on fiah
The Overturn
I addressed a couple of the Notre Dame officiating complaints after the game in yesterday's UV but didn't get around to the big one (other than what I'm pretty sure will be specious complaint about the holding call on Rudolph's screen touchdown, as I've seen a number of Michigan DL hogtied in the first half already). That would be the overturn of Armando Allen's screen touchdown, which was… you know… correct:
Notre Dame fans are accusing Big Ten referees of bias because they did not call Allen out of bounds despite the fact he was, and they are complaining that the video review made a correct call. This may be the most very special instance of internet Notre Dame mentality ever.
The argument here relies on the idea that the review was "inconclusive" given the replays shown on the TV, but those things are not necessarily the same things the replay guy sees. If we are parsing the shadows and whatnot—some Notre Dame fans see that picture and suggest that Allen's heel is not out of bounds—then we're back to semantics. What is "voluntary"? What is "conclusive"? If I close my eyes, does the universe cease existing?
The call was correct. You are not allowed to complain about a referee getting something right. That's not how complaints work.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:22 AM | 
Michigan fans should be
Michigan fans should be
September 15th, 2009 at 11:27 AM |
Using Timout Comment
Using Timout Comment
From yesterdays post:
http://mgoblog.com/content/monday-presser-notes-9-14-09
When the Armando Allen touchdown was overturned, Rodriguez called a timeout instead of a challenge because he wanted to save his challenge for later in the game in case they needed it.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:51 AM |
Refs should have been on top of it
Refs should have been on top of it
I don't think anyone is saying we should have challenged it instead of taking a time out, we're saying that the refs should have called down for a review on their own before it got to the point of UM needing to call a time out to give them more time. Every play is under review and it was obvious instantly that the play was at least close enough to have a second look.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:24 AM |
Snicker
Snicker
I guess Jimmy will not be winning the Heisman this year.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:33 AM |
Of course he will
Of course he will
How else can he get the 4 Heismans he promised when he started at ND? This one will look wonderful next to the other 2 he already has.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:05 PM |
it wasn't....
it wasn't....
...4 Heismans Clausen promised...it was 4 national championships...geez its like your trying to paint the kid as arrogant or overconfident.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:10 PM |
I just laughed uproariously
I just laughed uproariously
I just laughed uproariously at work....thanks for getting me in trouble.
"...what do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?"
"Fix the cigarette lighter."
September 15th, 2009 at 3:00 PM |
my bad
my bad
thank you for correcting me
September 15th, 2009 at 12:09 PM |
Those two being the ones he
Those two being the ones he
Those two being the ones he won in the Mirror Universe? Does Mirror Universe Jimmah have a goatee like evil Mr. Spock?
"...what do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?"
"Fix the cigarette lighter."
September 15th, 2009 at 12:21 PM |
Mirror Universe Jimmah - Paint Style
Mirror Universe Jimmah - Paint Style
(Let's see if this works...)
September 15th, 2009 at 12:35 PM |
well,
well,
i know it's fashionable to make fun of claussen, and all that - and i enjoy it, too - but i don't think you can count him out of it yet. he's completed 67% of his passes for 330 yards a game with 7 touchdowns and no picks. he certainly hasn't done anything to remove himself from the race.
well, nothing except that dance. yeesh.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:41 PM |
Speaking of which
Speaking of which
Is there a video on the tubes anywhere of that dance? I have yet to see it.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:47 PM |
Sad, but true,
Sad, but true,
Paul Hornung won the Heisman in a year when ND went 2-8.
Taking it one week at a time
September 15th, 2009 at 11:24 AM |
It's not about the call being correct, dammit.
It's not about the call being correct, dammit.
It's about the call being another example of anti-Catholic bias rearing its ugly head. For shame, Michigan. For shame.
"I know where you're at, man. You had it all, and now it's gone. It's torn a hole in your soul bigger than my Escalade. So you turned to the drugs, the alcohol. Pornography, free-basing with OJ, human trafficking, dog fights / orgies ... darkness."
September 15th, 2009 at 11:26 AM |
Clearly.
Clearly.
Photoshopped.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:28 AM |
Exactly Brian. I think ND
Exactly Brian. I think ND
Exactly Brian. I think ND fans are just grasping at anything they can find to bitch about the loss. Would have, could have, should have does not count in sports nor life. So what if they called this play back (it was correct), they had 4 more plays to put points up on the board. Instead of bitching about a call that you think is egregious, they should bitch that their kicker missed an easy field goal or their offense couldn't put it in the endzone.
It wasn't the refs fault for making a CORRECT call. It was the ND offenses fault for not capitalizing on excellent field position and a 1st and 10 from where ever the hell they spotted that ball.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:31 AM |
clearly out
clearly out
I was wondering why Michigan called a timeout and when it came back on I then realized why. I felt it was better to call a timeout then using a review because they might have needed it later on in the game. It was so close but he was out and Notre Dame fans need to stop crying.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:34 AM |
Evidence, Conclusive Evidence, and Proof
Evidence, Conclusive Evidence, and Proof
Yesterday on Blue Gray Sky some commenter said (and I'm pretty close to quoting verbatim here) "there is a difference between evidence, conclusive evidence, and proof."
