A former coach for a OSU player. Seriously, that was a terrible fucking call.
alternate headline: man does job
A former coach for a OSU player. Seriously, that was a terrible fucking call.
The fact we overcame the refs, other self-inflicted wounds and still won the game, incredible.
"If Braxton hit that receiver right after that play, we would be in a world of hurt right now, because of the refs."
But we aren't! Go Blue! Enjoy yourself
Denard would have brought Michigan right back down the field and Gibbons would have won it!!!!!
Neither could anyone on twitter. Mike Pereira, former NFL head of ref's, couldnt justify the call either
HORRIBLE call... I couldn't believe it.
... I thought Spielman controlled himself pretty well today.
For some reason, I came away from the broadcast with the idea that CS thinks Luke Fickell is a leader...not sure why though
I thought my head was going to explode when he said that Omameh is our best pulling guard. There were two other things that he said at the beginning of the game that were blatantly incorrect, but I've already blocked what those were from my memory.
He was annoying the shit out of my dad and I all day. He also never said anything after the spiked ball fiasco. Not a word for at least five minutes. I honestly think he left the booth b/c he was so pissed.
the entire football and the knee down. Result TD! The other angle does not show the entire ball plus they kept stopping it BEFORE the knee was actually down. This replay ref should lose his job.
that was the worst call I've seen in a college football game ever.
sorry, but the worst call ever seen was in the big east game, where they reviewed the field goal which clearly goes through the uprights, then they say it never did.. even after the replay
That would have been Toledo getting hosed against Syracuse this year. They called the extra point good when it was clearly not.
I go to toledo and I'm still bitter.
I went to Syracuse and after how badly we were raped on calls all day, I'm fine with it.
That is just pathetic. I hope someone got fired or at least reprimaned severely for that. Jesus.
The Pac 10 suspended the crew for a game and formally apologized to Oklahoma for royally screwing them. The replay official winded up taking a leave of absense for the remainder of the season and was demoted to a technical assistant the year after.
If I remember correctly, back then the PAC 10 allowed the home team to select the replay official, and it was some old dude who was a booster and fan, kind of the way the official running the clock used to be. They changed the way replay officials were selected after that.
I forget the year, but several years ago Carlyle Holiday was starting for Notre Dame against Michigan. The game was in South Bend, and I was sitting on the 20 yard line about 40 rows up. Notre Dame was inside the 10 and they had a bad shotgun snap. The ball never left the field where Carlyle should have recieved the ball, but he ran into the endzone like he still had the ball. It was called a TD, and I was looking at the Michigan D-lineman holding the ball up, dumbfounded that they could be so wrong. Can anybody find a clip of that? I would love to see it again...
cant find video but it was 2002
Apparently it was the same officiating crew (including replay guy) as we had against Iowa, which raises some questions.
This can't be mentioned enough. We may not have won the Iowa gm, but I'll always think that was a TD catch by Hemingway.
And WTF has been up with all the holding that has been allowed this year? Perhaps it's some homerism, but I thought our DLine didn't get as many holding calls as they deserved.
It may have been the same replay guy--they don't print the replay guy's name in the box score--but it was a different crew of on-field refs.
Michigan at Iowa: R-Capron, U-Neale, H-Ryan, L-Krispinsky, B-Lyman, F-Terry, S-Sagers.
Ohio at Michigan: R-LeMonnier, U-Shaw, H-Dolce, L-Livas, B-Buchanan, F-Clay, S-Swanson
The crew for yesterday's game was the same crew as for the Michigan-Michigan State game.
And what was with the "personal foul" tacked on to the holding call? I don't even recall being shown it on replay, like, at all. Was there a personal foul?
Suck it, Ohio. Suck it, refs who tried to throw the game to Ohio. Go Blue!
Watson hammered a guy when Denard was five or six yards deep in the end zone. Dumb, dumb, dumb. But whatever, we won!
It was definitely a penalty, and those two mental mistakes on that play could've lost them the game. Still a great game. FWIW, I did think Fitz was short on the TD run, but that was mostly just a gut feeling. There was no way to tell through that replay.
I initially thought that the defender just stopped and he ran into him on that play for the personal foul. But that was pure homerism, it was definitely a personal foul. FWIW, the holding call was legit too. Frustrating as hell, but that wasn't bad officiating. The Fitz TD, on the other hand...
screw the refs. We beat tsio and we beat the refs too.
I'd have to watch the play where we got 2 fouls again - I can't believe that. Had we got a TD there it would have been all over.
I just cannot for the life of me understand why the cameras aren't just ON the goal line?!?! What possible benefit can there be to having them on opposite sides of the line???
Spielman only points it out every time it comes up. I can't understand why they wouldn't either. Can the B1G not afford 48 (4x12) cameras? Do we have to rely on ESPN (sorry, Disney) to provide video equipment?
There's been a lot of calls reversed to be set at the one foot line since instant replay became a major factor in officiating. I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the talking points in whatever happens in these "hey focus on this rule" officiating meetings that we hear about at the begining of the season (commentators pointing out the "don't blast them in the head" rules). That's the only reason I can see that they reversed it. Regardless, with the camera angles available, the ruling on the field (whether TD or down before) should have stood. There was really nothing to review.
If you enjoy conspiracies, consider the spread for the game, and note how overturning that call flipped us to the other side of it. Hmm.
Conspiracy or not, this is the only explanation (other than downright incompetence) I've seen that makes any sense. I don't know that there was enough evidence to confirm the call on the field, but there sure wasn't enough to reverse there.
From one side he was in, the other side looked like he was short. BS. Total BS.
It may be too difficult, unless the whole cover of the football has sensors on it. I'm not sure that is possible or the NCAA would allow that change to the football itself because it might affect how the ball performs.
Cost vs. Benefit says no. Goaline cams are far enough.
How much do you think the cameras they use cost? I would bet that 4 cameras cost 10x what it would cost to put 6 sensors (2 points and 4 sides) on each of the balls and at the sides of either goalline.
I'm in favor of cameras, sensors is where I would draw the line. Have you ever spiked an IPhone? They don't like that so much. Designing against that, ontop of the cost of the football already, and at that volume leads to a product that just doesn't deliver enough benefits (that would be relevant what, once in the past couple years of Michigan football?) to outweigh the costs. I remember a segment on Good Morning America where they advertised a GPS outifttied golf ball, but it cost about ~$200 a golf ball (Not going to cite, dismiss if you please. This was about 2 years ago, for reference.). We could take the loses from that product sure, but you've got to sell that not only to Dave Brandon, but to every AD in D1-FBS, and not everyone can just write off a loss like that and keep their job.
I wasn't saying I was in favor of either of them, but to say that the cost of the sensors outweighs the cameras that they use for television is kind of ridiculous. Honestly, just instruct the camera men to be on the goalline next time and this won't be an issue.
I get tackled at the 1 and stick the football over the goal line after i'm down. Sensors say TD. How does that in any way help?
Sticking loads of cameras down there doesn't help either. You would need humans at every one making sure they were in focus. Those 48 people would cost lots of money and be super bored 99.9% of the time. It just doesn't happen enough to justify this sort of attention.
In the end, you're relying on one replay official sitting upstairs to determine the result. Easiest fix is to make it a panel of 3 with majority rules. 1 guy in the pressbox for routine events, have a replay screen for the ref on the field, and 1 guy at the B1G offices or something that gives him zero context of what the game/score/situation is when a replay is called for. Leaving the decision in the hands of one really old crochety guy seems like a bad decision.
Like they said, you either synchronize the signal with the film, or you have lights that go off.
The real problem, though, is that I don't think that you would get the pinpoint accuracy from sensors that others think you would get. With something that is within an inch of the goalline and with the receptors being 20 yards away, I could see a lot of false positives or false negatives.
accuracy would be an issue because of chip accuracy, i could easily see them being damaged, and to be within a couple of centimeters would be pretty pricey.
Sensors would be easy, you would just put them underneath the goal line. You're never going to be more than 4-5 feet over one. Again it becomes an issue of cost vs. actual benefit.
and that's exactly why it will never happen.
The side that showed he was in was not on the goal line. This created the illusion that he was in.
The side that showed him out was facing straight down the goal line and showed that he definitely not in. This was enough evidence imo to overturn.
The fact that one side showed him in doesn't overturn the obviously superior angle.
If someone could get some screenshots of each one that'd be great.
I think it was pretty obvious neither angle was directly down the goal line. Also, from the angle that made it look like he didn't get in, most of the ball was obscured and it was impossible to tell whether the tip might have crossed the plane.
Eventually someone will come up with a screenshot. It was obviously short. The ball may have been obscured, but unless fitz was carrying it outside his arm invisibly he wasn't in.
And the shot I'm refering to was as goal line as you get.
The other one seemed as goal line as you get too. It was clear both were not aligned with the goal line. There just isn't context to conclusively say that one was superior. If neither are lined up properly then it is pretty clear why the two different replays show two different views. The point most people would make is that if you have two contradicting replays from two cameras that do not align with the goal line, how can you "undisputabely" overturn the call. Undisputable isn't probably or even most likely. It means beyond a doubt. Unless we can analyze whether the one camera was more perpendicular to the goal line than the other, it would seem a bad call, especially coming from the same guys from the Iowa review (if that is true). Most people seem to believe that the two neither view was superior and that includes Spielman, a die-hard TSIO fan.
The angle right down the line is indisputable.
Touchdown!!!!/I can't see the ball
the ref obviously doesn't know what the word "conclusive" means.
1. Pic on the left shows TD.
2. Pic on the right still leaves questions - a) is Fitz's knee for sure on the ground yet? and b) it looks like the tip of the ball may grazing the goal line - or is it Roundtree's leg.
either way, inconclusive, imo.
One camera was behind the goal line (the no TD view) and the other was just outside the endzone (TD view). Neither was looking straight down the line but both were about the same distance away from the goal line.
in the row behind me where schocked when the call got overturned. That tells you how bad the replay official was.
With all of this technology, I cannot understand why there is not some computer chip placed inside the football for plays such as this. It seems so easy to do.
I also do not understand why there is no perminent camera placed on the goal lines to provide better angles.
How is a chip in the football going to determine when the football player is down?
This is just a silly idea.
How are you going to sync the chip to the cameras? You're about to build one convoluted system to attempt to solve something that really isn't a major problem.
Chip in the ball stuff is much better for stuff like soccer, where all that matters is if the ball crossed.
This is really ridiculous. The video got this right. Even with a chip in the ball this is getting called back.
but the answer is a light. ball crosses, light turns on. light is somewhere in camera frame. no problems.
but then do you cover the ball in chips? if you put the chip dead center it won't go off in the nose just breaks the plane. If you put the chip in both noses what if the ball is held in a weird fashion so that neither nose breaks the plane first (like straight up and down)? So we'd put chips in the front, back, and in a circumference around the widest part of the football?
Then comes the issue that game balls are routinely used over and over again and are subbed in on a as needed by play basis. What happens if a chip fails between plays, how would we know? Is that football then useless? That would be a big deal since there are only a finite amount of game balls available, and in this scenario they would presumably cost far more to buy.
And this for a situation that's in question for what, maybe 5% of all scoring plays? which themselves are only around 4% of total plays run? And 90% of the time the correct call is made on the is he/isn't he in on replay? So we're going to go through all of this trouble to affect .02% of all plays in college football?
Not to mention the percentage of plays that are too close to be decided by replay, which is astronomically low.
All you have to do is have some kind of light come on when the ball crosses the goal. Not that convoluted, and with the crappy camera angles around the goal line, and the fact that the ball often gets obscured among the chaos, it would definitely be a help.
you probably would've beaten me to the punch with this obvious solution if you hadn't bothered to make everything all grammatical =P
I tend to get wordy. Always costs me in these situations.
Right, so there's this chip in every ball, when it crosses a 55 yard plane, lights up a camera, then we go to review if it's close isn't convoluted?
I never said it was possible, just unnecessary. Goal line cameras are plenty enough.
Nevermind that none of this solves the problem presented by this play.
what? 4 minutes? With the light, it takes 15 seconds, and they get it right every time. Seems pretty efficient... Goal line cameras would be a good step too, though. I rarely see an angle that goes directly down the line.
I'm sorry, was there a problem besides the did-the-ball-cross-the-plane-before-the-runner-was-down problem?
Seriously, what would turn the light on?
Which part of the ball "breaks" which part of the "plane"? Technically, if one atom of the ball is beyond one atom of the front of the goalline it's a touchdown. That's a bit precise.
