Home
i'm an actor, not a reactor

Primary links

  • About
    • $upport (lol)
    • Ethics
    • FAQ
    • Glossary
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • MGoStore
    • Hail to Old Blue
  • MGoBoard
    • MGoBoard FAQ
    • Michigan bar locator
    • Moderator Action Sticky
  • Useful Stuff
    • Depth Chart By Class
    • Hoops Depth Chart by Class
    • 2017 Recruiting Board
    • Unofficial Two Deep
    • MGoFlickr
    • Diaries, Windows Live Writer, And You
    • User-Curated HOF
    • Where To Eat In Ann Arbor
  • Schedule/Tix
    • Future Schedules (wiki)
    • Ticket spreadsheet
Home Forums MGoBoard

Navigation

  • Forums
  • Recent posts

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

MGoElsewhere

  • @MGoBlog (Brian)
  • @aceanbender
  • @Misopogon (Seth)
  • @Aeschnepp (Adam)
  • @BISB
  • @EUpchurchPhoto
  • @FullOfTwitt (Fuller)
  • Hail to the Victors 2016
  • MGoFacebook
  • MGoPodcast
  • WTKA
  • Instagram

Michigan Blogs

  • Big House Blog
  • Burgeoning Wolverine Star
  • Genuinely Sarcastic
  • Go Blue Michigan Wolverine
  • Holdin' The Rope
  • MVictors
  • Maize 'n' Blue Nation
  • Maize 'n' Brew
  • Maize And Go Blue
  • Michigan Hockey Net
  • MMMGoBlueBBQ
  • The Blog That Yost Built
  • The Hoover Street Rag
  • The M Zone
  • Touch The Banner
  • UMGoBlog
  • UMHoops
  • UMTailgate
  • Wolverine Liberation Army

M On The Net

  • mgovideo
  • MGoBlue.com
  • Mike DeSimone
  • Recruiting Planet
  • The Wolverine
  • Go Blue Wolverine
  • Winged Helmet
  • UMGoBlue.com
  • MaizeRage.org
  • Puckhead
  • The M Den
  • True Blue Fan Forum

Big Ten Blogs

  • Illinois
    • Illinois Loyalty
    • Illinois Baseball Report
  • Indiana
    • Inside The Hall
    • The Crimson Quarry
  • Iowa
    • Black Heart, Gold Pants
    • Fight For Iowa
  • Michigan State
    • The Only Colors
  • Minnesota
    • GopherHole.com
    • The Daily Gopher
  • Nebraska
    • Corn Nation
    • Husker Max
    • Husker Mike's Blasphemy
    • Husker Gameday
  • Northwestern
    • Sippin' On Purple
    • Lake The Posts
  • Notre Dame
    • The House Rock Built
    • One Foot Down
  • Ohio State
    • Eleven Warriors
    • Buckeye Commentary
    • Men of the Scarlet and Gray
    • Our Honor Defend
    • The Buckeye Nine
  • Penn State
    • Slow States
    • Black Shoe Diaries
    • Happy Valley Hardball
    • Penn State Clips
    • Linebacker U
    • Nittany White Out
  • Purdue
    • Boiled Sports
    • Hammer and Rails
  • Wisconsin
    • Bruce Ciskie

Links of Note

  • Baseball
    • College Baseball Today
    • The College Baseball Blog
  • Basketball
    • Ken Pomeroy
    • Hoop Math
    • John Gasaway
    • Luke Winn/Sports Illustrated
  • College Hockey
    • Chris Heisenberg (Class of 2016)
    • College Hockey Stats
    • Michigan College Hockey
    • Hockey's Future
    • Sioux Sports
    • USCHO
  • Football
    • Smart Football
    • Every Day Should Be Saturday
    • Matt Hinton/Grantland
    • Football Study Hall
    • Football Outsiders
    • Harold Stassen
    • NCAA D-I Stats Page
    • The Wizard Of Odds
    • CFB Stats
  • General
    • Sports Central
  • Local Interest
    • The Ann Arbor Chronicle
    • Arborwiki
    • Arbor Update
    • Ann Arbor Observer
    • Teeter Talk
    • Vacuum
  • Teams Of The D
    • Lions
      • Pride of Detroit
    • Pistons
      • Detroit Bad Boys
      • Need4Sheed
    • Tigers
      • Roar Of The Tigers
      • Bless You Boys
      • The Daily Fungo
      • The Detroit Tigers Weblog
    • Red Wings
      • Winging It In Motown
      • On The Wings
    • Michigan Sports Forum