Which may be true in a courtroom Mr. Law-Talking Guy With a Degree From South Bend, but...My.God. The photo is right there. You can see it, and it's conclusive.
And if I'm wrong about any of this, then I'll fall back on this- God doesn't like you, Notre Dame fans. He smiles when you cry. Deal with it.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:18 PM |
I'm not confused at all...she
I'm not confused at all...she
I'm not confused at all...she is HOT!
Go Blue!
September 15th, 2009 at 1:19 PM |
I say we take a cue from ABC
I say we take a cue from ABC
I say we take a cue from ABC and cut to her every time we need a Notre Dame response.
Srsly.
Anyone with time and a good player up for getting us a database of various Hot ND Chick facial expressions? I think I counted about 20 during the broadcast, covering the entire emotional range.
(Blogger alias: "Misopogon") This team is under construction. We thank you for your patience.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:44 AM |
Oh c'mon
Oh c'mon
Michigan benefited from three huge and dubious calls.
1. The overturned int. Ok, two days later we look at video evidence, but at the time it seemed weird to overturn it when the camera angles available were hardly conclusive.
2. The terrible holding penalty that overturned a 60 yard completion to ND's tight end. This was huge, and was a horrible call.
3. The "taunt." This was another bad call, as contrary to claims made on this site, is not always called. Regardless, the complaint is more about why was that called and not the shove by Cissoko in front of the same ref?
Michigan got the breaks by the refs in this game, no doubt about it at all. Accept it and move on instead of claiming that sshing the crowd is a clear 15 yard penalty. Child, please.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:50 AM |
1. The refs made the correct
1. The refs made the correct
1. The refs made the correct call, but because they made the correct call with less than perfect evidence this means they made the wrong call. Got it.
2.
3. Despite being the right call, they shouldn't have called it, because they don't always call it. Ok. Also, no one is disputing Cissoko probably could have got a penalty for that shove. Which was in the 2nd Q IIRC, and ND scored on that drive anyway.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:54 AM |
Michigan got all the breaks
Michigan got all the breaks
Michigan got all the breaks in that parallel universe you live in, buddy. I should know, I spent time in that same universe after our game last year, and after that 2005 game when we were jobbed out of a touchdown.
"Accept it and move on."
September 15th, 2009 at 11:56 AM |
3. Lets not forget, unless
3. Lets not forget, unless
3. Lets not forget, unless there is a collaborative conspiracy going on here, it was a lot more than "ssshhhh". More along the lines of shut the f$*% up you fa*%ots"
That is a flag every time.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:57 AM |
Anytime
Anytime
Anytime the OL latches on and twists the way Young did on Graham on the play in question will get flagged.
ND got flagged for it early in the game (so did Michigan, by the way. The refs have been told by the NCAA to be more vigilant with latch and twist moves) and they did not adjust their blocking style. Young needed to latch and twist on that play or the defender gets the QB and screen pass never happens. Sadly for Young and ND, that is a clear holding violation.
Learn the rules, chief. And quit cry babbying it up.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:07 PM |
I feel that we should
I feel that we should
I feel that we should assemble a set of dubious calls and non-calls that went against us, and then sit around and complain about how we didn't win by 17. That should help balance out all the whining coming from the Notre Dame fans, and then maybe we could all call it even and admit that it was an awesome game that Michigan won.
Also, for what it's worth, it looked to me that on the long screen pass completion overturned by a holding call, our defenders let up on the gas, like they saw the holding call and didn't want to get in any trouble (see: the earlier screen pass, which also generated a holding flag, but also resulted in a face mask penalty on the tackle, canceling out the holding). I'm not sure that's really what you want your defenders to be doing (what if it wasn't actually a holding call?) but that's what it looked like from my point of view.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:14 PM |
That's the way it sounded on the
That's the way it sounded on the
radio in Maine. The Notre Dame broadcasters were saying it was going to be called back repeatedly as Rudolph continued to run and had no excitement for the play because of it.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:26 PM |
If only......
If only......
....I had the time. Maybe the list would stop the whining.
There were controversial calls in the game. It always seems every close game with rivals playing each other has calls like these.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:51 PM |
Don't waste your time. Whiny
Don't waste your time. Whiny
Don't waste your time. Whiny ND fans will not let things like "lists," or "facts," or "pictures of a player's foot clearly showing that he is out of bounds" get in the way of their righteous indignation.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:12 PM |
Notre Dame never loses
Notre Dame never loses
Nothing funnier than a sore loser saying "accept it and move on". Thank you, my day is now made.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:39 PM |
oh, c'mon is right.
oh, c'mon is right.
watch #2 again. the reason claussen had time to wait for a crossing tight end was a CLEAR holding on the wing...and don't forget the shitty pass interference call the play before that got n.d. out of the end zone after forcier's punt. as we like to say, you can't have on without the other.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:10 PM |
ND Lost
ND Lost
Accept it and move on instead of whining like a child.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:38 PM |
#1: So you're saying Michigan
#1: So you're saying Michigan
#1: So you're saying Michigan benefited that the refs made the right call? And this is wrong/lucky how? Were the refs supposed to have made the wrong call?