Where do you put the sensors in the field? Some magnetic strip running the width of the field?A field with 22 angry men running around tearing it up? And how high would it need to reach? Remember, that "plane" is infinitely high. I could jump 6 feet, 8 feet, however high I can above the line.
Where do you put the sensors in/on the ball? You'd need to completely cover the ball, a ball being kicked, thrown, spiked, and otherwise violently handled.
If it was, like soccer, the whole ball completely beyond the whole line, maybe. But I don't think there is a technology that can be as precise as the rule requires.
At best in this play, a few millimeters of the ball are somewhere over that strip of chalk marking the goalline. I don't believe any part of the ball is beyond the goalline.
Still a crappy call.
Maybe it's just me, but I assume he's thinking about determining if the ball crosses the goal line or not.
With hd cameras cheaply available and so on, I'm sure you could work out a system to accurately place the ball on the field at any moment.
But then we'd wind up with the glowing hockey puck (anyone remember that?) but with football, and that would probably suck.
crossed the goal line - then when you look at replay you can see if the knee is down before the ball crossed the goal line- which would make some sort of signal/sound etc that is registered..........
How about that Richard Cranium.........
Yeah, it literally makes no sense. I have no idea how they could overturn that. I was shocked as I stood in my hotel room about in tears or joy and sorrow. anyways ... GO BLUE. BEAT OHIO. EAT SOUP.
So here's the only thing image I can find atm:
The video is frozen a bit late, so the ball is a bit further back than it appears. It's also important to remember the plane of the goaline is running diagonal slightly shifting to the left as you go up. That means the goal line directly behind toussaint isn't actually where toussaint is. You need to translate fitz in the same way the goal line is distorted.
This angle doesn't overturn the angle that clearly showed him short.
RFID signals embedded on products in warehouses track movements of products, length of tracking pending need of product/proces.
Simply put an RFID transmitter on a ball, passes goal line signal.
However, exteuating circumstances may apply, so in the end human judgment must once again come in to play.
I am a wal-mart wolverine, and for once my work has paid off.
but there's a couple of magnitudes in degrees of precision that we're talking about here. Warehouse RFID technology is pretty cheap ($0.20 a tag or so) but usually has anywhere from 6 inches to a couple of feet of tolerance built in - so if you slap the RFID sticker somewhere slightly different the system won't go nuts. That wouldn't help in this situation
Notice how the angle showing him short is much closer to a direct shot down the goal line. Clearly short.
There that's better. Still don't think it is enough though. The first camera angle is better but still is offline and elevated. Don't think it is indisputable video evidence. Could be too biased though.
Would you shut the fuck up? Your screenshots don't prove shit, dumbass.
In the screenshot on the right you can't even tell 100% that his knee is down.
To me, ESPN kept stopping it before his knee truly came down and made contact with the turf. I wonder if the ref upstairs was making the same mistake.
You can tell that it is only an illusion and that his knee is not yet on the ground because the kneepad has not compressed yet. His pants ripple after that screenshot, therefore during the screenshot he has not made contact with the ground.
That exactly what my buddy and I noticed.
You are there....now walk about 50 ft to the right. He is over the line. The camera angle just screws with your perception. If you walk fifty feet behind him it looks like he is in the back of the end zone for hoke's sake.
you can't even tell if his knee is on the ground yet. you would need a ground level cam on the goal line, right?
On the field, I thought they did a great job honestly. The play under review was wrong, but for the most part (outside of a missed pass INT on the first drive for Michigan) these refs called a pretty dang good game.
I didn't really notice them, so that's always a plus!
A 1000 holding calls...
At the game it sure looked like he was in easily, the scoreboards only showed the view that appeared he was in during the review. Everyone in the stands was beyond flabbergasted when they called it back, from the stadium view it looked like the worst call ever. OSU covering the spread shows up here....
Fellas, we won. We don't need to complain about the officials any more than what was done during the game.
Doesn't do their job, I will always have something to say about it, regardless of the result.
I agree. How many times did they call holding all game, for both teams combined? The only 2 I can remember were on the safety and on Denard's td after Fitz's got overturned. Granted those are the 2 most significant, but those are all I can remember. It must be nice to just be able to stand around on a football field without having to do anything for 99% of the game and get a paycheck. The B1G refs were horrible and inconsistent this year, and it wasn't just against us.
