yes plz
One Frame At A Time: Nebraska
Filed under:
Hey, how was your weekend? Oh, right. Same here.
At least this is a Michigan blog and not a Michigan/Tigers one—I think we'd be in full post-Horror kittens mode right now. Except with more Tim McCarver. Pass the cyanide, please.
[The rest of the TOTALLY FUN gifs after THE JUMP.]
There were two very close calls in the game worth taking a look at again. First, Roy Roundtree's overturned catch from the first half:
When I saw it live, I thought that was a play that relied entirely on the call on the field—either way, there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn. My opinion hasn't changed.
The call on the first Russell Bellomy interception, however, appeared correct at first view and stands up to the gif test:
P.J. Smith probably hit every green light on his drive home, but Russell Bellomy tackled him on his doorstep; Bellomy then threw his wallet, containing six different forms of identification, directly to a police officer.
Despite the entirely depressing nature of the game, the defense was a bright spot, and Craig Roh stood out most of all:
Maybe don't block him with a running back next time.
Finally, I'll close with this:
I feel you, man.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:35 AM | 
Funny, I disagree on both gif tests.
Funny, I disagree on both gif tests.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:07 AM |
I think both gifs kind of confirm the calls that were made
I think both gifs kind of confirm the calls that were made
I feel you can pretty clearly see the ball touch the ground and shift in Roundtree's, and you can pretty clearly see Smith has two arms completely under the ball. Just my epinion. The smith thing is compounded by the fact that from that angle, his hands are clearly under the ball before his back is in the way, then his back is in the way. No way to overturn.
Further, to your point about how can the ball pop up like that if it didn't hit the ground: I feel since he was rolling over so the ball's momentum is in direction tangent to rotation (ie up) AND the ball gets squeezed by NU defender falling on top of him, it is super-possible for ball to be squirted up that direction.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:52 AM |
Went to watch it again for the Nebraska player.
Went to watch it again for the Nebraska player.
And he doesn't land on him till he's already rolled over. So I can't see how he's pressing the ball down for it to pop out.
But it brings up all sorts of interesting questions....
If the arms were under the ball, and he rolls over with it never touching, is that not a football move? Or has he not "completed the catch?" This is where they've made the rules on catches too arcane. If it hits the ground under him, or is knocked loose by the ground, it's incomplete. If he rolls over with it not touching, isn't that a catch because....
Is that a late hit? He's on the ground, he can't get up and run with it even if he did catch it (not NFL as we all know), can you jump on the receiver to try and jar it loose even after he's "down"? What if he was out of bounds...you can't hit him there just to try and make the catch incomplete by him dropping it after he gets his two toes in once he steps out of bounds. Or, if he's juggling it on his chest, is it ok to spear a downed man just to loosen the ball?
But I'm just having fun with it. It didn't change the game a lick. And it just illustrates that Ace was "wrong; right" I was "right; wrong" and you were "right; right"....and there's probably someone who things it was "wrong; right." And that we kill officials, sometimes justifiably, but there's a lot of human judgement in these things.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
October 29th, 2012 at 12:07 PM |
Vinny
Vinny
I don't see how the pass to Vinny does not hit the ground. He lands on the ball so hard and so top heavy the ball has to hit the ground even if he has his hands underneath it.
They gave the reverse view one time but it must have been too far away to be helpful because they never came back to it.
October 29th, 2012 at 12:28 PM |
Reverse view
Reverse view
I guess we'll never know if it would have been helpful, because there was no review of that play. Why the coaches didn't ask for one, I do not know.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:38 AM |
Let me know the next time a
Let me know the next time a
Let me know the next time a replay DOESNT go against us in some manner. I mean its freaking unreal - borderline, "you really cant tell from the camera angle" type plays that are ruled in our favor like the Roundtree catch get over-ruled. Borderline "you really cant tel from the camera angle" type plays that go against us like the Smith high-bounce interception that are ruled against us on the field stand. Think about the calls in last years OSU game as well as this year's Purdue game - it sure seems to me like if it goes to replay we get hosed about 90% of the time. The only big call I can recall going our way was in last year's Sugar Bowl and that game wasn't officiated by B1G referees.
