Neck Sharpies: Let's Talk About the Calls
Why?
What, are you worried Spartans are gonna be all "Typical Wolverines, whining about the refs."?
Well, yeah.
[Interference on Desmond.gif] [Spartan Bob stops the clock.gif] [etc.] Things that happen happened. Plus can you name a Spartan anyone actually takes seriously?
Chris Vannini.
Granted. But is this hypothetical Spartan in your life Vannini, or this Youtube commenter?
Wow. That's— uh, that is…
…a person whose opinion does not matter.
I was going to say my brother-in-law. But they outgained us!
Special teams matter.
Indeed.
Dude.
Still can't we be above blaming the refs? Steel in the spine and all that. It won't change the outcome of the game. At most we'll get an apology from the Big Ten that's worth exactly as much as Rutgers in a post-cable bundling media landscape.
Nice one. I'm not making a "Michigan should have won…" argument, because every play matters. The last play had a huge effect on the outcome. Connor Cook throwing perfect back shoulder passes and Aaron Burbridge being an NFL-caliber receiver was very relevant. Jake Rudock being bad at deep balls was relevant. If they'd won, Michigan's stops on 4th downs were relevant. All of it is relevant, and the game, as they say, is over.
So then what's the point?
The point is to assess how good this Michigan team is at football. IE were they significantly better than a Michigan State team that nearly lost to Purdue and Rutgers, and was absent its Rimington-quality center plus half the legs of its bookends, and is fielding a pretty awful secondary. But I'm also doing this for some more personal reasons:
- For myself, and for posterity, I want a thorough canvassing of the things I saw and thought I saw.
- I want to point out where the refs are getting a bad rap. Not everything we thought we saw was a legit gripe, and some of the legit gripes may have been hard for human refs to see in real time. Since complaining is inevitable, let's get it right.
- Right now I feel like a truck ran over my dog and then half of the people in my life came over to gloat as if they were driving this truck. This is part of my healing process.
And you're going to show we got hosed?
Can't promise it. That was my certainly biased hypothesis in the stadium, but I'm not going to be able to find every incremental hold and would-be pass interference. I want to tackle the things people were talking about.
How?
Clip the plays people bitched about, watch the hell out of them, gauge the relative expectations we should have for the officials on those plays, and use the Markov Drive Analysis tool to calculate a rough expected points swing.
Markov?
This tool is based on NFL drives but it serves for what we're doing here. It gives you a basic expected points for every down, distance, and field position. For example if you have 1st and goal on your opponent's one yard line, the expected points is 6.32. A 4th and 10 on your 40 is about zero.
If I've left out any plays (including and especially those where something went Michigan's way) let me know and if I deem it worthy I'll add it to the post.
I'd rather not be part of this.
Then don't hit...
[The jump]
1. Can You Tackle a Tackle?
The situation: 1st and 10 at the MSU 2 (0.95 EP)
What occurred? Hurst shot into his gap at the snap. The right guard is blocking down, got an arm around Hurst's shoulder, and kinda jumped on him.
The call: No call.
Was it legit? Yes.
The result: 1st and 10 MSU on the MSU 16.
Should have been: n/a
Refspectation: 60% This will be a % of how often I'd expect the refs to make this call correctly.
I led off with this because Harbaugh was screaming about it, and from the first angle you can see why he thought he had a gripe. From the second angle, that's just a good block, and a good no-call by the refs. It's also not in the end zone, FWIW.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
2. Substitution Infraction
The situation: 3rd and 5 on the MSU 21. (0.91 EP)
What occurred? See above.
The call: Substitution infraction on Michigan (5 yards).
Was it legit? Yes.
The result: 1st and 10 MSU on the MSU 26. (1.67 EP)
Should have been: n/a
Refspectation: Someone on the board suggested this was a tacky call because the rules give you 3 seconds from the break of the huddle, but count the guys above with 10 seconds on the play clock. Lining up with 12 guys is an immediate flag if the refs spot it. This was 100% legit.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
3. Picked a Peppers
The situation: Same drive still, 2nd and 10 on MSU 38. (1.66 EP)
What occurred? Burbridge with a pretty obvious offensive PI.
The call: No call.
Was it legit? Nope.