Some of their spots were unbelievable as well.
After the overturned TD, shouldn't the nose of the ball basically been placed on the edge of the goal line? That's where the ball was when his knee allegedly went down and yet they placed it back somewhere about halfway between the goal line and the one.
the name of the replay official?
I've thought about the "chip" too. I think you'd really only need two, one in each tip of the ball. that would balance the weight and be in the axis of rotation to minimize any impact with throwing. If you know the two points of the ball, you should be able to determine the "skin" of the ball within a certain tolerance.
I would also like to see this used to measure field position in general. I've always been amused by the 1st down measurements in this game. Consider this:
If the play goes out on the far side of the field, the ref will spot it at the far hash. That is over 100 feet away from the chain gang. They have to eyeball where to place the chains from 100 feet away! They repeat this dozens of times a game, and periodically the eye measurement needs to be more precise so they run out the chains to the spot of the ball (nevermind the estimation error as they bring the chains out) and they lay the chains on the ground and get an EXACT measurement....based on the sum of all of the previous eye measurements!
The practice just seems absurd to me. It's outdated and the engineer in me thinks there must be a better, more accurate way of doing things.
If I had my way, I'd like 2 chips in each ball (hell an RFID chip is cheap, how much more would one of these cost?). Put some kind of wires beneath the ground (say along the field of play, but perhaps also on the hash marks?) The wires would sense the position of the two chips in the ball. Voila.
Sensors in the FG posts could also help determine if FGs over an upright were "good" or not.
You don't really need sensors in the ball. With multiple cameras you can triangulate the position of the ball fairly precisely. You just need to measure camera positions very accurately. The tech would be comparable to the way they track baseball pitch trajectories to within a fraction of an inch.
A replay official could play back multiple angles in exact synchronization and stop the playback at any point (like when the knee touches the ground) and a processor could identify the exact position and orientation of the ball at that time.
I would not expect to see this in the next few years, but it is technically feasible.
but they need to check the betting patterns in Vegas. Seriously.
Part of me envisioned Gordy Gee and Jim Dellany riding high above the big house in a private jet together, petting shaved cats.
Why didn't they look at the fumble Denard lost? I was at the game but it looked like he hit the ground with his knees and the ball came out.
it wasn't even close. He fumbled it immediately when he got hit
From where I was sitting, I could have sworn the ball broke the plane.
In any event, in the end, this particular shit call didn't matter - we still won, fair and square. As for the replay officials, rather than write something sinister into it, such as betting, as the OP suggests, I like to believe it is unrelated to the game, such as his bitterness over there being no online version of "All My Children" now.
We discussed this briefly in another thread, but my theory is that critical end-of-game replay reviews that are reasonably determinative of the game's outcome are reviewed on a different standard, understood by officials but unwritten otherwise. The end-of-game standard is this: if you could basically be deciding the game, just make your best guess what the correct call is regardless of what was called on the field.
Think of Sparty-Wisconsin hail mary. There was intense pressure to get the call right. The call on the field was no TD, and the replays, in my opinion, suggested the ball made it to the goal line for a millisecond but weren't "indisputable" in any sense of the word. But in a situation like that, the replay ref just wants to make his best guess as to the correct call, period, and it was more likely than not that he scored.
Likewise for yesterday. There's not enough evidence to be sure he was short, and under normal circumstances, the play stands. But if they let it stand, the game is over. He looks at it from the more-likely-than-not-what-is-the-correct-call standard, and decides Fitz is a bit short. That's not unreasonable under that standard.
If I were the powers that be, and I wanted to keep the "indisputable" standard, I'd make this the guide for replay officials: if you have to look at the replay more than once or twice because it's not obvious the first time, it's not indisputable and should not be reversed.
Or, possibly, this replay ref (the same from the Iowa game) is just an asshole. Who cares. We made the Buckeyes cry and the sweetness of their tears of infinite sadness is still on my lips this morning. Mmmmm. Buckeye sadness.
