ND fans can shutup now. (with PICS!)
Is anyone else here sick and tired of all the EXCUSES! that ND fans (and their despicable coach) keep making. Well, let's debunk them one by one.
1. Allen was out of bounds! The refs made the right call. The video evidence was conclusive. Even your own local news station agreed. Here is a picture of the very first replay they showed.
After seeing that, would you even bother looking at a second replay? NO, cause he's out.
2. The holding call on Rudolph's big gainer was a good call. Jimmy knew it. That's why he was standing back at the 10 yard line holding his peepee.
But even if you think Ginger boy's play wasn't holding, there was still another holding on that same play!
3. The refs were not paid off. This is just beyond stupid. They were not biased for the big ten team. This is also freaking stupid. If the refs were so biased, how do you explain this?
Late in the 3rd, Michigan had MORE penalty yardage. But don't let the facts get in your way.
Not to mention your line got away with holding all day long. None of these were called.
4. Time ran out. No, there should not have been one more second on the clock. Maybe if your coach was better or your player smarter, tate would have gone down immediately and called a timeout. But instead he wasted 4 seconds by running to the sideline. And then the clock stops when the ref signals it to. Here is the exact moment when the ref signaled to stop the clock. (nevermind the response delay of the clock operator)
5. Allen's taunting was a weak call. But it was the right call. And here's another one that didn't get called.
6. Mouton should have been flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. But the REF DIDN'T SEE IT that way. Which isn't surprising considering that on that same play, not only did Mouton get dived on, but there were 4 (FOUR!) other holdings that the refs didn't see.
You lost. Deal with it. Cause you've got sparty coming, and you're not very good against them for some strange reason.
I'm not saying you're a bunch of fricken crybabies. I'm not saying you're fricken hypocrites. But your coach is. That's just a fact. I'm not saying he's a fat, lying, whiny, crybaby. But you can't argue with the facts.
1. Allen was out of bounds! The refs made the right call. The video evidence was conclusive. Even your own local news station agreed. Here is a picture of the very first replay they showed.
After seeing that, would you even bother looking at a second replay? NO, cause he's out.
2. The holding call on Rudolph's big gainer was a good call. Jimmy knew it. That's why he was standing back at the 10 yard line holding his peepee.
But even if you think Ginger boy's play wasn't holding, there was still another holding on that same play!
3. The refs were not paid off. This is just beyond stupid. They were not biased for the big ten team. This is also freaking stupid. If the refs were so biased, how do you explain this?
Late in the 3rd, Michigan had MORE penalty yardage. But don't let the facts get in your way.
Not to mention your line got away with holding all day long. None of these were called.
4. Time ran out. No, there should not have been one more second on the clock. Maybe if your coach was better or your player smarter, tate would have gone down immediately and called a timeout. But instead he wasted 4 seconds by running to the sideline. And then the clock stops when the ref signals it to. Here is the exact moment when the ref signaled to stop the clock. (nevermind the response delay of the clock operator)
5. Allen's taunting was a weak call. But it was the right call. And here's another one that didn't get called.
6. Mouton should have been flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. But the REF DIDN'T SEE IT that way. Which isn't surprising considering that on that same play, not only did Mouton get dived on, but there were 4 (FOUR!) other holdings that the refs didn't see.
You lost. Deal with it. Cause you've got sparty coming, and you're not very good against them for some strange reason.
I'm not saying you're a bunch of fricken crybabies. I'm not saying you're fricken hypocrites. But your coach is. That's just a fact. I'm not saying he's a fat, lying, whiny, crybaby. But you can't argue with the facts.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:59 PM ^
Who are you trying to reach with this diary? I only know of one ND fan who posts here
September 17th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
I was thoroughly reached. I had scattered opinions about all of these plays, but appreciated the consolidated pictorial. Thanks BlueSeoul!
September 17th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
Wow, enough is enough. We've beaten all these topics to death. Why are people continuing to bring them up? Brian's covered them, Doc Saturday has covered them, and the MSM has covered them. Have people forgotten that we have a game Saturday?
September 17th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^
got a late start on reviewing the tape.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
I think we need to focus on our next opponent.
Come, how about some EMU bashing?
September 17th, 2009 at 4:39 PM ^
More like LEASTERN Michigan!! ha-ha, lol*!
*laughing out loud
September 17th, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
I have said a number of times (as have many others), in light of the fact that none of us play for UM I don't see how us focusing on EMU is going to help or hinder the teams performance Saturday. I liked the diary and the pics that do a great job showing how insane this ranting ND coaches and fans are doing. Thanks man!
September 17th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
Virtually impossible to determine holding calls in freeze frame shots. But sure - I agree that ND's complaints are silly, and completely driven by Weis. Bring on Eastern.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:30 PM ^
The player holding has a fist full of jersey like in most of these pics.
Weis has front butt. I'm done with ND until next year. Bring on the real EMU.
September 18th, 2009 at 9:37 AM ^
Even with a fistful of jersey, refs won't call holding unless the defender's side-to-side motion is constrained. Whether or not it's the letter of the law, I think it's pretty well understood that that is how the rule is applied.
I think that kind of thing is difficult to tell without video in all but the most egregious cases.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^
This needs to go on ND boards.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
If only I could give you more than one point sir. Thank you.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
When I clicked this I was planning to go off on a rant about how this is dead and move on and good heavens stfu. I stand corrected. Nice work. While we didn't really need to see all this conclusive evidence, it's a place to point anyone that decides to be a whiny bitch.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Nice work, I like that you compiled everything into one post so it'll be easier to show the ND fans I know.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
Nice Job, BlueSeoul...+1
September 17th, 2009 at 1:53 PM ^
I like your enthusiasm and I think there were a lot of calls missed. However, many of the holding calls you point out were not actually holding as defined by the game itself. I do not have the rule book in front of me, but I was a guard on an offensive line in college for a DIII school. I started for two years and the first three pics you show starting with BG are not really worthy of getting called. I am not defending ND or the O-lineman, those snapshots are simply that. Those are just snapshots of the O-line and D-lines bodies in unique positions. Just because some dudes paw is across the chest of a defensive lineman, doesn't mean he is holding.
Just because it looks like holding doesn't mean the ref is going to call it.
Go Blue!
September 17th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
I was having a discussion with "Irish" earlier where he posted up some bogus uncalled holdings on michigan. I wanted to show him some more blatant examples.
So some of the ones up there might be marginal, but they could all be called. But the one on ROH wasn't even close to being marginal as brian pointed out in the UFR.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^
"...the first three pics you show starting with BG are not really worthy of getting called."
As far as your snap shot argument, I'll assume you watched the game like the rest of us or have seen replays of it. That O-lineman didn't shoot his hand across BGs chest and then insta-retract it. You know how funny that would look? It would look like a karate chop (or an uppercut) which would draw a flag anyway. No, dude had a nice little chokehold on BG almost every single time they showed that matchup.
I applaud you for playing O-line somewhere and all that, but the argument that these are just "stills" holds litle water with me.
Nice job by the OP putting everything together in a single spot for debunking the whining. Haters can be directed to this post and we can get on with discussing all the tasty UofM goodness out there.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:38 PM ^
2007 NCAA Football Rules Rule 9 SECTION 3. ARTICLE 3.
Use of Hands or Arms by Offense
ARTICLE 3.
a. A teammate of a runner or a passer legally may block with his shoulders, his hands, the outer surface of his arms or any other part of his body under the following provisions.
1. The hand(s) shall be:
(a) In advance of the elbow.
(b) Inside the frame of the opponent’s body (Exception: When the opponent turns his back to the blocker) (A.R. 9-3-3-VI and VII).
(c) At or below the shoulder(s) of the blocker and the opponent (Exception: When the opponent squats, ducks or submarines).
(d) Apart and never in a locked position.
2. The hand(s) shall be open with the palm(s) facing the frame of the opponent or closed or cupped with the palms not facing the opponent (A.R. 9-3-3-I-IV and VI-VIII).
PENALTY—10 yards from the basic spot (Exception: Offensive team illegal use of hands fouls behind the neutral zone are
enforced from the previous spot. Safety if the foul occurs
behind Team A’s goal line).
b. Holding or illegal obstruction by a teammate of the runner or passer applies to Rule 9-3-3-a:
1. The hand(s) and arm(s) shall not be used to grasp, pull or encircle in any way that illegally impedes or illegally obstructs an opponent.
2. The hand(s) or arm(s) shall not be used to hook, clamp or otherwise illegally impede or illegally obstruct an opponent (A.R. 9-3-3-I).
PENALTY—10 yards from the basic spot (Exception: Offensive team holding fouls behind the neutral zone are enforced from the previous spot. Safety if the foul occurs behind Team A’s goal line)
September 18th, 2009 at 9:38 AM ^
Good job, NCAA. You pass Anatomy 101.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:31 PM ^
I too played college football as an OT, but a DII school and anytime you have an arm in front of someone impeding their progress, it is a holding call and normally will be called. In the first pic, the ND OL most definitely has his arm in front of Graham across his body and has a hold of his shoulder pad. What looks like happened is that the ND OL's punch and hold of Graham's shoulder pad was made, and he beat the ND OL to the inside. That is a hold, but may not be called because it looks to be on the interior of the line. The back judge has a very difficult time with that one.
The others are very similar. Holding can be called on almost any play at any level, but there were some very obvious ones that were not called on ND.
BTW - I still remember an upperclassman taking me aside and teaching me how to hold and not be obvious. Priceless.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^
This is great stuff, now if RR would just acknowledge the Mouton crap and move on then maybe these loser "journalists" would actually focus on the game itself.
Football is a volent emotional game and shit happens, deal with it.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
Nice work BlueSeoul... I lost all respect for ND after that game.
During the game, I was screaming about all the holds that were not called...that ND OL was the worst holding OL that Ive seen in a long time.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
Jimmah holding his pee pee is by far the most damning of the photos.
September 17th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
Concise and informative with a dash of humor. Giving you a +1 seems completely inadequate. If we were sitting at the bar together, I'd buy you a round (no homo). Outstanding work and I think it puts a nice bow on the entire matter. Let's move on to Eastern Michigan!
September 17th, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^
I don't dispute the holding penalties, for being such an "emphasis" by the refs they sucked going both ways. (Only the last photo is mine, the rest are care of SEE at NDnation, what can I say it was worth the trip)
Delay of game:
Not Pass interference
also Not pass interference
This was that deep pass to extend the last drive of the game, again not pass interference
Guess we should have challenged it
Not Pass interference
also Not pass interference
This was that deep pass to extend the last drive of the game, again not pass interference
Guess we should have challenged it
September 17th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^
Sigh...I can't believe we are still talking about this but...
These examples from SEE at ND Nation are a mixed bag at best. Let's (painfully) go through them one by one.
A) the play clock on the screen is from the network and not the official play clock. The official clock is on the field (or on the stadium, etc.). It's entirely possible that they were minutely different. That being said, I'm willing to give you that one.
B)I think this one could have been called and I probably wouldn't have argued at the time. But...remember also that Warren has a right to the ball too and that snapshot doesn't show that Tate is slowing down and ramming back into D Warren to fight for position. The hand holding probably trumps that but only marginally.
C) This pic is the same play as the last pic and can't be counted twice.
D)Pic #4 is a terrible example. Who's interfering with who in this pic? Both guys have their arms around the other guy...and only barely on both counts. This is a classic example of a good "no call."
E)Pic #5 is yet another horrible example. As already pointed out in the main post, time clock does not stop until the ref waves him arm and then you have to build in some reaction time for the clock operator (unless it's at MSU and there is only one second left in the game). In addition, it DOES NOT MATTER if some guy is calling for a timeout SOMEWHERE on the sideline (regardless of who it is)...you don't get to review that and then they set the clock at the exact moment that the person's fingers touched the palm of their hand. It just doesn't work that way. The guy calls TO, then the ref sees him, then the ref waves his arm, then the scoreboard operator stops the clock. You really think all that can happen in one second? (or whatever fractions of a second happen to be left on that clock). We've all seen - like a gozillion times - someone franticaly waving for TO to avoid a delay of game and by the time the ref sees him it's too late. That's called "in the flow of the game" in the rulebooks...it's just a part of life.
Bottom line on this (and I can't believe we have to say this AGAIN), all the calls were a mixed bag, you got hosed on some - maybe (pass interference, delay of game), we got hosed on some - maybe (holding by the OL all day long). That's football, folks. Live with it, accept it and move on
...and this time I mean it.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
Bottom line on this (and I can't believe we have to say this AGAIN), all the calls were a mixed bag, you got hosed on some - maybe (pass interference, delay of game), we got hosed on some - maybe (holding by the OL all day long). That's football, folks. Live with it, accept it and move on, ...and this time I mean it.I can live with that
September 17th, 2009 at 6:50 PM ^
Looks like the back to back pass interference pictures are the same play, one just being a shitty still from a low quality movie. Also, didn't the ref rule that the ball was fumbled out of bounds, and the clock doesn't stop until the ball hits the ground out of bounds?