#2: Could be right, could be wrong; also could have just not shown on the TV angle - ref sees a different angle, and clearly thought he saw a hold.
#3: The rules explicitly state that this is a penalty. Whether it's always called or not is a red herring. It's always *supposed* to be called. A violation of code = penalty. If the beef is about an unrelated act that you think should have been called, I don't see why this penalty is brought up at all.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:45 PM |
If you want to complain about
If you want to complain about
If you want to complain about holding calls, please re-watch the game and see how many times Brandon Graham was held with no call. The fact is Notre Dame had the ball and the lead with less than five minutes left in the game. They have no excuses.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:48 PM |
"The fact is Notre Dame had
"The fact is Notre Dame had
"The fact is Notre Dame had the ball and the lead with less than five minutes left in the game. They have no excuses."
DING! DING! DING! There it is, folks!
End of discussion.
M'Dog
September 15th, 2009 at 11:47 AM |
I think the Domer's issue is
I think the Domer's issue is
I think the Domer's issue is that they used the video replay instead of an MS paint version of what "actually happened". Maybe mommatheregoesthatman can help out on the re-enactment.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:52 AM |
Wasn't that angle shown on ABC?
Wasn't that angle shown on ABC?
I could be wrong, but I thought I remember seeing that specific angle on the ABC broadcast while the play was being reviewed. That was actually the angle where he looked _less_ out of bounds. This shot made the ABC crew think that maybe there's not enough evidence to overturn it. So, WNDU is full of crap. Maybe I just dreamed all of that, I'll have to watch it again.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:04 PM |
No.
No.
The ABC angle is in Irish's snapshot somewhere in the comment section. WNDU uses its own footage, not ABC's.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:53 AM |
Look for the chalk on the shoes
Look for the chalk on the shoes
The claim of Photoshopped or anti-catholic bias can be solved if we'd just looked for the sideline chalk on the kid's shoes, it's there.
I find it interesting when ND coaches and fans complain about bad calls. ND gets that "Home Cooking" every time in their stadium. It must be the reflection from that golden dome. Their refs only has eyes for ND.
South Bend is one of the toughest places for visiting teams to win at because of the bias calls that ND receives. When you take them away from their stadium they become as every other team... beat-able.
The Original Voice of Reason
September 15th, 2009 at 12:26 PM |
There is no chalk on
There is no chalk on
There is no chalk on FieldTurf
I have a Fandom Endurance III merit badge
September 15th, 2009 at 12:04 PM |
come on
come on
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3059/conclusiveno.jpg
I went through each frame of the replay video, there is nothing in it close to being conclusive
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
September 15th, 2009 at 12:04 PM |
Snicker.
Snicker.
Snicker.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:05 PM |
You know, it helps to read
You know, it helps to read
You know, it helps to read the article you are commenting on.
The argument here relies on the idea that the review was "inconclusive" given the replays shown on the TV, but those things are not necessarily the same things the replay guy sees. If we are parsing the shadows and whatnot—some Notre Dame fans see that picture and suggest that Allen's heel is not out of bounds—then we're back to semantics. What is "voluntary"? What is "conclusive"? If I close my eyes, does the universe cease existing?
The call was correct. You are not allowed to complain about a referee getting something right. That's not how complaints work.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:10 PM |
I did read it, which is why I
I did read it, which is why I
I did read it, which is why I spent all of 30secs to capture that shot just for you guys on MGO and then upload it. Though the little bluebox isn't very helpful, but the link works.
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
September 15th, 2009 at 12:13 PM |
So, when the article states
So, when the article states
So, when the article states "saying it isn't conclusive is stupid," putting up a picture and saying it isn't conclusive makes sense how?
September 15th, 2009 at 12:26 PM |
How does an article that
How does an article that
How does an article that says, "saying it isn't conclusive is stupid," make sense?
There are 3 video replays, and 2 referees within 4 feet of Allen, all of which did not indicate he was out of bounds.
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
September 16th, 2009 at 9:17 AM |
24 feet, 4 feet, what's the difference?
24 feet, 4 feet, what's the difference?
...about 20 feet.
The refs still had decent looks at it, but clearly it was a very close call. Michigan fans can't blame them for initially getting it wrong in real time from that distance.
God bless every single one of your cotton pickin' Maize and Blue hearts
September 15th, 2009 at 12:19 PM |
So you read the article and
So you read the article and
So you read the article and decided, in your infinite wisdom, that a good rebuttal to an article pointing out how flawed it is to say "It was inconclusive!" despite the call being correct is... to say it was inconclusive. Gotcha.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:28 PM |
No my rebuttal was to post an
No my rebuttal was to post an
No my rebuttal was to post an image from the HD torrent at the point he was determined to be out of bounds by the replay booth.
Current Smug rating: "lethal"
Michigan fans should be complaining the RR had to take a timeout to give the refs time to review it. Isn't the rule that "every play is reviewed" and an official review is just an instance of where they want more time?
If so, why did we have to burn a timeout to give the refs more time on a borderline, major impact, play that should have been thoroughly reviewed in the first place?
Excellence is Good