Not saying those two calls would've changed the outcome of the game but damn It's frustrating to watch. Did we somehow piss off every replay official in the B1G on our way to 900 wins or something?
October 29th, 2012 at 10:41 AM |
Confirmation bias. Every
Confirmation bias. Every
Confirmation bias. Every team's fans think the same thing.
"It would be a travesty, it would be ridiculous to all of a sudden come back and get the feeling back, get the health back, feel good again and then all of a sudden go throw some other colors on my shirt and go coach."
October 29th, 2012 at 10:58 AM |
Just cause you're paranoid
Just cause you're paranoid
Just cause you're paranoid doesnt mean people arent out to get you.......
Refute my arguement then. Tell me the calls on Saturday that WENT our way once it went to replay. Show me all the times a marginal call was either reversed or allowed to stand in our favor. I must've been pouring another drink when those occurred.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:12 AM |
How about the MSU game
How about the MSU game
a few years ago, when the replay booth gave Michigan a touchdown because the receiver's foot hit the pylon like 2 feet in the air? That call was just blatantly wrong, but it went our way. These things happen in both directions for every team in the country.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:29 AM |
FWIW, I agreed with or at
FWIW, I agreed with or at
FWIW, I agreed with or at least found justifiable the vast majority of the calls on Saturday, excepting that one "late hit."
"Are you coming to bed?"
"I can't."
"Why not?"
"Someone is WRONG on the internet."
October 29th, 2012 at 12:06 PM |
I understand that view, it
I understand that view, it
I understand that view, it wasn't malicious contact.
But what was the point of touching him at all? I saw Floyd and Brady both arguing that he "was only wrapping him up"... but what is the point of that? You don't have any obligation to catch a guy so he doesn't fall. Let him fall. Or rather, turn around and go back to the huddle. Leave him alone, forget about it, the play is over. That was a terrible play on M's part.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:49 AM |
The Big Ten (and NCAA since
The Big Ten (and NCAA since
The Big Ten (and NCAA since they copied the Big Ten's system) has the best replay system conceivable except in one crucial aspect. What's good about it is it's applied by impartial necessity (no need for coaches to have to gamble timeouts on appeals for fairness) and it's calibrated to make the most sense to people watching on TV, since if you're in the stadium you have no idea what happened anyway.
Then they utterly ruined it by having former officials instead of young rulebook nerds be in charge of it. The Big Ten in particular has a team of utterly blind incompetents upstairs who determine the course of plays by apparently bashing their heads against the screen until the result is absorbed by osmosis. They have no friggin' idea what the rules are. Sometimes they might get their own names correct. The two replays in this game, the brain-exploding call on the Gallon catch vs. MSU last year that they ruled 3 yards short of where he caught it, the overturn of the OSU TD by Fitz last year, the moronic TD they gave Minor against MSU in 2008...every team in the conference could make a far longer list of B1G replay officials' spectacular boners than any list of correct overturns. Until the conference makes the job require a razor-sharp knowledge of the rulebook and 20-20 vision instead of making it a cushy job for old refs who can't hack it on the field anymore, the system will continue to be an abject failure and the shame of our conference.
(Blogger alias: "Misopogon") This team is under construction. We thank you for your patience.
October 29th, 2012 at 12:38 PM |
Replay system "applied by impartial necessity"?
Replay system "applied by impartial necessity"?
The Nebraska game certainly doesn't make that point very well. As far as we can tell, the Vincent Smith INT wasn't reviewed -- or, at least, there was no statement from the officials on the field that the play had been reviewed and the call stands. Unless they did some sort of "mini-review" as posited below, I'd say the "need for review" part of the system didn't work so swell.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:41 AM |
brandon minor vs state?
brandon minor vs state?
...at least that's the way i remember it...rodriguez' first year, there was just a laughably bad call at the pylon that was upheld on review. hit the pylon with his off arm or some such.