September 17th, 2009 at 8:38 PM ^
Yep, at this point the ball has bounced on the "out of bounds line" meaning the play is dead.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:00 PM ^
You can't call a time-out until the play is blown dead. The fact that people are signaling for time-out with 1 second left is irrelevant since the sideline judge hasn't signaled the play is over.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:37 PM ^
I don't disagree, thats why they should have thrown the challenge flag before the refs ran off the field.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:57 AM ^
Is when a play is blown dead a challengeable play? That might fall under the "judgement call" category of play that can't be challenged. Even if they reviewed it, the only thing they could examine is when the ref signals the play dead versus how much time is left on the clock, which from the pics we've seen doens't give ND another play. I don't think they can review whether the signal itself is late, that falls under judgement call, doesn't it?
I can sympathsize with your frustration, but I think Irish fans efforts are better served grabbing Golden Tate by the shirt collar and explaining to him why running laterally after the catch when he's hemmed in by 4 defenders is a worse idea than just going down after the catch and letting your team call time-out.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:07 PM ^
I am not 100% certain on it, but one of the new rule changes this year was that even if the whistle blows a play dead it can be reviewed.
Tate was trying to make a play, trying to do too much on his own. Definitely something we were supposed to have matured out of but at the same time, with the game on the line. I would love to have the ball in his hands. Just have to take the good with the bad, learn from it and move on.
September 18th, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^
can't challenge that sport. unless its part of the new schematic advantage brought in by weis
September 17th, 2009 at 6:03 PM ^
i'm not sure any of those "pass interference" plays should have been called. and i'm glad they weren't. both players have a right to the ball when it's up for grabs. hell, it looks like warren knocks the ball away on each pic. curious why you didn't include the actual pass interference call where the ball is about 10 ft over the receivers head at midfield; clearly uncatchable, but called anyway.
also, your clock pic shows the ball still in their air. thus, not out of bounds yet. unless it already bounced on the chalk.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:36 PM ^
Your right they both have a right to go after the ball but the DB cannot prevent the WR from running their route. Its pretty easy for a ball to look uncatchable when the DB's only chance to prevent the catch is to put his arm out in front of the receiver as he runs 30 yards down the field.
The DB also cannot restrain the receiver in anyway as they go to make the catch and in each of those photos you can see the DBs arm or hand firmly holding back the receiver's arm. Its interference trust me.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:37 AM ^
of any relevance to claiming a bad call is the first -assuming it's not shopped (that would be sad, and thus I'll assume it's accurate).
Never mind that pics 2 and 3 are from the same pass, either or both cannot be construed as interference one way or the other. This is normal hand-fighting.
Sure, if the ref had a good view and was able to watch Warren initiate an underarm hooking motion, that would be worthy of a pass interference call. Clearly, the ref couldn't see much of what the inside arms were doing - bodies in the way and all. If Warren was interfering and got away with it on this play, that's just good D.
Likewise, if the ref had a good view and was able to watch Tate push Warren back and see Warren grab the offending arm to keep from getting knocked over or out of the play, then that too would be grounds for an offensive interference call. Again, clearly the ref didn't have such a view and if Tate did the interfering, that's just good positioning by him.
The bottom line; from these 2 pics of the same pass that are intended to depict two different plays, you can't determine who's to blame and 90% of the time that coverage is tight (i.e. - good), this sort of contact is occurring.
Pic 4 - whether or not it's another angle on the same pass as above - see the same explanation. If anything, Tate is much more actively grabbing Warren than the other way around, but this is meaningless hairsplitting.
Pic 5 - seriously? Since when did the clock ever stop the INSTANT the ball may have landed out of bounds? You lose a second at a home game, nevermind a minimum of 2 on the road. Bringing this one up just crushes credibility.
In sum... sorry ND got called for a delay of game they didn't earn. I can't believe it! At least it allowed them to pad their total offense from 485 to 490 yards gained.
The most amazing part of all of this is that, you, Irish, who typically provide such reasonable and well thought out posts would bother to say anything other than "hey... it didn't all go as we would have liked, but we just couldn't get the job done despite all the opportunities. Maybe Weiss is better suited as a coordinator than a head coach."
Ok, a tiny bit of sarcasm at the end, but I truly have thought that of Weiss from day one of his ND tenure. As a UM fan, I hope he sticks in South Bend for a long time. It can only bode well for the Wolverines.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
Pic 2-4 They're not all 3 from the same play, and the 4th one is the weakest of the 3. But bravo, you actually just took a photo that blatantly shows a receiver being interfered with and then spoke it up to actually make it the receivers fault that his arm was being restrained. Bravo.
Pic 5
Uh well the clock was adjusted in the first half on a play that was challenged so I would expect the same to happen in the 2nd half.
