The play without a LT:10 men on the field?
Now I really need this question to be answered. The play that Brian has brought to our attention more than any other play this week is the stretch to the boundry where Michigan lined up in an I-Form unbalanced without a tackle on the left side of the line.
Brian called this a trips formation. Does anybody have a replay that shows the trips man to the bottom of the screen? The camera even knows this is a run so he's zoomed in on the box.
The reason I ask this is because it does NOT look like a trips formation. There are several reasons that I think this.
One, the slot (Jehu?) is off the ball. The man outside of him is on the line of scrimmage. That makes 6 men on the line. That means if it's trips, the man at the very bottom of the screen also has to be on the ball.. making the 2nd WR ineligible. Why would we run a trips package with only 2 eligible receivers? At least LOOK like you're a threat to throw the ball.
Two, if this was a trips package, why is there 8 men in the box with a safety over the top of nobody. Nobody on the line of scrimmage is eligible to go out for a pass. So essentially this gives Penn State 9 men in the box to go against 6 blockers. IF it happens to be a playaction scissors-type play to the fullback, there is 4 linebackers and a safety to cover the FB and the HB.
Another snippet is that IF this is a trips package, there is a corner on an ineligible receiver on the second man, and another corner on the receiver to the very bottom of the screen. Any offense in the world would make a sight read here and hit Chesson up the seam for a touchdown. Nobody even touches him.
I think there are 10 men on the field on this play. And either our coaches didn't recognize it and call a time out... or they DID recognize it and thought they would be fine wasting a play for a loss.
Your thoughts?
October 18th, 2013 at 1:06 AM ^
of the dudes helmet at the bottom of the screen.
October 18th, 2013 at 1:08 AM ^
That's the second man. Where is the 3rd receiver?
October 18th, 2013 at 1:08 AM ^
Call me crazy, but I'm counting 10, even with the helmet at the bottom of the screen.
October 18th, 2013 at 1:09 AM ^
I think you're right. Here's the video:
October 18th, 2013 at 1:11 AM ^
By God, there ARE ten men on the field. This is even more unacceptable than the play calling by Borges.This absolutely cannot happen.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:53 AM ^
and REALLY excited now. But it's almost undoubtedly some grad assistant's job to count the number of people, and the sideline's job to do it. Still, we're almost in sight of the hanging tree now--let's string him up, anyway. It'll be fun!
October 18th, 2013 at 9:56 AM ^
having right personnel on the field is on the OC
October 18th, 2013 at 1:06 PM ^
I don't think so - unless you believe the play literally called for 10 men on the field instead of 11. The OC is up in the booth, so he can't be the one to count everyone. Someone on the sideline's got to be keeping track.
October 18th, 2013 at 1:10 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 1:11 AM ^
You're right. My brain was making up a person between all the limbs of the QB/LG/LT
October 18th, 2013 at 1:24 AM ^
Anyone else find the quote that's on the news scroll at the bottom of the screen shot slightly ironic?
October 18th, 2013 at 2:41 AM ^
to even the playing field what with PSU scholarship reductions and all.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:12 AM ^
post of the month
October 18th, 2013 at 5:27 AM ^
what is even more confusing is, after seeing this from upstairs, how did they not see chesson WIDE OPEN, and run this play again to pass it to him?
October 18th, 2013 at 5:52 AM ^
I'm surprised there aren't more comments in this thread. This is a pretty egregious error in my opinion...
October 18th, 2013 at 8:43 AM ^
I think that we have "How can this happen?/Borges is horrendous posting fatigue."
October 18th, 2013 at 9:42 AM ^
Honestly this is way less egregious to me than if it had been an intentional play with 11 men, 3 WRs trips left. I mean most of the OPs arguments about how it must have been 10 men were something along the lines of "there's no a way marginally intelligent offense would put a play like this on the field!" Which is true.
Allowing a play to run with 10 guys on the field is a mental lapse that's on par with the delay of game penalties we took: it's a bad management mistake, but it's not necessarily indicative of a larger problem. If this formation had been intentional on the other hand, it would mean that at some point Borges crafted a formation in which there was no one to block the left side of the line and Gallon was covered up and ineligible and thought, "Yeah, this will totally work, no need to build in a check to throw the ball outside, I'm certain a run to the right will go just fine here." The second of those two options is way, way less forgivable to me, so I'm actually glad this thread seems to have reached a consensus that there were only 10 guys on the field. That's actually preferable here.
October 18th, 2013 at 5:57 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 6:16 AM ^
Wow, I've never seen the wrong number of players on the field. This is breathtaking and screams for change. Unforgiveable. Fire Borges!
October 18th, 2013 at 8:16 AM ^
I miss the upvote. :)
October 18th, 2013 at 6:33 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:50 AM ^
of the post just above yours. I suggest, if all else fails, that you write your congresscritter.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:41 AM ^
Shouldn't this draw a flag for only having 6 on the line? Seems like there were more than the usual number of blown calls (not blaming that for the loss because there seemed to be some for both sides). Seems like the refs had an off night too.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:44 AM ^
I believe the flag is actually a limitation on number of people in the backfield. So you can only have 4 in the backfield. Normally the adjunct is true in that 6 people on the line means 5 in the backfield, but not if you only have 10 dudes out there.
