How about that encroachment, fake punt, hard count deal?

Submitted by baleedat on

Do you give props to Wisconsin for the encroachment call in the first half, or is that a just a bone-head move on Michigan's part?  If I recall correctly, it was 4th and short and Wisconsin lined up in a punt formation, all linemen in a 3 point stance. Michigan kept the D on the field in kind of a goal line formation,  but sent one guy back to receive.  Then the punter moved under center. He gave a hard count and the entire o-line moved in unison to a 4 point stance, drawing Thompson (and others?) offsides.  Maybe that's an old play but I've never seen it before and therefore give props to Wisconsin.

MGoBoard

msoccer10

October 1st, 2008 at 2:47 PM ^

When I first saw it I thought that it was a false start, but if what they did was legal, I think it was a good play by Wisconsin, not that bad of a play from our team.

Joined: 08/29/2008

MGoPoints: 1756

TMos53

October 1st, 2008 at 2:54 PM ^

I thought that they were in a two point stance and once the punter went under center and the hard count was given, they went into a three point stance, I might be wrong though...a lot of teams did this when the wishbone was popular, some high school teams still do this, at least in SE Kentucky. It was smart on Wisconsin's part and it was just boneheaded-ness by Thompson. I would've liked to slap Bielema in the face right after it, though, the smug bastard.

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 30

medals

October 1st, 2008 at 3:02 PM ^

When the punter went under center, I thought we should have called timeout.  We had all three (I think) and it was still the first half.  I'd be interested in knowing if anyone on the sidelines was trying to call one.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 824

Hannibal.

October 1st, 2008 at 3:07 PM ^

It was just a boneheaded play by Thompson.  I assume that we weren't going to try and call a timeout, because we already weren't expecting a punt.

Joined: 09/09/2008

MGoPoints: 9051

Marques Slocum…

October 1st, 2008 at 3:12 PM ^

Shouldn't the guy lined up directly in front of the center be the LAST guy on the team to jump off-sides? I mean the ball is right in front of his nose. I thought it was a terrible play by Thompson, but I didn't see the line move stances as I was in the south endzone. That is some fine badger trickery.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 82

baleedat

October 1st, 2008 at 3:28 PM ^

well if it were a QB (punter?) sneak he would be the guy to stop it...but yeah.

i couldn't see the line move at the game either (sec 7) and was really pissed as a hard count on 4th and short is the oldest trick in the book. but after watching it again on dvr (loser?) i was rather impressed with the "badger trickery"

Joined: 07/10/2008

MGoPoints: 272

anUMal

October 1st, 2008 at 3:25 PM ^

I don't think there was any need for UM to call a timeout in that situation.  They just needed to watch the ball, not the O-linemen and they certainly needed to ignore the signal of the punter.  That's why in all the practice videos on mgoblue from waaaay back in August, the defensive drills were initiated by movement of a ball on a stick, rather than an audible signal.  I realize that the game situation, especially 4th and short, is somewhat more intense than practice (even with Barwis hanging around), but I'm still fully blaming Thompson et al. for this one. 

Also, looking at the replay, it seemed to me that the punter had no intention of taking the snap because he didn't really even have his hands under center (eeeeew, balls).  If everyone had just watched the movement of the football and stayed onside, Wiscy would have called the timeout and then lined up to punt for real.

Also also, the line went from a 2 point stance to a 3 point stance, which is allowed. 

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 21