If you don't like what I have to say I don't really care. For the most part I reply to ND threads, not all the time but for the most part. So if you don't want my opinion on something ND related then don't make a thread/post about it to begin with.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:42 PM ^
They taste like the sweet candy and the tears of ND disappointment are like nectar.
I was just saying, usually you're a little more rational, but I understand emotions can get in the way after a big defeat.
If it was some other teams that you didn't care about, you'd probably point out that there's no way to tell from these photos who was fouling who. Both players have a right to their space and to play the ball. Either one could be guilty of initiating contact but these photos don't indicate who.
As for why 2 and 3 weren't called one way or the other, it's pretty obvious if you look where the ref is. He couldn't see it any better than he can see straight through Tate's torso.
Pic 4, to elaborate further was on a pass thrown to the inside of Warren, thus Tate had to cut across Warren just to make a play on it. The fact that Warren was also making a play on the ball and had better position to boot, if anything would indicate Tate was guilty of interference on this play, but the officials felt bad enough for apparently screwing ND all game long to let this one slide.
If pass interference occurred every time the DB touched the receiver as you seem to think it should, offenses would do nothing but throw downfield and count on 15 yard penalties to move the ball.
Look on the bright side. At least ND will finally beat Sparty in South Bend this week.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
I appreciate your comments, but pass interference is right up there with personal fouls with me. And that is probably multiplied even further by the fact that we use receivers so regularly in ND's offense.
I mean come on even Millen saw the holds on the receiver during the game live, that has to count for something right. :) roflmao
September 20th, 2009 at 1:49 AM ^
I was at the game and it clearly was a delay of game. The TV clock is not the clock the refs use, so sorry. On the field it was at zero for a second before the refs called it. You know it was the right call when a coach on the sideline rips off his headset!
I think the pass interference non-call was because both guys were grabbing arms and then the gap between them closed making both arms pinned between both guys.
I'm not saying the refs were not terrible. They missed calls all game! But I think the refs missed calls to both sides and they more or less cancel out.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^
As to what you actually posted:
#2 He didn't see the flag, he heard the referee behind him call the play back
-The called hold was not a hold, it was Roh getting chipped by the TE and falling into a heap. Finished off by 74.
-As to your no call, the OLineman's hands are not outside his frame, and he isn't grabbing onto anything
#3
-The actual penalty yards are not what ND fans are angry about its the amount of offensive yards that were negated, upwards of 180 if your interested.
-Again not holding, the Olineman's hands are within his frame and he is not holding onto any part of the Dlineman
-see above
-see above
#4 See my last photo
#5 Cissoko is a punk, he was caught playing past the whistle twice on camera and both times right in front Refs. Unless he is getting drop kicked 5 mins after a play is over you have NOTHING to stand on.
#6 You could count up to 12 in that picture and it wouldn't mean a thing at that resolution.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:17 PM ^
Play better next time
September 17th, 2009 at 6:46 PM ^
"-As to your no call, the OLineman's hands are not outside his frame, and he isn't grabbing onto anything"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now I know you're dreaming, or you need your eyes checked. get a friend, try to re-enact that pose, then look at where your arms are. "not outside his frame" ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ What would you define as his frame? the playing field? "isn't grabbing onto anything" Sure, the 5 on his jersey is just obscured and twisted because of...oh I don't know... let's say "gremlins"
you really do live in an alternate reality, don't you?
September 17th, 2009 at 8:26 PM ^
All you can see in the photo is the upper half of the Olineman's left arm (which is inside his body frame), you have no idea where his hands are, and for that matter you have no idea where the Dlineman's arms are. If your going to pass judgment based off of a twisted jersey, then I have a whole lot more photos to post. lol
September 17th, 2009 at 7:04 PM ^
"#3
-The actual penalty yards are not what ND fans are angry about its the amount of offensive yards that were negated, upwards of 180 if your interested."
Seriously? I haven't watched these plays a million times or anything, but usually when there is a holding penalty on the offense, that means that the defense was illegally being restrained from disrupting the play, making a play on the ball, pressuring the quarterback or tackling a ball carrier.
In short - to whine about lost yardage on plays that you gained the yardage through illegal means is astoundingly ludicrous logic.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:18 PM ^
You're assuming that I am one of those angry ND fans I described above and while I am annoyed with the way the game played out, I do not blame the officials for this loss.
So In short: I am not whining I am pointing out all the problems with the original posters comments. If that is whining then that is all any message board is.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:43 PM ^
wait until the play is over before assessing whether or no to call the penalty?
September 17th, 2009 at 8:13 PM ^
not sure what your referring to
Comments