Beveled Guilt

Site Search

Diaries

  • New
  • Popular
  • Hot
  • Thirteen unlucky minutes (TL;DNR-This is a bit of rant about the refs)
    docwhoblocked - 2 weeks ago
  • Fan Satisfaction Index End of Season Bball Survey
    OneFootIn - 2 weeks ago
  • How likely are we to revert to the mean?
    Bo Glue - 2 weeks ago
  • It's time to avenge Villanova's 1985 NCAA tourney upset over Michigan
    Communist Football - 2 weeks ago
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 3 weeks ago
  •  
  • 1 of 2
  • ››
more
  • This Month in MGoBlog History - March 2008: Pryor isn't coming, Boren has left, and some academic fraud allegations sprinkled in
    Maize.Blue Wagner - 215 comments
  • The Ballad of Jordan Poole
    k.o.k.Law - 176 comments
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 91 comments
  • PreSpring Football updates from Sam Webb
    AZBlue - 90 comments
  • Thirteen unlucky minutes (TL;DNR-This is a bit of rant about the refs)
    docwhoblocked - 60 comments
  •  
  • 1 of 2
  • ››
more

MGoBoard

  • New
  • Recent
  • Hot
  • Auston Robertson arrested again
    12 replies
  • Michigan announces single-game ticket prices for 2018 football season
    15 replies
  • 2018-19 Michigan Basketball B1G slate announced
    36 replies
  • Final 247 Basketball rankings published
    35 replies
  • Any news on Grant Newsome?
    64 replies
  • Karsen Barnhart - did we cool on him?
    84 replies
  • HELP WANTED! I'm moving to Chicago for school and I need good haunts to watch football/basketball games. Recommendations?
    46 replies
  • Angelique on Patterson Transfer
    51 replies
  • CBS Sports: Shea Patterson details scope of Ole Miss deception in lengthy letter to Michigan
    38 replies
  • OT: NFL Schedule Release
    12 replies
  • OT: Gregg Popovich's wife Erin dead at 67
    21 replies
  • Belleville coach Jermain Crowell mad at UM again
    227 replies
  • Q&A with FB Ben VanSumeren--Video
    8 replies
  • "Being Not-Rich at UM" Guide
    165 replies
  • Apparently, the NCAA has already received a response from MSU about Nassar
    60 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 7
  • ››
  • Auston Robertson arrested again
    12 replies
  • Final 247 Basketball rankings published
    35 replies
  • HELP WANTED! I'm moving to Chicago for school and I need good haunts to watch football/basketball games. Recommendations?
    46 replies
  • 2018-19 Michigan Basketball B1G slate announced
    36 replies
  • Karsen Barnhart - did we cool on him?
    84 replies
  • Apparently, the NCAA has already received a response from MSU about Nassar
    60 replies
  • Any news on Grant Newsome?
    64 replies
  • Michigan announces single-game ticket prices for 2018 football season
    15 replies
  • "Being Not-Rich at UM" Guide
    165 replies
  • CBS Sports: Shea Patterson details scope of Ole Miss deception in lengthy letter to Michigan
    38 replies
  • Belleville coach Jermain Crowell mad at UM again
    227 replies
  • Angelique on Patterson Transfer
    51 replies
  • OT: NFL Schedule Release
    12 replies
  • No additional protest of Shea Patterson appeal by Ole Miss
    113 replies
  • OT: Gregg Popovich's wife Erin dead at 67
    21 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 7
  • ››
  • Why should we be optimistic about 2018 M football?
    273 replies
  • Belleville coach Jermain Crowell mad at UM again
    227 replies
  • Police investigating Elysee Mbem-Bosse for death threat against Harbaugh
    224 replies
  • Speight to UCLA
    172 replies
  • How Many Football Games Will Michigan Win This Year? (Poll)
    167 replies
  • "Being Not-Rich at UM" Guide
    165 replies
  • Buckle Up
    159 replies
  • Scouting the Enemy: Ohio State QBs are Good
    158 replies
  • Semi-OT: What sports would you fix?
    158 replies
  • Elysee Mbem-Bosse disturbing tweets
    157 replies
  • Whats the Best Way to Make Flight Arrangements?
    149 replies
  • Wagner to NBA
    141 replies
  • Urban Meyer throws more shade at Michigan
    141 replies
  • FB new Nutrition plan under Herbert is well received by players
    132 replies
  • Today’s MSU outrage Apparently Engler has attempted to bypass the victims attorneys
    130 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 7
  • ››

Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon

Can someone pls make a GIF of the ball moving in Coale's hands?

82 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
January 4th, 2012 at 10:55 AM
#1
artds
artds's picture
Joined: 09/04/2009
MGoPoints: 2919
Can someone pls make a GIF of the ball moving in Coale's hands?

You can clearly see from this clip that, when the ball makes contact with the ground, it flips forward in Coale's hands. He did not have posession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Xh8MlPw38#t=00m47s

I was hoping someone could make a GIF of this that we can post on forums as evidence that the right call was made. 

Edit: Here's one I just made, but it's grainy. Perhaps someone can make one that's more clear. This really is the best angle.

 

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Tags:
  • MGoBoard

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
January 4th, 2012 at 11:10 AM
#2
MGoShtoink
MGoShtoink's picture
Joined: 11/05/2010
MGoPoints: 8523
Found this on SBNation

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/1/3/2681020/danny-coale-touchdown-catch-sugar-bowl-overtime?sct=hp_t11_a4

It looks like as he's coming down, he loses the ball, and the ground helps contain it.  The right call was made.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:25 AM
(Reply to #2) #3
Steve Lorenz
Steve Lorenz's picture
Joined: 01/26/2010
MGoPoints: 6840
That's

That's the worst angle to look at. With the angle on the far side of the field facing Coale as he brings the ball in, you can definitely see that the ball not only hit the ground, but that his elbow looked to hit first and was out of bounds as well (after possession was reached). Being at the game and seeing the constant replays, I didn't think it was nearly as close a call as some are making it out to be. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:26 AM
(Reply to #2) #4
MGoJoe
MGoJoe's picture
Joined: 10/02/2008
MGoPoints: 353

yep. the ball was squirting through his arms when he hit the ground.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:01 PM
(Reply to #20) #5
Firstbase
Firstbase's picture
Joined: 09/30/2009
MGoPoints: 6376
I hate to disagree...

...but I still think it was a catch. And a fantastic effort.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 1:00 PM
(Reply to #2) #6
HELLE
HELLE's picture
Joined: 07/26/2011
MGoPoints: 2399
no catch

last night I thought it was a catch but in this video the ground definitely moved the ball. Go Blue!

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 2:08 PM
(Reply to #2) #7
MGlobules
Joined: 11/17/2008
MGoPoints: 16429
Here is the question to ask

in may opinion: if he had been sailing through the air several feet higher, or not NEAR the OOB marker, would he have hung onto it? No, the ball is clearly moving through his hands, coming through the other (bottom) side. He meets the ground, the ball is pushed back into his solar plexus and STILL bobbles around AS HE IS SLIDING OUT OF BOUNDS. I don't see how this is a catch, nor do I see--given this kind of visual evidence--how the refs could do anything but reverse.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:08 AM
#8
Schembo
Schembo's picture
Joined: 01/06/2011
MGoPoints: 5394
I thought this was a rather

I thought this was a rather easy call to overturn..not sure why both broadcasters thought this should have remained a catch.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:19 AM
(Reply to #3) #9
profitgoblue
profitgoblue's picture
Joined: 09/01/2009
MGoPoints: 19557
Easy?

I completely disagree with you.  They took a ton of time reviewing the play because it was far from easy to overturn, in my opinion.  In fact, I didn't see conclusive evidence that the call should be overturned.  But that is what all of my Hokie fans are crying this morning too so maybe I should rethink my conclusion . . .

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:23 AM
(Reply to #6) #10
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
This was incredibly lucky

I was screaming Incomplete last night, but in my heart I knew that was a catch...and it was... until it wasnt! We were extremely fortunate that that was overturned.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:33 AM
(Reply to #10) #11
djean02
djean02's picture
Joined: 10/15/2008
MGoPoints: 146
he was out of bounds

so it was an easy call

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:40 AM
(Reply to #31) #12
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
Except for when he wasn't

because he elbow hits in bounds. 

Which is exactly why its not an easy call. 

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:46 AM
(Reply to #38) #13
UM2k1
UM2k1's picture
Joined: 01/29/2009
MGoPoints: 3064
posted from iPhone

Except he didn't have control when his elbow hit in bounds, so even if the catch hadn't been aide byte ground, he was OB when he gained possession.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:48 AM
(Reply to #40) #14
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
The only way he doesn't have possession

is if you are a delusional Michigan fan that can't accept that fortune shined on us, if only for one night.

Even better is the fans below arguing that Hemingway's almost catch against Iowa was closer than this. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:56 PM
(Reply to #44) #15
BlueVoix
BlueVoix's picture
Joined: 06/25/2009
MGoPoints: 5574
(No subject)

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:55 AM
(Reply to #38) #16
PburgGoBlue
PburgGoBlue's picture
Joined: 07/21/2011
MGoPoints: -8831
Does an elbow in bounds count

Does an elbow in bounds count the same as a foot? Just wondering. This is such a bang-bang play, to me, I think they should have focussed more on the fact that he didn't have control of the ball before hitting the boundary instead of talking about control the whole time.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:19 PM
(Reply to #48) #17
Blueph
Blueph's picture
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 12754
Yes

In college football, all that matters is where the first body part to hit the ground after the receiver gains possession lands.  It could be a foot, a knee, a hand, an elbow, or anything else.  If a receiver catches the ball, his elbow hits in bounds, then both feet land out of bounds, it's still a catch.  Thus, since Coale's elbow appears to hit in bounds, the only question is whether he had possession before he slid out of bounds.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:33 PM
(Reply to #59) #18
death by trident
death by trident's picture
Joined: 08/31/2011
MGoPoints: 6071
To further solidify your

To further solidify your point, the rule from the NCAA 2011-2012 rule book -

 

Incomplete Pass

ARTICLE 7. a. Any forward pass is incomplete if the ball is out of bounds by

rule or if it touches the ground when not firmly controlled by a player. It also

is incomplete when a player leaves his feet and receives the pass but first lands

on or outside a boundary line, unless his progress has been stopped in the field

of play or end zone (Rule 4-1-3-p) (A.R. 2-4-3-III and A.R. 7-3-7-I).

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:04 PM
(Reply to #10) #19
Firstbase
Firstbase's picture
Joined: 09/30/2009
MGoPoints: 6376
I agree.

I would have called it a catch. I wouldn't have overturned the ruling.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:23 AM
(Reply to #6) #20
CRex
CRex's picture
Joined: 09/28/2009
MGoPoints: 9002
Yes

The issue seems mostly to be that Coale's hands were on the sides of the ball.  He didn't have a hand underneath.  So he actually has a level of control, but the bottom point of the ball does impact the turf (which in turn makes the ball squirt upwards a bit).  If Coale has a hand under the ball we're not having this discussion as it would be a catch.  As it stands I guess the replay ref felt he was bobbling it slightly and the tip impacting the turf helped make the catch.  

End of the day, having seen the Wolverines get royally screwed by PAC officials, I'm just glad to be on the other side of that for a change.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:12 PM
(Reply to #11) #21
CWoodson
CWoodson's picture
Joined: 09/15/2009
MGoPoints: 1455
This kind of feeds into what

This kind of feeds into what you're getting at, and they didn't talk about it last night, but isn't the rule that if the ball hits the ground as the receiver is making a catch, the ball can't move?  I'm pretty sure that's the NFL rule and why the elbow didn't matter.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:32 AM
(Reply to #6) #22
Schembo
Schembo's picture
Joined: 01/06/2011
MGoPoints: 5394
I'm trying hard not to use

I'm trying hard not to use rose colored glasses on this one, but the way I understand it is after the ball hits the ground the player must reastablish possession, which he does, but at that point he is out of bounds.  The player can't have possession and the ball touching the ground simultaneously.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:33 AM
(Reply to #3) #23
mikoyan
mikoyan's picture
Joined: 09/06/2010
MGoPoints: 2784
Why do you ask?  Because the

Why do you ask?  Because the national media hates Michigan.  And I'm not just talking the Wolverines, I'm talking the State of Michigan.  Especially ABC.  Ever since Coleman Young made them look like jackasses on 20/20 or whatever channel they interviewed him on, they've had a woody towards all things Michigan.  Which is why every so often the have the "woah is Detroit" stories or any other number of negative views of Michigan.  Well, I'll let the media know that 5 out of 5 Great Lakes hate them and don't want to be anywhere near them.

And for the SEC loving fools at ESPN...I hope the Magic Mitten can transform into a Magic Finger.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:17 AM
#24
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
The shot in which he's coming right at the camera

That's the one in which I think you can see that the ball moves, though ever-so-slightly.  I would feel worse for Tech fans about this if we hadn't seen Hemingway's catch - a more catch-y catch than Coale's - ruled incomplete. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 1:23 PM
(Reply to #4) #25
iawolve
iawolve's picture
Joined: 11/03/2008
MGoPoints: 4624
Amen to that

Glad to see that one go our way. Martin made a similar comment to that point post-game.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:17 AM
#26
ijohnb
Joined: 09/21/2009
MGoPoints: 51814
I will be the one

I thought is was a catch and highway robbery at gun point.  It is the exact kind of call that I don't think should be reversed on review.  I am very happy that Michigan won, and could still have won even if it was ruled a catch, but even watching that clip, I say catch and I cannot be convinced otherwise.  The question to ask is "how much of a catch does it need to be before it is a catch." 

If you ask me, that is the video that is played at the How to Make a Diving Catch While Falling Out of Bounce Seminar.  By overturning that, the refs are essentially saying that a "catch cannot be made under those conditions."

Thrilled for the win, but I say catch, and catch hard.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:19 AM
(Reply to #5) #27
Schembo
Schembo's picture
Joined: 01/06/2011
MGoPoints: 5394
His whole upper body is out

His whole upper body is out of bounds when gains possession.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:34 AM
(Reply to #7) #28
BornInAA
BornInAA's picture
Joined: 11/21/2009
MGoPoints: 12362
agree

I thought possession wasn't the issue. If he caught it or not - he comes down on his arm/shoulder out of bounds.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:20 AM
(Reply to #5) #29
Waveman
Waveman's picture
Joined: 11/05/2010
MGoPoints: 810
Really?

I can't see any way that this is a catch! I don't think it's even particuarly close, and it certainly shouldn't be controversial. The ball is moving in his arms before he hits the ground. It moves again when the ball hits the turf.  The ball can touch the ground only if you have complete possession the whole time. The ball is going through his arms like a basketball goal until the ground helps him secure it against his chest.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:24 AM
(Reply to #5) #30
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
The rule needs to be re-visited

As I said just above, I think the ball moved slightly as he landed.  To the bigger issue, though, the following needs to be clarified:  Is a catch a catch when a player controls the ball but the ball also touches the ground?  The rules say yes, IIRC what we looked up after the Hemingway play, but a number of calls this year have said otherwise.  Refs appear to be leery of calling something a catch when a significant part of the ball touches the ground.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:25 AM
(Reply to #5) #31
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
Yeah

The people below you have no idea what they are talking about.

He pulls the ball in. His elbow touches the ground before he's out of bounds. He has possession at this very point. The ball moves slightly within his hands as he's bouncing off the ground. 

100% a catch and had it happened the other way, everyone would be screaming bloody murder. 

I love winning, but I hate to see things like this happen. I mean, we were furious about Junior at Iowa and that wasn't even remotely as close as this. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:30 AM
(Reply to #18) #32
wolverinestuckinEL
Joined: 09/21/2010
MGoPoints: 565
The Hemmingway play showed

The Hemmingway play showed zero signs of the ball moving when he hit the ground.  As was stated at the time if it had been ruled a touchdown it would have stood.  The ball moves. Unless his hands or body part are between the ball and the ground it cannot move.  The ball is laying on the ground when it moves so imcomplete.  

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:37 AM
(Reply to #28) #33
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34174
Hemingway v. Coale

As you say, Junior had more solid possession of the ball than Coale.   If Junior's was not a catch, Coale's was definitely not a catch.  What gets interesting is that, per the letter of the rule, Junior's catch should have been a catch. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:43 AM
(Reply to #37) #34
wolverinestuckinEL
Joined: 09/21/2010
MGoPoints: 565
The more I look at this play

The more I look at this play from this angle (the worse of the two) the less I understand how anyone sees a catch.  The ball isn't really secure in his hands until after the ball hits the ground and is forced into his forearm.  If he had both hands flat under the ball there would be a better case for a catch, but even then there would be a question if he had possession before sliding out of bounds.  The officials saw the ball hit the turf and moved and saw enough to overturn.  Anyone who says this is a clear catch is kidding themselves.  It is a hell of an athletic play and if I was a VT fan I would be upset, but still the right call.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:50 AM
(Reply to #39) #35
Waveman
Waveman's picture
Joined: 11/05/2010
MGoPoints: 810
This

To me, the ball continues to move down through his arms all the way until he hits the ground. If he had it firmly against his chest on the way down, or firmly in both hands, and then it budged a bit, I would see it as more questionable. When I look at this play, though, it looks like he's got loose control of the ball at best (by squeezing it between his forearms) until after the ball hits the ground. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:53 AM
(Reply to #28) #36
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
I honestly laughed out loud

I just rewatched Hemingway's catch to confirm we are actually talking about the same catch. 

Unlike Coale's catch, Hemingway doesn't even come close to having his hand below the ball. He's got it by the upper sides. You can clearly see the turf push the ball up into his hands as he's hitting he ground. 

Coale has his arms underneath the ball. The back nose of the ball MAY move upwards as he's pulling it in upon hitting the ground, or it may be moving upwards exactly because he's pulling it it.

Can't we just admit we were lucky with this win? We've been on the other side many times. I think it's fine to acknowledge that VT fans and players have got to be in some disbelief this morning to see the 23 next to Michigan and the 20 next to Va Tech. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:58 AM
(Reply to #43) #37
Waveman
Waveman's picture
Joined: 11/05/2010
MGoPoints: 810
Agree with the last paragraph

We were thoroughly dominated in this game, and I feel very lucky to have the win. I understand VT fans being in disbelief, too.  If you only give up 184 yards, you shouldn't loose a ball game.  This was an ugly, ugly win for Michigan in a game that VT should have won.

I disagree with you, though, because I don't think this play was where we got lucky. I think the refs got this call right, and I think the evidence is pretty convincing.

EDIT: and BTW... We've apparently got different definitions of "under." The entire bottom third of the ball is exposed.  He doesn't have anything "under" the ball. If he did, it wouldn't hit the ground.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:32 PM
(Reply to #47) #38
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
His arms are under the ball

the back nose appears in the space between his elbows as he is clutching it. As he's pulling the ball up, he hits the ground and the ball moves up slightly at that instant. However, there is no way to say that he doesnt have possession and this isn't just the force of him hitting the ground as his arm is also moving with the ball to pull it in towards his body. At the very least, there isn't enough there to overturn it and really, I think its a catch every single time.

I do know one thing for certain: If he was wearing a winged helmet, on MGoBlog, it would be a catch. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:54 PM
(Reply to #62) #39
wolverinestuckinEL
Joined: 09/21/2010
MGoPoints: 565
Look, we are going to

Look, we are going to disagree all day on this.  But he has the top half of the football loosely in his hands, the ball gets forced up into his arms by the ground.  What you are describing him doing is physically impossible.  Grab the top half of a football with just your hands flat against it and tell me how you can pull it up towards you while rotating it back in.  You can't.  But that is besides the point, not only is it physically impossible, the ball clearly moved.  His hands are on the sides, not underneath.  These are the rules.  Live with them.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:57 PM
(Reply to #62) #40
wolverinestuckinEL
Joined: 09/21/2010
MGoPoints: 565
Besides that I don't see why

Besides that I don't see why you have to take such a hard-line contrarian position.  Does it suck for VT?  Yes.  Would it suck if it had been us? Yes.  Was it a catch?  No.  Absolutely not, the ball f-ing moves and his hands or body are not under the ball.  Rules suck sometimes but they are kind of necessary in football. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 1:51 PM
(Reply to #71) #41
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
Because while I'm happy to win

This is why I take "hard-line": Because of your post. You saying it is "absolutely not" a catch when if the guy played for Michigan it "absolutely shouldn't have been overturned". 

I can be happy we won and also acknowledge we got incredibly lucky. You and others have to feel like we're the only team that ever gets screwed and try and downplay what was an incredible catch - and it was a catch because the ball isn't clearly moving in a way that isn't with his arm - that got overturned in extremely fortunate circumstances. 

We dodged a bullet. It was better than the alternative of having our anemic offense try and score a touchdown to tie, but it was still a lucky break. 

Edit: Your post, with the whole "loosely" desciption shows the homerism. You cannot have a rational opinion on this. You're right, we will disagree all day because you can't see it from anything but an extremely biased Michigan fan standpoint. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 2:29 PM
(Reply to #78) #42
wolverinestuckinEL
Joined: 09/21/2010
MGoPoints: 565
Way to tell me what I am.

Way to tell me what I am.  Thanks for that.  I was never up in arms about the Hemmingway catch by the way.  The officials made the call on the field and there was nothing in the replay to overturn.  That sucks because as defined by the rules of football, there is nothing there to show that it was not a catch.  But I did not, as you suggest, come on to MGoblog and screaming about how we got hosed by some bullshit call.  You do not understand football, nor the rules which define possession or a catch in college football, yet you continue to argue that those of us who find the video evidence "conclusive" along with the refs are pathetic homers.  In short you are delusional, STFU.  Hands on the side of the football, ball moves, no catch.  It is really that simple, but by calling me out you avoid the factual argument and instead choose to retaliate emotionally.  

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 2:59 PM
(Reply to #79) #43
coastal blue
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 1955
Right

So I argued your post with a clear rebuttal, then added that I don't think you can clearly argue this point because you are a biased Michigan fan, so I guess the first part doesn't count. But well played. Almost as well-played as you saying I was taking a "hard-line" stance on the call when you said there was no way on earth it was a catch, even though most everyone in the country except delusional Michigan fans and - thankfully - the refs seem to think otherwise.

On top of this, you can't even comprehend what you are seeing: His arms are under the football. The back end of the football is hanging out slightly between his elbows. Yet you are saying he only has his hands on the side of the football, which is actually the bottom because he is pulling it into his chest as he is turning sideways as he hits the ground. You cannot tell whether the ground or simply his impact causes the ball to jump that way or a combination of those things while he pulls the ball in. 

Like I said, luckily the refs agree with the homers. I'm thankful that they took away that play, but to pretend like it is "absolutely not a catch" is just maize and blue shades all the way. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 3:21 PM
(Reply to #80) #44
wolverinestuckinEL
Joined: 09/21/2010
MGoPoints: 565
  ARTICLE 7. a. Any forward

 

ARTICLE 7. a. Any forward pass is incomplete if the ball is out of bounds by

rule or if it touches the ground when not firmly controlled by a player.

 

Ball hits ground, ball moves, incomplete pass.  You actually say in a previous post that the ball moves "slightly"; your words, not mine.   So you know what you see, you just don't know what an incomplete pass is?  I just think you should get a better grasp on that before you accuse me of displaying poor judgement based on my fanhood.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 4:38 PM
(Reply to #80) #45
Logan
Logan's picture
Joined: 09/20/2009
MGoPoints: 2036
You should read Seth's front

You should read Seth's front page article on this and check out the gif he included. You're just flat-out wrong about everything you think you're seeing.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:57 AM
(Reply to #43) #46
Logan
Logan's picture
Joined: 09/20/2009
MGoPoints: 2036
Change your MAY to DEFINITELY

Change your MAY to DEFINITELY and you're correct. Even the part about us being lucky with this win.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:46 AM
(Reply to #18) #47
CompleteLunacy
CompleteLunacy's picture
Joined: 11/13/2010
MGoPoints: 6609
Oh come on.

I don't necessaruly disagree with you, but this isn't a cut and dry situation, and that Junior catch was definitely more clearcut than this one imo (if you recall, the nose of the ball hit the ground then too but the ball didn't move!)

This was a lucky intepretation, for sure, but it's not like this was an unprecedented replay reversal...ref sees nose of ball hit ground, ball moves a little, ref calls it no catch. That, and 99% of the body landed out of bounds, and how do you determine exactly at what point he has full and complete control of the ball? 

It;s not 100%  a catch. It's also not 100% a non-catch. Depends on how you interpret the rules.