FWIW, i thought both calls this week were correct.
October 29th, 2012 at 12:03 PM |
Sugar Bowl
Sugar Bowl
Very similar play. Both ruled the same way - the ball moves a little, bounces back up into the body (aided by the ground), no catch
October 29th, 2012 at 10:39 AM |
That RB didn't slow Roh at
That RB didn't slow Roh at
That RB didn't slow Roh at all.
life is like a box of chocolates... and you got the Whizzo Quality Assortment
October 29th, 2012 at 10:40 AM |
my fucking head still hurts.
my fucking head still hurts.
my fucking head still hurts.
www.eatacheeseburger.blogspot.com Brian Cook has read this blog!
October 29th, 2012 at 10:43 AM |
I still don't get how the
I still don't get how the
I still don't get how the interception above was ruled an interception. Did they rule that Smith never had possession, so he couldn't be "down" with the ball on the ground? That and it looked like the ball hit the ground while watching the game. I thought there were two possible rulings - incomplete, or complete, and Smith is down.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:56 AM |
Entirely possible that Smith had his arm
Entirely possible that Smith had his arm
under the ball and his arm hit the ground, resulting the ball to go up in the air. That's what I'm assuming that what they're interpreting.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:24 AM |
if that be the case
if that be the case
then when his arm.....and knee (they hit at the same time)...hit the ground......he is down. period. The rule is that the ground can't cause a fumble, so in this case he either did not have possession, in which case it is incomplete, or he had possession of a complete pass and when he hits the ground, he is down.....period.
Why wasn't that play reviewed? Can't Hoke request a review on that?
October 29th, 2012 at 11:32 AM |
well
well
as much as this one hurt, a pass that is not complete to the receiver can still be an interception -- see deflection. it happens a lot.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:44 AM |
I can believe that somehow
I can believe that somehow
Vince never had full posession and then somehow chucked it into the air, I just cannot believe they didn't review it. Did that play look textbook to everyone? At full game speed it looks like the ball is basically on the ground and then in the air all of a sudden
Rudy watches inspirational movies about Shawn Hunwick
October 29th, 2012 at 12:05 PM |
Hoke said after the game that
Hoke said after the game that
Hoke said after the game that he was told the play was reviewed. I don't know for a fact that a review occurred and the announcers never said there was a review, but it did take longer than usual before the next play was run. It's possible that there was a quick review that led to a conclusion tat no formal review was necessary. It was clear to me that the ball never touched the ground; however, the possibility that it was a catch and Smith was down occurred to me (but probably not to the nimrods in the box).
October 29th, 2012 at 3:29 PM |
Must be in the nuances of the rules
Must be in the nuances of the rules
I think in order for it to be a reception, the receiver needs to maintain posession of the ball after contact with the ground, and the ball cannot touch the ground: particularly if it is moving around.
So, since Smith did not hang onto the ball it is not a reception, but because when we last see the ball it is between his arm and the ground it is not down yet. So when it goes flying out the other side (where we cannot see if the ball is touching the ground or not), that ball is effectively the same as a tipped pass.
I am thinking the ground can't cause a fumble rule is applied once posession is completely established.
October 29th, 2012 at 2:35 PM |
He never had possession
He never had possession
If he did have possession, he'd be down by rule. It's not fumble, it's an interception. The ball never touches the ground and Gallon never controlled the ball therefore it is treated like a tipped ball.
October 29th, 2012 at 2:21 PM |
Not true.
Not true.
First, even though TV announcers who like to pretend they know what they are talking about say it all of the time, there is no such rule that the ground can't cause a fumble. It certainly can cause a fumble, but only in a very specific situation. But since that doesn't have anything to do with this situation, because nobody claims that it was a fumble, we can drop the whole concept.
A pass is not complete until the receiver establishes that he has possession within the rules, and a pass is not incomplete until the ball hits the ground (or any object that is out of bounds). The pass in this situation was adjudged (a) not to have been secured by the receiver, and (b) not to have touched the ground. As a result, the play continued as a forward pass and was caught by the Nebraska player.
