What happened on the instant Replay
I was at the game and in the endzone section when the replay of the forward pass was being reviewed. On the field it was called a first down, and then overturned. Is there general agreement this was the correct call. I don't have the game taped so I can't see it. Anybody have a link to this review.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^
should have been a 1st down for UM
November 8th, 2009 at 12:29 PM ^
IF we can bring in some new assitant coaches I will go with 9-3. If not, I think 2010 will be a long season just like 2008 and 2009
Go Blue!
November 8th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
On the replay, it was very close, but after watching it over 12 times, I think that he was even with Brown with his momentum going forward and therefore the call was probably correct.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
I think not. It was the longest booth review I recall this entire season. There was no video camera angle that was even with Carlos Brown. The only angle TV replays showed was from behind him which is going to make the pitch seem like its going forward, even if its not. I still don't know if it was forward or not. The fact that the review took so long means they were not exactly sure either. So, IMO, the call should not have been reversed. I was more concerned that they would rule him out of bounds because he was laying on a Purdue defender that was clearly out of bounds. I guess unless his body is touching the ground, it does not matter. But, I was way more concerned with that aspect of review than the forward lateral part, basedon the replays I saw.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
the longest replay ever. Probably took about 10 minutes.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^
seriously... I thought there was a limit (like the NFL). If not, there should be...
November 8th, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^
I completely agree. If it takes you ten minutes to look at replays to determine something, that pretty much automatically means its not definitive. And if you think about it, in regards to him lying on an out of bounds defender, if you fall on a defender that is on the ground in bounds, you're still not down until your knee/elbow/back touch the ground itself, so it makes sense to presume that you can land on an out of bounds player and still be in bounds.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
Or maybe it means the call is at a critically important juncture at the end of the game, and they want to make sure they get it absolutely right?
I'd rather they take 10 minutes and get it right than take 2 minutes, rush through it, and get it wrong.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:03 PM ^
But that is exactly the point. If it takes the booth ten minutes to "make sure they get it absolutely right," then they aren't looking at something definitive.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
for those types of plays, it is hard to be sure. I think that they probably got the call right.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
There has to be indisputable video evidence, probably is not indisputable. On a call that close you should stick with the call on the field, no matter what it was originally ruled.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
The best angle was the referee on the side line who made the original call.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:44 PM ^
was this the same replay official from iowa/indiana last week?
November 8th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
I can't say for sure they got the call right, but to me, it looked legal (at least legal enough to not overturn it without indisputable evidence). I was more worried about the play being blown dead as he layed on the out of bounds defender, as that is a call you don't see made very often. I wasn't even sure what the rules were there, to be honest, but it makes sense that he would need to initiate contact with the stripe himself.
November 8th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
As far as I can tell, he was not out-of bounds, the rule stating that "A player is out of bounds when any part of his person touches anything, other than another player or game official, on or outside a boundary line (Rule 4-2-1-I and II)."
So the only way for the play to be overruled was on the basis of an illegal forward lateral.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
I think it was make up for the horrible tripping call on punt.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
or the Roundtree takeaway.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^
That was simultaneous possession.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
but the Roundtree take away was the right call. The ground can cause an incompletion, which it did for the Purdue player. Luckily for UM Roundtree was there to grab it before it hit the ground. End of story.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:52 PM ^
sides of that call in our favor. one for the defense and one for the offense
November 8th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
One of the most absurd points of yesterday's game came immediately after the ref signaled we had the first down. So, everyone, on the field, on the sidelines, in the stands, in the press box, knew it was a close call. So what should we have done? Ran up to the LOS and tried to get a play off? Well, that would certainly prevent them from reviewing the play, wouldn't it? What did we do? The players stood around and looked at each other, smiling and laughing.
I have no idea who that is on, but it is completely and totally ridiculous that we didn't get a play off. If it's on Rodriguez, so be it. If it's on Angry Michigan Intangible-Hating God, so be it for that too. But come on, get the play in there and get it off.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
But if we had, the officials might've just blown the play dead and called for a review the previous one, as they did following the Roundtree catch in the first half.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^
There is absolutely no way to tell if that would or would not have happened unless you try to run a play. The fact that we didn't even make an effort to do so is the more disturbing thing to me.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:28 PM ^
I agree, we should have tried to get the snap off. But I'd have been surprised if the refs hadn't blown the play dead (even though they're not supposed to do that) to review the lateral.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:12 PM ^
I agree. Just frustrating, on par with not calling a timeout with 1:30 left in the second quarter last week against U of I.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^
There is no way that play was not being reviewed. No matter how quickly they got up to the line they would have blown it dead for a review. There are a lot of things to question the coaching staff about over the past month. This situation is not one of them.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^
So you're presuming that the refs had already gotten the play called down from the booth for a review? I don't think it is the least bit unreasonable to presume that refs, who have shown themselves to be out of step with each other all season long, would not necessarily be ready to blow the play dead.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:45 AM ^
I could be wrong but I think they did hike the ball before the refs came in blowing their whistles.
November 8th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^
so I didn't have audio. I thought the reason they took so long was they were looking up the rule on if you are touching a player out of bounds whether that makes you out of bounds too. I had no idea they overturned it because of forward lateral (oxymoron??). I didn't even think that was a possible thing they were reviewing as it looked like a legit lateral to me.
I was about to name Carlos Brown the anti-Tyler Ecker for being so heads up about making that play.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:13 AM ^
about the play I think you're talking about, the reason for the reversal was for an illegal man downfield - at least that's what the ref said after the reveiw.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:53 AM ^
On the radio, Frank Beckmann and Jim Brandstatter were talking about what the rule was about people being out of bounds, then their minds were blown when it was ruled an illegal forward pass (not man downfield).
In their opinion, and in their expertise, they stated that it is not the job of the replay officials to use the cameras to find penalties--that the call should have been "out of bounds" or "first down" as the only two options. They called the penalty a "cop-out" and fumed about the misuse of replay.
Anyone know the policy?
November 9th, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
I was hoping somebody would have something about this. That was absolutely an incorrect call. He was flicking the ball up and slightly backwards, at best the ball was even with him as he was sliding forward, plus the amount of time the replay official needed was ludicrous. If you can't see it in two minutes then it is not definitive, let the call stand.
As for running a play, I thought that they did try to run up and get a play off? Maybe I am remembering incorrectly.
Whatever happened to home cooking?