well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Rutgers was penalized for illegal motion just a tad before the snap on 1st and 10 with 1:43 to go and Michigan having one time out. Thus, had we been able to stop Rutgers (a hypothetical), we should have been able to get the ball back. If no penalty is called, Rutgers then has 3 pre-snap opportunities (pre 2nd, 3rd, and 4th downs). With the one time out, Michigan could stop the clock on one of these, leaving 2 assured drainages of 40 seconds each.
1:43 = 103 seconds, so without the penalty, Rutgers would have been guaranteed to run off only 2 x 40 = 80 seconds with the ball not in play, leaving 23 seconds of time for a Michigan possesion, less any time that was expended during 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th downs.
But after the penalty and before the 1st-and-15 snap, the clock restarted and about 25 seconds ran off before Rutgers snapped the ball again. After we tackled Rutgers on the 1st-and-15 play and called timeout, there was 1:14 left, meaning that because of the penalty, there was less than 80 seconds left for Rutgers to run out with its the two remaining intervals (the interval between 2nd-and-3rd down and the interval between 3rd-and-4th down).
So basically, by incurring the penalty, Rutgers was able to go from a not-quite-kneel-down situation to a definite kneel-down-situation.
Did the clock operator/officials call this correctly?
Or is this a flaw that allows an offense to run out the clock by taking an illegal motion penalty to run off an extra 25 seconds?
Interesting quiz for the baseball guys out there. I actually did better than I thought I was going to once I completed it. Guessed on about 70% of them, and oddly enough got the "difficult" ones correct and the "easy" ones wrong. Pretty tough quiz.
And before you hozers turn this into a weiner measuring contest: I got an 6/10... just a little above average, because that's what we all say...
PS. If someone could tell me how to correctly spell "hozers", I would appreciate it. Neither Google nor Word knew what I was talking about, because I assume they are probably stupid. TIA.
This is going to be a problem, I think.
The Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved a new football rule that requires players who target and contact defenseless players above the shoulders to be ejected, effective for the 2013 season. The change increases the on-field penalty for targeting by adding the automatic ejection to the existing 15-yard penalty.
The new rule in football means that discipline for those players flagged for violations will mirror the penalty for fighting. If the foul occurs in the first half of a game, the player is ejected for the remainder of the game. If the foul occurs in the second half or overtime of a game, the player is ejected for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next contest.
In an effort to address concerns when one of these plays is erroneously called on the field, the ejection portion of the penalty will be reviewable through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that a player should not be ejected to overturn the call on the field.
There were also other changes:
- the blocking below the waist rule has been simplified
jersey and pant colors must be different from the field of play[EDIT: my mistake]
- a 10-second runoff for injuries with less than a minute in the half
- 3 seconds is the minimum amount of time required to spike the ball
- number changes must be reported to the referee
Every year lots of new people find this corner of the internet, and some struggle to find all the awesome information stored here. First, take a second and scroll up and look under the winged helmet - there are a lot of very useful links. I'm putting some of them here because lots of people have no idea that they exist, and we've seen tons of threads (Where can I watch!?!?) created because... well because people don't know that a sticky thread exists for that.
Not sure who Tacopants is? Slow on the other inside jokes? want to know why Brian has a MS in Computer engineering? There's your answer.
- "Tacopants"? Tacopants is Jason Avant's eleven-foot tall imaginary friend. Chad Henne spent much of 2005 hitting him between the numbers, which are unfortunately eight feet off the ground and made of dreams. Blessed with infinite eligibility and the ability to sneak on and off the field without alerting the referees -- made of dreams, remember -- Tacopants has taken a lesser role in the offense as Henne matures but still pops up at inopportune times. The term has its genesis in this post.
Contact: [email protected]
That's stuff about the guy who runs/owns/is MGoBlog. Think he's betrayed his ethics? Have a tip/correction? Email is a way better way to do it than a dickish thread.
Want to advertise: Talk to Seth.
Can't start a thread? Not sure if "Denard" is a bad thread title? What's on topic? This isn't Nam, there are rules.
Guide to eating and drinking. Zingerman's is good, but overpriced. Maize and Blue is better. /shots fired
Stuck in a car on a Saturday? http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/listening-gameanywhere
WHERE CAN I WATCH THE GAME:http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/um-friendly-bar-locations-across-us-and-elsewhere
Stop making threads about it.
Hope this has been a helpful and informative little diary. Now go enjoy wife day and the rest of the bye week.
Much as I respect both Brian and Seth, I don't think that it's obvious that Coales overtime TD catch, which was overturned on review, was incomplete. I'm not going to say that the review ref was wrong, but this was a tough call that could have gone either way, both on the initial call and on review. I'll start with Brian:
It's incomplete because the tip of the ball hits the ground and it shifts in his arms when it happens.
I'm not sure that's what the rules call for as part of "control". If it is it would lead to some absurd results in other situations. For instance: imagine a tackler punching at a ball while making a tackle. The ball's position shifts, but remains in the ballcarrier's hands. Would that be a fumble? The fact that the ball shifts position, by itself, doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't still under the receiver's control. Firm control doesn't mean absolute control.
The ball has the potential to slide through his upper arms when it impacts the ground...
Except it doesn't. The ref isn't there to speculate about what might happen, here's there to judge what does happen. And what happened was the ball remained in the reciever's arms and/or hands the whole time. Coales still had the ball in his hands after he hit the ground and rolled onto his back. You can argue about how tight his grip was, but nobody else touched it and it didn't roll away after Coales hit the turf.
...ground aids catch; not a catch.
I don't know how you can say the ground aided the catch. Normally if you're juggling something and then hit the ground, the ground jars the object loose. That clearly didn't happen here.
Meanwhile Seth asks about whether the replay official should have overturned the original call. He says no:
But it's too close to call/not enough evidence to overturn! If someone is saying this to you they are confusing a Law & Order episode for reality. They have conceded that "incomplete" is the correct call, and are essentially complaining that it should have been ruled incorrectly because of a technicality in the literal meaning of the review rule.
Seth confuses substantive rules with procedural rules here, and forgets that, when you're dealing with video replay, there's a procedure that's supposed to be followed. To put it another way, this kinda is "Law and Order". In real life, lawyers argue about procedure all the time.
The replay official is not there to substitute his judgement for the that of the field official on close calls, he is there to correct obviously incorrect calls -- that's what "indisputable video evidence" means. True, at this point the gripe is more about procedure than substance, but procedure matters too. The standard for a review official is high for a reason -- we don't want every tricky judgement call reviewed and overturned or we'd never finish the game. If the replay official didn't have "indisputable evidence" then he shouldn't have overruled the field official, even if he believed the pass was probably incomplete.
Okay, having said all that -- it was a helluva a game and I'm very proud of this team and the way they played. And even if Coale's catch had stood up, we would have won anyway. That's just how Team 132 was.