicing it all week. Oy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Belichik will troll everyone by calling the Swinging Gate play next week, and executing it to perfection And they won't even get an illegal formation call. I'll give the Colts credit for one thing, though: they succeeded in doing something no other team has done in 15 years. They confused the **** out of Bill Belichick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Never try to trick the master trickster (hoodie) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts