Hoke on 97.1: "I tried to buy [Gardner] back into the game with a time out"

Submitted by MGoBender on

Interview ongoing right now.

Says the ref didn't let him call a timeout, until the head ref overruled.  Says by then it was too late and Morris was on the fied.

----------------------

My commentary:

1. Blatant lie.  

2. The refs know that basic rule - there aren't times when you can't grant a timeout.

3. There was no "too late."  He could have called a timeout up until the snap.  For 20 seconds had the chance to fix it and didn't.

iawolve

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:42 AM ^

"how in the hell was he going to buy a timeout". Did Kill put one of his on eBay, maybe use the official Michigan Football Paypal account sponsored by Chobani the official greek yogurt of Michigan Football? I am being sarcastic only due to the choice of words since that seems new to me.

MGolem

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

Why did he give a shit about holding onto the timeouts he had when the game was already out of reach? Timeouts are only valuable if your team is using them for a tactical reason. In an ass kicking there is no wrong time to use a timeout, unless I suppose to delay the inevitable but that was not in play here.

UMGoRoss

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^

He said use a timeout to "buy" Gardner back into the game. If a players loses his helmet on a play he has to sit out a play, unless the team uses a timeout, causing him to not have to miss a play. This is different than an injury, where if an official timeout is called due to a player being hurt, that injured player has to sit out a play regardless of whether you call a timeout or not.

MGolem

October 2nd, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^

But I believe we had some timeouts handy to use so as to re-insert Gardner (following a team timeout) rather than run Morris back onto the field. Maybe I was addressing something different than was addressed above. My bad.

trustBlue

October 2nd, 2014 at 1:25 PM ^

You are missing it.  We had timeouts.  Hoke asked the ref to use a timeout so that he could re-insert Gardner instead of sitting out a play after his helmet came off. That's what Hoke means by "buy him back" - he would spend a timeout to allow Gardner to come back in on the next play. The ref told him that was not be allowed - i.e. that Gardner would have to sit out a play regardless of whether Hoke called a timeout.

This doesn't absolve Hoke completely - he still could have sent in Bellomy (or Speight, or hiked it directly to a RB) or anything else besides sending Morris back onto the field.  But neither he and Nussmeier had seen Morris take a shot to the face, the medical staff didnt object to Morris going back in, the neurologist was on the other end of the field or something - it was a complete institutional breakdown. 

mGrowOld

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:24 AM ^

He also could've taken a delay of game penalty - as devasting as those 5 yards would've been given the down & distance and the score of the game at that point.  

Revisionist history is a wonderful thing.  

m1jjb00

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

The issue was whether to get Gardner back into the game.  Taking a penalty doesn't work. Calling a timeout does work.  AND WHY IS HOKE EVEN ASKING?  He did it the previous week against Utah.  Call timeout.  March Gardner back in.  If the referee balks, tell him you're protesting the game because the referree obviously doesn't know the rules to the game.  

I have no idea why Hoke sought an answer to the question.  I have no idea why he framed the question the way he did.  I don't know whether he's dumb, choked or incomeptent.  I don't know.  I do know that this team is 2-3 and has gotten killed by any team with a pulse.  I do know that the organization on the team is lacking.  

ijohnb

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:39 AM ^

that you are going over the top a little bit.  Hoke is coaching the team(or attempting to), Morris gets pulled, he is sitting on the bench.  Gardner's helmet comes off.  As much as I agree that Hoke should be "in control" of his team, I really do not think it is Hoke's job to babysit Russell Bellomy's helmet in the incredibly unlikely occurence that we need our third string quarterback to go in for a play.  The players know the rules too you know and a head coach cannot be held personally accountable for every single one of their individual failures.  If Bellomy knows where his helmet is it is a non-issue.

DealerCamel

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:26 AM ^

I think he wanted an injury timeout, which doesn't cost you one of your normal ones, and that was something the ref wouldn't grant him... until the head ref overruled it.  By then it was too late.

Course, he should've taken a normal timeout anyway.

big10football

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:39 AM ^

That is not what he's saying.  When a player's helmet comes off, he is supposed to leave the game for a play.  Hoke wanted to call a timeout so that Gardner could stay in the game after his helmet came off.  The first ref told him he couldn't do it and the second ref came over and said that he could, but by then Morris was in the game ready to run a play. 

MI Expat NY

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^

Why do you say that?  I haven't seen anything to indicate as much, and as far as I can tell, nobody was actually injured on the play.  If the injury had been to Gardner, an injury timeout wouldn't have gotten him back into the game anyway.

I don't really buy what Hoke is selling.  Assuming he knew the rules, just call the timeout and put Gardner back in.  No pre-negotiation necessary.  At least 50% of the people watching understand that calling timeout negates the requirement that a player leave for a play, at least one of the officials would have also known this rule.  If one of the officials had tried to stop bringing Gardner back in, he could have raised hell then and it would have been worked out.  

ijohnb

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^

a timeout, I think he meant he was trying to see if the helmet coming off could be the pretext to "have to check on an injury."  I think the ref essentially said that you can "check" for an injury all you want but it is not going to be considered a "timeout" for the purposes of being able to leave Gardner in on the next play.

ijohnb

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^

that explanation makes absolutely no sense(like to the degree that not even Hoke, who regularly says nonsensical things would not even say it).  Of course he could have called timeout.  What possible reason could there have been why he could not have?

In reply to by ijohnb

SWFLWolverine

October 2nd, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^

is not whether he could have called a timeout, the question was whether calling a timeout would allow Devin to play the next play.

An injury timeout would not have, so politicing for that call would not have fit the context.

Perhaps Hoke wanted to ensure that if he called the timeout  the official was going to make the correct call. Since the side judge told him "no" Hoke obviously was correct to ask, even though he knew the rule.

When you are a coach, you do not automatically expect that all the officials interpret the rules correctly so often times you ask. 

Mr. Yost

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

...as well as my head after watching that performance up until that part.

Thanks Brady, I really appreciate you trying to get an injury timeout on my behalf. Trust me, I needed it. I was heartbroken and in pain after watching your team shit the bed for 3+ quarters. I'd had enough, I was a defeated man.

Screw you ref, this is all your fault. All Coach Hoke wanted to do was buy me some time. Instead, you allowed the game to continue and rushed everyone and Morris ended up back on the field. I hate you ref, I hate you.

Allin4Blue

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:27 AM ^

This has been throughly discussed and he is talking about an Injury timeout and not one of the three allotted timeouts.  We were still trying to win the game at that point and wasting a timeout for a personnel change is not what you do in that situation. 

But in hindsite the timeout should have been used regardless and Shane should have not been in at the point anyway.

C Tron

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:36 AM ^

We were not still trying to win the game.  If we were, Gardner would have been in much before Shane's 3rd ankle injury of the day.  Hoke was making some sort of a point by putting Shane back in. He's a liar and everything he says in an interview should be hevily scrutinized.

 

Blue Mike

October 2nd, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^

If we were "trying" to win the game at that point, which course of action is better suited to that goal:  having a backup quarterback come in and hand off in a situation where everyone watching knows he is going to hand off, or take a timeout and keep your functinoal quarterback in the game?

With Shane back in the game, Minnesota loaded up against the run, stopped it for little gain, and we wasted a down and however much time between running the play and the clock continuing to run until Gardner snapped it again.  By taking the timeout, you save all of that.

Brady didn't take a timeout there because he was either so flustered and out of control he didn't think of it, or he had already given up on the game and was on auto-pilot to get out of there.

BlueFish

October 2nd, 2014 at 1:10 PM ^

We were still trying to win the game at that point

Except we weren't.

See Brian's column from Monday:

By halftime Michigan had just over 100 yards of offense and it was obvious Gardner should be re-inserted; Hoke refused. Morris started hobbling around on one leg; Hoke refused to take him out even then. Morris fumbled without being touched by an opponent; Hoke still did not take him out. Without the Morris injury, Gardner would not have shown up at all.

"I quit" of the week. Hoke once again quit when victory was still distantly possible. After Gardner drove the team to a touchdown, he kicked an extra point instead of going for two to find out whether he was 2.5 or 3 possessions down, then kicked deep. "I quit," he said. Then facing fourth and ten down 16 with 4 minutes left, he punted. "I quit," he said again.

After they kicked deep (instead of trying an onside) down 30-14 with 7:27 to go in the 4th, I turned to my friend and said, wow, Hoke just conceded the game.

(To say nothing about the offensive tempo, which is glacial whether the team is tied 0-0, down 30-14, or down 31-0.  Down by 3-4 scores against ND, they were breaking huddles with 10 seconds left on the play clock.  Trying to win?  Nyet.)

MGoBender

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:30 AM ^

This has nothing to do with injury timeouts. Nobody was injured on that play. Only officials can grant injury timeouts when a player is injured on a play. Coaches can't ask for injury timeouts.

Alton

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^

I never really believed that Brady Hoke was doing anything other than telling the truth from how he saw things and given things he knew.  Until now, assuming this is an accurate portrayal of Mr. Hoke's comments.  Nobody who has even the slightest background on the rules of football (or who saw the Umpire asking the Michigan Bench "Time Out??" and Mr. Hoke making the "wind the clock" gesture) could possibly believe this, right?

I think it might be best for our image of Mr. Hoke if he were to go back to his original plan of asserting ignorance regarding this whole incident.

GetSumBlue

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^

I'm willing to give Hoke the benefit of the doubt on this one. Maybe in his mind Shane is trotting out there with an ankle injury to hand a ball off and there's no way he's getting touched (which is true).

Alton

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:36 AM ^

Unless there is a fumble on the snap (and there's no more common time for this than when a team switches quarterbacks and the new QB is under center).  Or a fumble of some other kind, or Shane Morris stumbles while turning to hand the ball off and Minnesota take the opportunity to fall on  Morris' ankle.

Muttley

October 2nd, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^

the fumble return and the goal line and the possible accompanying blockers.

There aren't exceptions for concussed players.

Now if Brady thought he only had an ankle injury, then, weuull, the greater-than-usual injury risk is "only" to the leg.

SECcashnassadvantage

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^

We could have took a delay of game penalty. It wouldn't impact the chance for a 3rd down with this offense. An incomplete pass is incomplete whether it's 5 yards or 10. We know we will run on 1st down 90% of the time, and depending on the yardage run or pass on 2nd and 3rd. The other coordinators know exactly what we are doing 90% of the time. Hoke is so lost. Just look at his face.

Sten Carlson

October 2nd, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^

Look, I think Hoke's time here is done.  But does the OP really have to call the guy a bafoon?  Is this really thread-worthy?  It's been discussed ad nauseam in here that Hoke was asking/hoping for an injury T.O.

I am not saying he handled the situation with aplumb by any means, but lay off the guy will you?