If you want to argue the incompletion, you might have a strong case, but your argument will have nothing to do with knees or elbows.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:43 AM |
what a sat
what a sat
im not calling for hoke being fired or anybody. we are michigan we will come back lets see how much pride and grit this team has to win out.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:47 AM |
The only thing
The only thing
your missing in the photo is replacing the kitten with a whimpering Tiger.
Wait...on second thought - the kitten is more appropriate.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:48 AM |
Worst day in sports I can
Worst day in sports I can
Worst day in sports I can remember. I was dressed up like a fucking clown on 4th st. in Louisville. I was wasted.
or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:59 AM |
yeah, kind of glad I stayed
yeah, kind of glad I stayed
yeah, kind of glad I stayed in saturday night
the crowds on the shore will always yell "Let's Go Blue."
October 29th, 2012 at 11:08 AM |
Doesn't really sound like a sports problem
Doesn't really sound like a sports problem
Sounds more like a poor life choices problem. But 4th Street in Falls City - not a bad place to be, surely, even if in a clown suit.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:56 AM |
I know Denard's injury is
I know Denard's injury is
I know Denard's injury is serious business (feel better soon, buddy)... but that kitten gif is cracking me up.
October 29th, 2012 at 10:56 AM |
Roh - Assault with a deadly RB
Roh - Assault with a deadly RB
I'm ok with either call by itself, but they'll play hell convincing me that the details of the first somehow don't apply to the second. One other possibility exists, of course. He was paid to pretend to catch the ball and then throw it 20 feet into the air - the ground never did a thing.
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift
October 29th, 2012 at 10:59 AM |
Ugh
Ugh
awful feeling today. We can still finish out 9-3 like most of us projected but I did not see that Ohio game coming at all, I thought PSU would have beat them....worries me.
sigh, here is to a quick work week and a strong game Saturday.
Go Blue!
October 29th, 2012 at 11:08 AM |
Replays
Replays
Is it just me, or is this replay rule just an excuse to give all the close calls to the home team... that way the refs can be cheered instead of booed. It's one of those "good for everybody" rule changes that even helps pack more ads into the broadcasts!
October 29th, 2012 at 11:21 AM |
Unless you are Penn State, in
Unless you are Penn State, in
Unless you are Penn State, in which case Delaney and Mark Emmert bribed the refs to make sure your bowl-ineligible team lost to OSU's bowl-ineligible team.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:09 AM |
Tough?
Tough?
Is it me or do you think Denard's toughness should be called out? I'm not a doctor but with the game still within reach and Bellomy doing absolutely nothing and since Hoke said Devin wasn't an option. Couldn't Denard have just ran the ball the majority of the time on a 4th quarter drive? I'm just frustrated
This is Michigan for God's sakes
October 29th, 2012 at 11:12 AM |
Maybe some humor is in order
Maybe some humor is in order
When he puts up a new one this might be too hard to watch, but I recently ran across a super-cynical Husker tumblr that I think some might enjoy. The latest "slideshow" was pre-Michigan.
http://www.tunnelwalkofshame.com/
Candace: No... That why they make smart word box for tell monkey hard brain-hurty things.
Phineas: Removing prepositions makes it more condescending.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:18 AM |
Ace, are you seriously asserting that Roundtree DID catch it?
Ace, are you seriously asserting that Roundtree DID catch it?
Unless I'm guilty of reading comprehension fail, you're posting those GIFs of Roundtree's non-catch as evidence that the replay officials got the call wrong. Both clearly show the ball hitting the turf and bouncing up into Roundtree's arms, the second especially clearly. With all due respect and in all seriousness, how can you not see it?
October 29th, 2012 at 11:45 AM |
agreed,
agreed,
...and i was yelling for us to get the play off as soon as they showed the first replay. i had no doubt it would be overturned if they looked at it.