I love winning, and if it takes a call like this so be it. Michigan got hosed on a similar situation earlier, so I consider this as repayment of our karmatic debt. No body outside of VT will care that Michigan got lucky by this call reversal...all it will say is "Michigan 2012 BCS Sugar Bowl Champs". I'll take that all day, no matter what it takes.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:58 PM
(Reply to #5) #48
MGlobules
Joined: 11/17/2008
MGoPoints: 16429
"catch cannot be made under those conditions"

is a perfectly valid formulation. Think about it; there are any number of OTHER valid conditions in which a catch can ALSO not be made.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:23 AM
#49
Action
Joined: 09/14/2010
MGoPoints: 139
Out of bounds

I thought he landed out of bounds, thus not a catch.  I thought that was why they were reviewing it, and I still don't see how he would have been ruled in bounds.  His shoulder landed out.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:46 AM
(Reply to #21) #50
ish
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 13975
i've yet to see an angle

i've yet to see an angle where his elbow comes down inbounds before the rest of his body lands out of bounds.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 1:26 PM
(Reply to #42) #51
VSS
Joined: 06/23/2011
MGoPoints: 149
Look at his left elbow. It

Look at his left elbow. It clearly hits inbounds before the rest of his body. The question was whether he had possession. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:31 AM
(Reply to #12) #52
djean02
djean02's picture
Joined: 10/15/2008
MGoPoints: 146
agreed

i thought the same thing.  it was a question of whether he was in bounds first and foremost.

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:24 AM
#53
Don Keypunch
Joined: 01/07/2011
MGoPoints: 482
Ball touches turf

And player gains posession out of bounds. No catch was the right call.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:24 AM
#54
wolverine2003
Joined: 01/29/2010
MGoPoints: 434
The more I watch it

The more I watch it, the more I think it's a catch.  I don't see how you can say it's indisputable either way. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:29 AM
(Reply to #15) #55
tjl7386
tjl7386's picture
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 583
This GIF is not the greatest

This GIF is not the greatest angle. They showed one last night from behind the WR more towards the middle of the endzone and it is pretty clear that the ball made definate contact with the ground and moved a bit in the process.

Pulling the ball into your chest does not constute possession. The WR has to maintain possession through the catch and unfortunately he was not able to do that.  

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:30 AM
(Reply to #15) #56
djean02
djean02's picture
Joined: 10/15/2008
MGoPoints: 146
the correct call was made

he's out of bound by the time he's got control of the ball.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:55 AM
(Reply to #26) #57
TheRivalry
TheRivalry's picture
Joined: 06/25/2011
MGoPoints: 101
I think that this is the reason

that it was reversed. The ground also secured the catch. The correct call was made.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:25 AM
#58
bluebyyou
Joined: 09/07/2009
MGoPoints: 10801
I can see this call going

I can see this call going either way, although during the game I didn't think they would rule an incompletion because of just how close it was to being a catch.  You can see the slightest movement just as the receiver hits the ground.

So many games decided on close plays and replay.  Wisconsin-MSU, Iowa and the Sugar Bowl to name a few.

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:25 AM
#59
tjl7386
tjl7386's picture
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 583
It's one of those calls that

It's one of those calls that is just a difficult one to make. I can see why in real time the refs called it a TD because there is no way to see the ball hit the ground like it did. After watching a slow motion replay I do believe that the right call was made. The ball clearly strikes the ground which aids in him maintaining possession of the ball. Rules are clear that the ground cannot aid in catching a football and this is one time that I think it clearly did. The right call was made IMO.

Either way it was a hell of an attempt to catch the ball by the Va Tech WR.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:27 AM
#60
Rabbit21
Rabbit21's picture
Joined: 11/12/2009
MGoPoints: 19332
I thought the call could have

I thought the call could have been justified either way and I can definitely see how Hokie fans are upset.  But, too many calls like that have gone against Michigan for me to feel too bad about it.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:30 AM
(Reply to #22) #61
Don Keypunch
Joined: 01/07/2011
MGoPoints: 482
I agree, this makes up for

The inexplicable no-TD call in the Ohio game where Toussaint clearly had scored, then the refs botched the spot after taking the TD off of the board. Bad calls, and bad overturned calls go either way and are now just another part of the game.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:29 AM
#62
gajensen
Joined: 02/02/2011
MGoPoints: -998591
I thought it was a catch

I thought it was a catch yesterday and I still do.  After the Iowa game, I'll take it.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:30 AM
#63
CRISPed in the DIAG
CRISPed in the DIAG's picture
Joined: 11/08/2010
MGoPoints: 23393
The more I watch it gets

The more I watch it gets tougher to justify a reversal. Seems like the tv showed an angle previous to this that was more agreeable to a non-catch.  During the first replay, I instinctively thought the ball hit the ground and moved.  Now, I'm not so sure.   Don't hurt yourself -  as a Red Sox fan, the Dave Roberts steal in '04 gets closer with every viewing.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:33 AM
#64
sheepdog
sheepdog's picture
Joined: 06/15/2011
MGoPoints: 2568
The fact that

several ZEBRAS reviewed the play with all the same angles you and I have is enough for me.  They are trained to make these calls and have been making them for years.  They have reviewed thousands and thousands of close plays.

The fact that they OVERTURNED the play signifies that it was INDISPUTABLE.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:35 AM
#65
DixieWreck
Joined: 07/31/2010
MGoPoints: 1865
Doesn't matter because if it counted

they would have missed their extra point, we then would have scored and made ours. It's just the way the game was going for us this fateful night!
Hail to the victors valiant ...

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:37 AM
#66
mikoyan
mikoyan's picture
Joined: 09/06/2010
MGoPoints: 2784
I said it wasn't a catch last

I said it wasn't a catch last night and I still think it wasn't a catch.  As folks have said, far too many calls like this go against Michigan and quite honestly, it seemed like the refs were doing a pretty crappy job with the holding and the hands to the face and various other things.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:50 AM
#67
jtmc33
Joined: 04/15/2009
MGoPoints: 8865
Incomplete.    

Incomplete.    

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:57 AM
#68
FJacksonsintuition
FJacksonsintuition's picture
Joined: 06/03/2011
MGoPoints: 181
Finally after some terrible misses....

By the refs during the lions game in green bay this weekend these officials just get the call right. No doubt about it, that wasn't a catch an the review showed it.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:59 AM
#69
bronxblue
Joined: 11/22/2008
MGoPoints: 59071
I actually missed that play

I actually missed that play in real time, but it looks like the type of play that replay cannot really help.  It is a gray area, and this time it went in UM's favor.  Personally, I would argue that it was loose when he hit and that the ground helped him to corral it, but I could see the argument that he had control when he landed.  It was a judgment call, and I think the refs made the rght call to not leave it as a catch when there was that much ambiguity. 

People act like it was a deciding TD - it was still OT and UM would have had a chance to score as well.  It was a slopp game, but VT lost a game it should have won, a feeling UM fans are quite used to.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 11:59 AM
#70
polometer
Joined: 10/08/2011
MGoPoints: 97
Does anyone

have a linke or a source for the NCAA rules on how something like this is determined a catch?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:06 PM
#71
polometer
Joined: 10/08/2011
MGoPoints: 97
please delete

sorry i had two tabs open and posted to the wrong one.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:05 PM
#72
reshp1
reshp1's picture
Joined: 10/31/2011
MGoPoints: 25119
It wasn't a catch. There are

It wasn't a catch. There are several things going against it as previously mentioned. I'll bullet point them

1. Ball touches the ground. This is clear and inrefutable.

2. Ball moves as it hits the ground. Again, clear and inrefutable.

3. While his elbow lands in bounds initially, the ball subsequently moves and when he re-establishes control his shoulder had slid out of bounds. Not as cut and dry as points 1 and 2, but I think looking at multiple angles, you can safely deduce this.

On the other hand, the first two points, while in super slow-mo are very clear, are extremely subtle and would probably occur on 90% of diving catches. Given the call on the field, I think we were fortunate that they decided to overturn.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:24 PM
#73
JamieH
Joined: 09/05/2009
MGoPoints: 12960
I still don't see how he

I still don't see how he could be ruled inbounds.  Even if the point of his elbow was inbounds, his entire forearm and shoulder are OOB at the point of contact with the ground and hit pretty much simulateously with his elbow.   

I don't think I've ever seen a receiver declared inbounds on such a play. 

Did his elbow hit down 0.05 seconds before his entire upper body landed out of bounds?  Maybe.  I've never seen that considered enough for a receiver to be considered in bounds for a catch. 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:40 PM
#74
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 56282
Possession is debatable, but

Possession is debatable, but I don't think he was in.  It looks to me like his body simultaneously hits the white and the green, which I'm pretty sure does not count as being inbounds.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:46 PM
#75
JamieH
Joined: 09/05/2009
MGoPoints: 12960
That's what I think to, but

That's what I think too, but the question is, now that we are in the days of HD slow-motion, what is "simultaneous" anymore?

His arm, hand and shoulder all hit out of bounds within about 1 frame of his elbow hitting.  Assuming standard TV frame rate (which could be wrong), that means that he hit out of bounds less than .05 (1/30th of a second) after his elbow hit.

In the past, that would have been considered simultaneous contact and he would have been ruled OOB.  But in the days of HI-DEF replay, maybe that isn't simultaneous anymore? 

The NCAA (and NFL) really need to go through and redefine what a catch exactly is and isn't and give a definition specific enough that you can look at a replay and know what you are looking for.  Right now, every ref seems to interpret the replay completely differently.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:49 PM
#76
J. Lichty
J. Lichty's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 1378
thought that Coale's grittniess would work against us

surprised they overturned, although he clearly used ground to help keep control and he was out of bounds when he came down with it.  Easier call than I thought it was last night.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:49 PM
#77
Smash Lampjaw
Smash Lampjaw's picture
Joined: 11/10/2011
MGoPoints: 2025
Not a catch

but with all of this disputing, who contends that the evidence is indisputable?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 12:57 PM
#78
JamieH
Joined: 09/05/2009
MGoPoints: 12960
The evidence is only

The evidence is only disputable because no one can clearly define what is and isn't a catch anymore.  Any close catch is disputable because no one clearly understands the rules anymore.   The NFL has this same problem.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
January 4th, 2012 at 1:46 PM
#79
Boomer519
Boomer519's picture
Joined: 01/02/2011
MGoPoints: 564
Hemingway

If his TD in the Iowa game was not a catch, then I am OK with this call as well.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.