Picture Pages: Pitch Sweep

Overall, Grady seems to be struggling to find the right hole, do you think he could have run this paly better?

I am glad to see him playing, but in other plays on Saturday, I noticed he hit the wrong hole a few times.....just wondering if that was a factor here as well?

Could someone explain  the exact rule for covering up a normally elligible receiver?  I understand in the earlier case where both recievers are lined up on the line, but I didn't realize that if you have a slot and a wide receiver on the tight end side, with the reciever on the line, that the TE becomes inelligible...is there a simple rule that clarifies?

Thanks, Brian. This actually illustrates one of the infuriating things I saw numerous times during my own UFR of the game: RBs missing holes or cutting INTO the defense. If Grady follows Moundros outside and goes for the corner, at 235 pounds, he almost certainly barrels down to the 2 yard line and maybe even scores. What does he do? Cuts it INSIDE right into the pursuit.  GAHHHH!

head coach, this play would've resulted in a TD.

If anyone's interested in the opposite of this play, I put up an Inside the Play feature on an EPIC FAIL toss sweep on VB yesterday.

http://varsityblue.blogspot.com/2008/10/inside-play-toledo-defense.html

M had 29 first-down plays. They ran on 18 and passed on 11. Their 18 first-down run plays averaged + 5.17 yds, with a long of 9 yards.  One of these 18 runs was stopped for 0 yds (note: this was the 1st play of the game). The other 17 went for positive yardage.

Walking out of the stadium, I was convinced playcalling was a big factor in the loss.  What I saw after watching the game on tape was lots of execution errors and Sheridan really, really sucks. 

One playcalling critique, though: that little pass to either the SB or RB in the flat?  That play needs to go away. Defenses, including Toledo, have sniffed that out AND our guys simply cannot block for it AT ALL.  We ran that play 5 times: 5 yard gain, 2 yard loss, no gain, 5 yard loss, and 3 yard loss. Throw that fucking play away.

Gsimmons, can't they alert the official and the other team that, say, #77 is eligible on this play?  I believe that is correct, and thus, a tackle-eligible could be run here (assuming that was done), but I could be mistaken.

 Anyway, I actually like using the unbalanced line on occasion, which is essentially what you have here.

So, Gsimmons, didn't we try a screen to Long last year?  How'd that work?  Or, did we nicked for illegal procedure?  I cannot recall.

in the Cap One bowl and weren't flagged. So now you got me confused.

THE PASS WAS BEHIND THE LOS...  like i said numerous times, he was inelgibile to go across the los, the screen pass was not across the los. 

Gotcha.  I don't think I had seen your earlier explanations of the downfield issue and distinction.

Here's the link to the description in Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eligible_receiver

As was stated, for College you need the correct number, and be behind the line, or the last person on the side at the LOS,

The rule only deals with Forward Pass, anyone can catch a lateral, it is not a forward pass, thus also why it's a fumble instead of incomplete,

It is a good thing Jake Long did not touch the forward pass, as it would have been "illegal touching" which is the penalty for an ineligible player touching a forward pass.

If Jake Long had passed the line of scrimmage and the forward pass was just thrown, whether touched or not, then it would have been penalized as "ineligible receiver downfield"

I noticed that on running plays in the Illinois game the WR was covering up the tight end, and sometimes the slot back (although maybe my memory is wrong on that formation)

So either some fundamentals have been lost during the force feeding of spread tactics, or the coaches want to telegraph that the play is a run before the snap.

I have only seen one penalty on Michigan for "ineligible receiver downfield" but it was the Illinois game and on Koger.