'course, given our "opportunities" in hurry-up mode from the state game, i should have known better. we don't exactly have great offensive tempo.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:55 AM |
Here are the key frames
Here are the key frames
The ball appears to be hitting the turf here:
And the ball is not firmly in his posession here (in the replay on TV you could see the ball moving):
It was reasonable to overturn the ruling on the field.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:19 AM |
I think the refs were right on both calls
I think the refs were right on both calls
Unfortunately, I think the refs ended up with both of the calls correct.
On the Roundtree play, the ball definitely seems to hit the ground and shift a pretty decent amount. I think that's clearer of an incompletion than the Virginia Tech play last year (which I think the refs ended up being right on there too).
On the Smith interception, I think however it was called on the field would stand. The way I'm thinking it worked (without the ball hitting the ground) was that basically the ball got squished between his hands and chest and then sprung out of there.
On a brighter note, on the "maybe don't block Roh with a RB next time"... they may as well have not blocked him on that play. Holy shit that's impressive.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:35 AM |
I agree with you 100%
I agree with you 100%
I thought both replays resulted in the correct call.
Roundtree: nose of ball hits ground and moves -> Incomplete pass
Smith: Arms appear to be under ball, no replay angle ever shows the ball hitting the ground -> ruling on the field stands. The argument that "no way does the ball do that unless it hits the ground" is dumb. Yes it's possible, and it's not the replay officials place to speculate on it.
If you want to debate it, that's fine. But it's nowhere near "we were robbed" territory and there is no conspiracy here. Both were close calls that, given the video evidence, I think the officials made the correct decisions.
/my humble e-pinion
EDIT: Changed "Gallon" to "Smith"
October 29th, 2012 at 12:05 PM |
Smith's replay
Smith's replay
Clearly shows the ball touching the ground. Should have been ruled either catch and player is down or incomplete. Very baffling that no challenge/review happened either.
OkiGoBlue
October 29th, 2012 at 11:21 AM |
I was stuck at a Halloween
I was stuck at a Halloween
I was stuck at a Halloween party so I didn't see any of this game (thankfully). But now with these gifs I feel like I have!
October 29th, 2012 at 11:26 AM |
I agree on both GIF's that
I agree on both GIF's that
I agree on both GIF's that they were poor calls. On the Roundtree one I think it's just a case of there not being enough evidence to overturn the call. He has the one arm around the ball the entire time and there isn't enough of a bounce that I feel he benefitted from it in any way.
Smith one is a little more difficult but in college there is no down by contact once your knee or elbow touches you are down. I think the refs should have at least looked at it. Whether or not they would over turn the call on the field is beyond me but I definitely thnk it should of at least gotten a glance.
Bad calls happen all the time for all teams save Notre Dame this year so I'm not overly bitter about it. I just wonder if the Roundtree one is ruled a catch maybe we get in the endzone there and the game turns out differently. Maybe that's just wishful thinking.
After an awful sports weekend I get to get blasted by hurricane sandy. yay me.
There is god, there is family, and then there is MICHIGAN FOOTBALL
October 29th, 2012 at 11:32 AM |
I get your argument regarding
I get your argument regarding
I get your argument regarding the Roundtree call... But from my experience watching college football, that when the ball moves as much as it did when it touched the ground, it's going to be ruled incomplete more times than not.
Let's face it: if that same play happened to Nebraska, you'd be screaming "Incomplete!" at your TV.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:32 AM |
Maybe I'm ignorant
Maybe I'm ignorant
Can somebody help me on this: if Smith catches the ball, rolls on the ground, then it pops up to another player, why isn't it ruled as a complete catch, down by contact to the ground?
"Yep. That just happened."
October 29th, 2012 at 11:34 AM |
He didn't have possession in
He didn't have possession in
He didn't have possession in this case. If he rolled around more, then yes complete pass and down by rule.
October 29th, 2012 at 11:41 AM |
possession
possession
if he never caught and controlled it, it's a deflection.
I think you can see enough of the ball hitting the ground on the first that it could be overturned; and I don't see how the ball pops up like that if it's landing on his arms and not hitting the ground.
But I guess that's what makes officiating so hard.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk