Washington Goal Line Stand
I haven't seen to much discussion of Washington's goal line stand in the first half when Michigan had the opportunity to go up 6-0 or 10-0.
There has been much discussion of Michigan's run oriented strategy which I support given Washington's insistence on playing deep deep safeties most of the time.
However when Michigan got inside the 5 (IIRC the 2 yard line) we went to a straight up run formation with an 8 man line. That brought the entirety of Washington's defense also to the line of scrimmage and now the defense has the numbers advantage. I have no problem running on 1st and goal from the 2 or 3 but why not spread out the formation to create some space? When we got to 2nd and goal the sprint out pass seemed a bit predictable as did a return to the run up the middle on 3rd and goal.
Now we are to 4th and goal. Anyone favor the FG at this point? I supported going for it but again running it up the gut in what essentially was a fullback dive play into a stacked Washington defense doesn't seem too smart.
Overall couldn't be happier with the team and outcome of a great game.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:13 PM ^
Why ask why try bud dry
September 14th, 2021 at 3:05 PM ^
Why be blue when you can be Darker Blue!
September 14th, 2021 at 5:09 PM ^
Zee? No Zudz.
September 14th, 2021 at 6:29 PM ^
I'm a Bud man, and a Cubs fan.
September 14th, 2021 at 10:23 PM ^
I worked on Bud Dry as a very young copywriter. I did the very first campaign for it which was then replaced by Why Ask Why. The whole endeavor wasn't very successful. No one really liked dry beer and it was really hard to explain to consumers what it was, hence "Why Ask Why."
September 14th, 2021 at 2:15 PM ^
I’d like to know the success rate, and perhaps it’s still too early yet, of the multiple tight ends and oversized line vs basically a 5 or 6 man line. To me, it seems like when we load up the tight ends on the line, we don’t get as much push as we do with our main run game. That stand isn’t the only example this season. I could be way off base here but I have noticed it several times.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:25 PM ^
If we know we are going to run between the tackles, and they know we are going to run between the tackles why have TEs in there at all? 11 guys diving at our center so why the TEs? Put in 300 pounders and have them all be out there.
September 14th, 2021 at 10:55 PM ^
Also, the thing about having more blockers probably isn't even so much about having more beef (because the defense can even that out) as it is having more gaps and more ways to screw with your opponent.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:27 PM ^
I wonder how much of the play calling for this sequence was to show a basic approach, so as not to put any trickeration on film for future opponents.
And, how much of this was testing the O-Line’s mettle early in the season.
Leaving an unproductive Washington offense with 98 yards to score played into the coaches decision for sure.
September 14th, 2021 at 4:44 PM ^
That's pretty damn early in a big game to start "saving" plays for the future. We didnt know Washington would be inept the whole game long.
September 14th, 2021 at 6:40 PM ^
Agreed. Comment was nonsense.
September 14th, 2021 at 5:24 PM ^
Have we not once and for all dispensed with the "saving plays" canard?
September 14th, 2021 at 5:39 PM ^
You're wrong, man. Peppers is totally going to throw it against OSU.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:16 PM ^
It was a vintage Schembechlerian play call.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:17 PM ^
Bo would have ran a triple option play
September 14th, 2021 at 3:04 PM ^
With Dennis Franklin (e.g. Ohio State 73, I was there) or Rick Leach, yup. Other QB's like Wangler, nope.
September 14th, 2021 at 5:10 PM ^
IIRC Michael Taylor was the last UM wishbone QB. Beat out Demetrius Brown and Chris Zurbrugg, who was a douche.
September 14th, 2021 at 5:48 PM ^
Michigan wasn't running the wishbone when Michael Taylor was playing QB—he would occasionally run a straightforward option, but the vast majority of the time we were running an I-formation with Taylor under center.
September 14th, 2021 at 8:18 PM ^
Brown lost the job due to so many picks in 87. Taylor was injured late in 88 and when Brown came in he save the season and was a huge part of winning the rose bowl, had he not flunked out in 89 we would have won the NC
Taylor sucked
September 14th, 2021 at 8:57 PM ^
I’m glad Demetrius Brown got some recognition there, he was the QB my first year I really got into Michigan football as a kid and his style was no small part of it.