The other possibility is the replay official doesn't know jack about camera angles, which is alarming. If the call on the field were he didn't make it in, no one would be in a position to bitch--the same thing would apply, there is not indisputable evidence one way or the other. But, if they are applying a different standard at the end of games, then they need to either stop doing that or rewrite the rule book. What I find amazing in all this, though, is how many bucknuts blame the officials at least in part for the loss.
As far as another poster mentioned, if they aren't calling holding, I guess that's o.k. as long as they aren't applying a different standard to each team.
I shudder to think how Michigan fans (mysef included) would be reacting if OSU was somehow able to score a touchdown at the end. Thank god the Michigan players were able to overcome and win!
is what makes the most sense about "conclusiveness".
but your last paragraph may be the reality.
Seems like the B1G should get together with the SEC on this. I was watching LSU v. Arkansas Friday and on reviewed plays, it seems like if there's even any question, they go with the ruling on the field. The couple of reviews I saw happened so fast; the calls were back from the booth in like 20 seconds. Like you say; if it's not an obviously bad call on review, go with the call on the filed.
(HOWEVA, I reserve the right to change my stance when my team is in the opposite situation.)
WTH fell out of the refs mouth did anyone catch that??
First of all, I believe it was a touch down watching the play full speed. Secondly, you are absolutely right....the one camara angle showed the ball was clearly over the goal line when his knee hit. Third, for them to place the ball at the 1 ft line was nuts, IF he was short it was by an inch at the most. THEN LAST of all, the only thing I can figure is that the replay ref never looked at the one camara shot that showed the ball was over. Not sure how that works in the booth, but if he was ONLY looking at the one shot, maybe that is all he was pulling from. Bottom line, horrible!
They actually marked the ball down where his knee was on the ground. You have to assume that the replay official is a 5 year old who has no understanding of the actual rules of the game. His knee was down at the 1 ft line, the ball was definitely not directly above his knee. Thank Bo we won this game, but that could have been bad.
...that next-to-last 4th down play by OSU should've been marked where Miller landed, instead of at the forward progress of the ball.
I kept watching the replay thinking: but if they overturn it, they've got to spot the ball halfway across the white line.
If the replay decision takes as long as a full Journey song, can it really be conclusive and indisputable?!?! If it were conclusive, they'd see it on the first replay, like Denard's fumble. Right?
I am glad we won too. I am glad we won it on a defensive play. I was not happy about the call back, but I was not happy about the unecessary roughness penalty either. And then I was real happy for Gibbons on that 43 yarder.
So all is well that ends well.
(I am still pissed about the touchdown at Iowa. They overturned the field call here, they should have overturned it there.)
Should have stuck, not undisputable evidence. Overcame some things this 132 has. We are very proud of you.
How could the refs justify putting the ball at the half yard line as opposed to the 1 inch line? Is there some rule that that's as close as they can spot it on an over turn?
...they should've stood a sheet of paper on the goal line and butted the tip of the ball against it. Instead, they spotted it behind where his knee came down.
I think Brady Hoke needs to insist that Michigan games are called by non-conference officiating crews...so that we can enjoy some impartiality.
That kept Ohio with points the
...more than 6 and less than 10, right?!?! I'm thinking there's a replay official that made some money on Saturday.
The refs wiped two Michigan touchdowns off of the board, and gave Braxton Miller a ridiculously generous spot on the ensuing drive. If it wasn't for the refs, MIchigan would have won this game by ten, and there would have been no chance for Ohio to pull it out on the last drive.
Were they the same ones as the ones in the Iowa and TSIO? These 3 games had some of the worst calls/reversals/non-calls that I've seen in quite a long time.
I have trouble believing that an iPhone video taken from an angle perpendicular to the goalline would be definitive, but I'd like to see it anyway.
Call me crazy, but I think what fell out his mouth was a 2-way transmitter. Notice that is was scarlet in color. Delany and Gee were giving him instructions all game long.
Clearly the replay ref had Ohio getting 7 points. Now his kids can have kickass Christmas presents.
Big Ten refs....are there any worse in the country?
IMO these clowns lost us the MSU game, with the bad spot on the 4th-and-one that should never have happened, and the backward pass that did happen. What would we be looking at with better officiating at MSU and Iowa, not that I would relish facing the mad hatter?
Apparently the replay official saw in-duh-sputable evidence and overturned the call on the field.