this guy evidently hired to work for AD
Is there a photo of my tears of unfathomable sadness? 'Cause there should be.
as much as it pains me rest him see if bellomy can do anything in the first half vs min if not put devin in wrs cant catch if they dont get the ball to them also can we please use rawls once in awhile atleast i mean come on fits is not getting it done smith is not close to being a everydown back i still have faith and il never give up on them i had my brother who works at nebraska call me ever second talking trash its all good maybe little brother will beat nebraska.....GO BLUE
, . ; .
, ! ; . , , ;
Seriously, punctuation is your friend.
that is all
On the Vincent Smith catch/pop-up/interception; what the the heck is the explanation? And why not demand a review if it wasn't happening?
If the explanation is that Smith had the ball, but upon hitting the ground it popped up without the ball itself ever having hit the ground, thus creating a situation in which there was no catch, and no "downing" of the reciever... um, okay. But that I think is all part of the process of working the refs and making your case and forcing the refs to confront one of their own goffy decisions. It was a huge, game-changing turnover. I personally don't like how passive Brady Hoke is with the crappy B1G refs.
Working the refs has not been a strong point of this coaching staff. (Although I guess Bo Pelini shows you can get too carried away with this.) And, for some reason, there was a several minute delay after that "interception" before play started again anyway. Uh, hey ref, since you're not busy right now, how about reviewing that play?
...but the NCAA requires that if the home team has tv monitors (all that they can do is display the regular tv broadcast; they can't display special feeds, and they can't run their own recordings or other screen-captures), the visitors get the same video.
The coaches upstairs (Borges? Others?) get to see the exact same video that we saw. I presume. I presume that it is standard, for every team to take advantage of what the NCAA allows, and to thereby provide the same to visitors, as the rule requires.
Did somebody on Michigan's staff upstairs look at the video that we saw, and conclude that there would be no way to overturn it? If so, who? And what exactly was the thinking? With no challenge, it puts Hoke's staff in the position of saying that, Sure it was obviously a correct call; a challenge would have been a pure waste. But as I say further, isn't there something to working the refs, video-wise? Baseball managers argue calls even when they know they are not going to win the argument.