As an aside, I remember this play specifically as I was reduced to listening to the game on the radio for the most part. The guys calling the game were going nuts about this and I am surprised to hear that whoever did the game for ESPN didnt mention it.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:47 AM ^
It's an embarrassment. Sure, it's not all on the coaches to get the right players in the package on the field. But it's the coaches responsibility to recognize this and call a time out. Maybe Borges DID recognize this but couldn't call down to Hoke because he doesn't have a headset.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:08 AM ^
The rule was changed a couple of years ago, for this exact reason.
Back when the rule was "7 men on the line," the linesman & line judge, whose job it is to count the number of offensive players on the line, were not actually doing that--they were counting the number of offensive players in the backfield because (a) it's easier for the wing officials to see players in the backfield rather than players on the line, and (b) it's easier to count to four than to count to seven.
Back then (pre-2011), the referee was responsible for counting the total number of offensive players on the field, and was supposed to communicate to the linesman and line judge if there were less than 11, so they could be aware of the situation. As you can imagine, this was pretty much impossible in "real world" situations (the linesman & line judge shouldn't be taking their eyes off of the play to look back at the referee, especially for a situation that doesn't even happen to a typical crew once a season), so they just changed the rule instead.
Instead of "minimum 7 men on the line," the rule is now (as of 2011) "maximum 4 men in the backfield." It's easier to enforce, and it only makes a difference if a team puts 10 players on the field anyway.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:18 AM ^
Why don't we put 8 on the line of scrimmage and 4 in the backfield? They will never catch us and we will all over whomever we face. Schematic Advantage!
October 18th, 2013 at 11:56 PM ^
October 19th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
In college you need to have:
- no more than four in the backfield, and
- at least five on the LOS wearing 50-79 (and therefore ineligible)
We're good on both counts, so no penalty.
October 18th, 2013 at 6:55 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 7:39 AM ^
Yes -- 11 guy is offscreen, about even with the slot receiver but very deep. Go to the video All-American posted above and you can see him clearly.
October 18th, 2013 at 7:26 AM ^
There's 11 on D. 4 up front, 4 in middle, 3 in back
Edit: 11 per the video. Screen shot does only show 10
October 18th, 2013 at 7:53 AM ^
can anyone blame Borges for not enough players on the field. I suppose if Rich Rod had done this it would have been his fault, even if he watched from the press box too. Where is the offensive line coach? Please don't tell me he is in the press box also. I must say that does seem a little pop warner to me, no left tackle WTF.
October 18th, 2013 at 7:58 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:27 AM ^
I was listening to the radio call of the game, and Beckmann and Brandstatter pointed this out at the time of the play. If I recall correctly, it was a tight end who messed up and didn't get on the field when he was supposed to.
October 18th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^
Based upon how well the TE's have blocked this year, maybe the staff thought they'd have better luck just keeping them on the sideline.
October 18th, 2013 at 8:15 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:18 AM ^
October 18th, 2013 at 8:47 AM ^
I love the snarky sarcasm. I feel the same way. I also am losing trust in the coaches. Depressing.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:31 AM ^
+1 Funny.
Welcome to the board
October 18th, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
I posted this (with a little editing) in Brian's thread and it brings up a couple of things not mentioned here yet:
Actually, while I think that there actually were only 10 guys on the field, the following makes it even worse.
I went back to the DVR, and at 6:21 left in the 2nd, it is the widest angle shown for the play and the screen does not show an 11th Michigan player (and I think given the view and shot of the field, his helmet would seen unless he is lined up a foot off the sideline - which would be pretty stupid). The bottom of the screen shows the very bottom of the numbers on the bottom hash.
There were 10 guys on the field for Michigan.
But this is a 2nd down play and comes RIGHT AFTER A MICHIGAN TIMEOUT. With this timeout, the coaches (1) couldn't get all of the personnel on the field and (2) failed to notice it when they didn't.
Either way, this whole play was full of fail.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:26 AM ^
You can't call two timeouts in a row, right? I think it's a delay of game penalty. So if it was right after a timeout, maybe everyone noticed but thought burning a down and possibly losing a couple yards was better than the alternative--calling another time out AND getting a penalty. Still a very bad, very obvious mistake, but at least it's an excuse for why no one called TO.
October 18th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
I definitely know there was a game earlier this year (maybe even one of ours) where there were 2 called in a row to ice a kicker, so not sure if it applies only on offense or they got rid of the rule.
October 18th, 2013 at 9:47 AM ^
This isn't our new "victory formation" /S
Go Blue!
October 18th, 2013 at 9:52 AM ^
Interesting
October 18th, 2013 at 11:09 AM ^
It happens. Brian, while calling this the worst play ever, also seems to have failed to note the number-count, so...
October 18th, 2013 at 12:16 PM ^
If you look at the video you will see we are running tackle over to the right, so that means there should be a Tight end on the other end of the line next to bryant to balance out the line. There isnt so thats the person that would essentially be our LT who is missing from the play even though our actual LT is on the right side of the line
October 18th, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^
the new Borges scheme called "tackle missing"?
October 18th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^
Considering I spotted this live from my lazy boy, I would hope the coaches saw it and for whatever reason decided it wasn't worth the timout. Maybe.
October 18th, 2013 at 4:44 PM ^