September 14th, 2021 at 3:39 PM ^
Look up the '72 UM-OSU game.
September 14th, 2021 at 8:46 PM ^
You have a sadistic side to you Don.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:55 PM ^
Circa 1971; 3 Yds and a cloud of dust.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:16 PM ^
I still think Haskins scored on 4th and goal. The Wash LB had a great hit on him midair but HH landed on the goal line with the ball breaking the plane. The broadcast did a terrible job with that replay (as did the stadium boards). The play isn't over when a ball carrier is hit but once he lands. It appeared that almost his entire torso was at or over the goal line from above angle and since they paused the goal line replay before he landed, hard to tell.
First down was fine, but second down was a waste of a play and seemed like the timing was off. Agreed with decision to go for it.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:20 PM ^
Agree. It was ball breaking, or seemed so at the time. Though as Brian noted, it's the right call from an advanced stats view b c the other team has a long march back to score, especially if the D is clicking. If Cade had handed to the back, he could have ambled in easily.
September 14th, 2021 at 3:10 PM ^
I have no clue what the near side ref was doing on that play. Despite not having a view of the ball, he immediately ran in and spotted the ball at the 1 foot line. You can't even argue forward progress was halted because he was still falling forward after the contact. You're supposed to go to the pile and look for where the ball is. The ref didn't do that and once they called it short on the field, there was no view that would show Haskins was in the endzone. Big screw up by the ref
And like you said, based on where he was holding the ball and where his torso was, he was clearly in the endzone
September 14th, 2021 at 3:49 PM ^
And he was clearly not down after getting hit by the LB b/c his entire body landed on top of a pile of other bodies the ball fell forward across the plane of the goal line.
September 14th, 2021 at 3:11 PM ^
I wonder how much happier all the naysayers would be right now if they had called that correctly and nothing else had changed.
17-0 at the half feels a hell of a lot more dominating than 10-0.
September 14th, 2021 at 3:22 PM ^
Unfortunately, the refs assumed that he was carrying the ball in his pants.
September 14th, 2021 at 4:00 PM ^
Haskins is amazingly strong, tough, and has terrific vision and balance. He scores on that play 95% of the time (and may well have crossed the goal line that play).
The UW guy made a fantastic play, guessed right and applied a perfect straight-on blow. IMO there was absolutely nothing wrong with the call; sometimes you just have to tip your hat to your opponent for making a great play.
Furthermore, it's almost always better to go for the TD that close to the end zone. Either you get 7 points, or worst case you put your opponent in a terrible situation.
Were it not for that roughing penalty, UW would likely have been punting from the back of their own end zone - in all likelihood Michigan would have started their drive in/near fg position.
The call was fine, the strategy was correct, IMO.
September 14th, 2021 at 6:38 PM ^
LOL. I must've said to this to my wife verbatim at least ten times during the game after it happened. Seriously - I was in disbelief they didn't call it a TD.
"I still think Haskins scored on 4th and goal. The Wash LB had a great hit on him midair but HH landed on the goal line with the ball breaking the plane. The broadcast did a terrible job with that replay (as did the stadium boards). The play isn't over when a ball carrier is hit but once he lands. It appeared that almost his entire torso was at or over the goal line from above angle and since they paused the goal line replay before he landed, hard to tell."
September 14th, 2021 at 7:27 PM ^
Totally agree, just way too many guys in the way to see the ball, but all deductive reasoning and logic tells you he was in, but no “conclusive” video evidence. Haven’t heard any of the podcasts say anything other than the “we got stuffed” on 4th narrative. In my mind we probably truly won 38-10.
September 14th, 2021 at 7:49 PM ^
I have said for a very long time, there is no reason to default to the call on the field. What is the point of having replay if we still get the calls wrong?
We let the play stand as call and trust a guy watching it at full speed from 25 yards away rather than just simply look at the super slow mo high def stuff we have and use normal rationale.
September 15th, 2021 at 8:46 AM ^
JMO but I didn't think the play could be overturned on video because you just couldn't get a good look.. That said I thought his fall forward wasn't covered enough and the TV crew was rewarding a great play more than they were examining the full play. He fell forward and much of Haskins upper body fell across the goal line.
No PF by Hinton and they are punting the ball. Fortunately for our team these major penalties aren't happening in a game where stops are critical and where they are costing games. They have to correct these so it doesn't happen again!
September 15th, 2021 at 9:06 AM ^
Agree with every word. If the call on the field had been TD, it couldn't have been overturned b/c too tough to tell from video. Hence, the wrong (imo) call on the field stands as no TD.
It was frustrating that they stopped talking about the play after the initial contact. Yes, great timing and play by the LB, but then Haskins fell forward! No mention of that, not even to say that it looks like he might've moved forward, but can't tell where the ball is relative to the plane. Only that he was hit well before the line, done, play over.
September 15th, 2021 at 10:06 PM ^
Speaking from a high school officiating POV, if you don’t have a definitive view of a touchdown, you can’t signal a touchdown because you “think” it is. No other call is more significant. You don’t call it if you aren’t 100% certain, and you dont mirror other official’s TD signal. Even replay was not definitive. So no touchdown. Regardless of whether it really was one, it was the right call.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:18 PM ^
I mean Haskins and the ball crossed the goal line so it should've been a touchdown if the refs had an ounce of logic so I'm more mad at that than anything else
September 14th, 2021 at 2:18 PM ^
So now we're pivoting from complaining about the passing in a game we looked fantastic in to complaining about getting stuffed on a 4th and goal from inside the one?
The good news is once we're done complaining about this I do think we'll have run out of things to complain about because everything else went pretty fucking well in that game if you ask me.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:26 PM ^
Seriously. Why second-guess a successful playcall for more than two seconds? If the play works, it's fine to go "whew, we got away with that one," but why start a board post THREE DAYS LATER about it?
September 14th, 2021 at 2:27 PM ^
RUN OUT OF THINGS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?
OVER MY DEAD BODY.
Truthfully I hate the negativity so much around here. Michigan Athletics is one of the few things in my life that I find amost complete enjoyment in. I love watching these young men compete.
I love mgoblog too, this place is filed with incredible people with fantastic insight into football, basketball, and hockey. But goddamn man people get so shitty talking about a Sports Program they claim to love. Basically the MgoBoard has turned into Brains Black Pit of Negatice Expectations.
But I still love y'all sorry for complaining
September 14th, 2021 at 3:21 PM ^
So a complaint about all the complaints??? In all seriousness, I get your point, but my guess is that it is a relatively few making most noise and being illogical. Most folks are well reasoned.
For that reason, I always bristle when I read something like "Michigan fans are never happy." The malcontent minority do not represent me.
I understand Brian was going through something personally but the BPONE stuff has seeped into the fabric of MgoBlog and it won't go away (at least anytime soon).
September 14th, 2021 at 3:38 PM ^
Easy solution: stop feeling attacked when someone criticizes the malcontent minority. That you feel attacked should tell you something.
September 14th, 2021 at 5:04 PM ^
I don't feel "attacked". Just wishing people didn't assume the expressions of some represented the whole.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:30 PM ^
Um, get off my lawn?
September 14th, 2021 at 2:34 PM ^
Once it was called short it there was not way it would be overturned.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:43 PM ^
This is naive.
September 14th, 2021 at 4:32 PM ^
I'm not "complaining" about it. Just looking for a discussion.
September 14th, 2021 at 2:20 PM ^
Seth explained that the fancy stats expected value of trying to score a TD at the goal line is 3.1 points. So its essentially a wash going for a TD or kicking a FG. After learning that, I felt fine about going for the TD.
September 14th, 2021 at 3:05 PM ^
can that 3.1 possibly be true? that would mean < 50% conversion rate. i believe two pt conversions are made > 50% of the time and that is from the 2 yd line.
September 14th, 2021 at 3:26 PM ^
Two point conversion rate is 41%, I believe. If it was >50%, game theory would say that everyone should go for 2 every single time.
It's not a straightforward 3.1 points on that play. It's the % chance of scoring on the next play x 6 + the % chance of hitting the extra point + the knock-on effects of having your opponent start on the 1 yard line if you do not (compared to starting at 25 after a kickoff). If we assume 41%, that's 2.46 + 0.96 + xx. Going for it seems like a no brainer.