The mythical "Triple Reverse"

[shayman]

I am no football expert but one of my pet peeves is when people - e.g. Rod Black last Sunday - call a play - e.g. Montreal's razzle-dazzle touchdown - a "triple reverse." It's like the go-to phrase for a play that has apparently so rattled and impressed and confused the broadcaster that they can't manage to count the number of actual reverses.

Naturally what do we do when some minor thing like this happens? We write a blog post and create a video about it. Perhaps you might enjoy nitpicking about this too.

Blog: It wasn't a triple reverse

Video: An investigative video

BTW if anybody can find a video of an actual triple reverse, let me know, but most of the time when the announcer says "double reverse", they actually mean "single reverse."

[AngeloV]

It's as bad as when someone says there was triple coverage on a receiver. There has never been, nor will there ever be 3 players assigned to cover 1 receiver.

[gilthethrill]

It's as bad as when someone says there was triple coverage on a receiver. There has never been, nor will there ever be 3 players assigned to cover 1 receiver.

With the possible exception of me on the sandlot AV.

[Blue90]

It's as bad as when someone says there was triple coverage on a receiver. There has never been, nor will there ever be 3 players assigned to cover 1 receiver.

I think that the term "double coverage" typically means that 2 defensive players are very close to the receiver, when the ball arrives. It doesn't necessarily mean that 2 defensive players were assigned to cover the receiver.

Same with "triple coverage". Of course there is never a time when 3 defensive players are assigned to cover 1 pass receiver.

[ArgoGabe22]

It's as bad as when someone says there was triple coverage on a receiver. There has never been, nor will there ever be 3 players assigned to cover 1 receiver.

I think is the byproduct of defensive movements going unnoticed until the TV picks up the play on the ball. You could say MBT threw into double coverage based on what it looked it, 2 DBs in the area, but in fact it was a DB who either left his man and closed in on the play or the safety adjusting to the throw. And most of the time, the viewer is following the ball.

[Argo57]

There is a Triple Lindy though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VDry9fy8UE

[Bleeds Double Blue]

Thanks for the video link Argo57. Triple coverage and Triple Lindy. I always get those two mixed up.

[ArgoFan1]

I think the triple in triple reverse refers to the fact that there are three players involved. Not that the ball was flipped three times.

[Wobbler]

I think is the byproduct of defensive movements going unnoticed until the TV picks up the play on the ball. You could say MBT threw into double coverage based on what it looked it, 2 DBs in the area, but in fact it was a DB who either left his man and closed in on the play or the safety adjusting to the throw. And most of the time, the viewer is following the ball.

The problem is that we don't have a catchy (but accurate) term for when two or three defenders are in a position to contest a pass. I propose "doubled" and "tripled", and I'm sure that the world will rally to my cause.

[Foxhound]

Yes. Can't trust anything you hear these days, particularly on TV.

[shayman]

I think the triple in triple reverse refers to the fact that there are three players involved. Not that the ball was flipped three times.

If that were true, then any old reverse, all of which involve three players, could be called a "triple reverse." I think we need to save the term "triple reverse" for something that is three times cooler than a regular reverse.