The result: 1st and 10 MSU on Mich 43 (2.89 EP)
Should have been: 2nd and 20 on MSU 28 (0.98 EP)
Refspectation: 60%. Announcers called it a "man beater" but a rub route and a pick are different things. You're supposed to get the defense to run into each other; if you actually hit the guy covering your buddy, that's an easy offensive pass interference. That said, it's something that's routinely missed by refs. Out of the context of this game it's a groan that this sort of stuff isn't flagged enough.
Markov expected points swing: 1.91
----------------------------
4. Holding on Number 86
The situation: Still that drive, 3rd and 17 on MSU 49 (0.87 EP)
What occurred? Aaron Burbridge ran into the field umpire and Jourdan Lewis tripped on that mess. Pass goes to RJ Shelton and Peppers deflects to Dymonte Thomas, who intercepts and returns it to the MSU 36.
The call: Holding on "86" (they meant Lewis; the scorer put it on Peppers)
Was it legit? No.
The result: 1st and 10 MSU on M41 (3.13 EP)
Should have been: 1st and 10 Michigan on MSU 36. (-3.39 EP)
Refspectation: 80%. Most of the bad. It is either a totally phantom call in an extremely high-leverage situation, or an extremely ticky tack call. Lewis does have a hand on the receiver (hardly unusual for him) and the way they went could understandably have looked like a tackle to the back judge (the ref they tripped over should have overruled him). I had a back and forth with a State fan on this until we both realized what looks in the grainy film like an arm around the receiver's waist is a handwarmer.
No he doesn't have 12 foot arms
The guy went down because he fell into the ref, and the ref he went into didn't throw the flag. By the way a reader in one of the threads suggested even a holding penalty is just 10 yards, but since 2009 it comes with an automatic 1st down.
Markov expected points swing: 6.520 (!!!)
----------------------------
5. The Replay Booth's Goal Line Stand, Preview
The situation: 2nd and goal on MSU 2 (5.65 EP)
What occurred? Houma had a 2nd effort spin to barely get over the goal line. It's ruled a touchdown and upheld.
The call: Upheld
Was it legit? Yes.
The result: Touchdown (7.00 EP)
Should have been: n/a
Refspectation: 60%. I included this one because the Spartanweb was claiming Michigan was gifted two TDs on the goal line, this being the first. This is a legit TD. Tough call, right to review, but they got it right. If it wasn't ruled a TD on the field it would have been 60/40 to overturn, so congrats to the ref who saw it live.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
6. Lyles Chucks Our Worm
The situation: 4th and 7 on MSU 34 (immediately after M stops a 3rd and 2) (0.01 EP)
What occurred? Missed personal foul. MSU ran a jet sweep and Michigan blows it up on the edge for a loss. After the play MSU TE Jamal Lyles throws Wormley into the Michigan bench.
The call: No call
Was it legit? No.
The result: 4th and 7 on MSU 34 (0.01 EP)
Should have been: 4th and 22 on MSU 19 (-0.08 EP)
Refspectation: 90% Pretty bad since it occurred right in front of the head linesman and M's coaches. Rivalry games get chippy but given the history of this matchup and the egregious nature of the foul (long after the whistle, etc.) it was dismaying that this was let go. Harbaugh lets the referee know it. Difference in field position is small.
Markov expected points swing: 0.09 EP. FWIW after the punt Michigan got the ball on the 18; if they got it on the 33 it's a 0.360 EP differential. Anyway still a small deal.
----------------------------
7. Targeting on Bolden
The situation: 3rd and 4 on Michigan's 40 after Connor Cook slid down on a 5-yard gain.
What occurred? Morgan is about to tackle Cook when the QB slides (until they call this everyone thinks it's on Morgan). LT Conklin was blocking (er…holding) Bolden and threw him down atop Cook after the whistle.
The call: Targeting on Bolden(!)
Was it legit? No.
The result: 1st and 10 on Michigan 24, Bolden thrown out of the game. (4.10 EP)
Should have been: 3rd and 4 on Michigan 40. (2.17 EP)
Refspectation: 100% The worst. Bolden to Gedeon may not be a huge difference but even Ohio State fans were going "Wow that is bad." The Big Ten should not have this review official anymore, period.
Markov expected points swing: 1.93 EP, plus no Bolden.
----------------------------
8. The Bear Hug TD
The situation: 1st and 10 on the M 11, second play after the above.
What occurred? MSU runs outside power, RJS is held like whoa, L.J. Scott takes that hole to the end zone.
The call: No call
Was it legit? No.
The result: Touchdown (7.00 EP)
Should have been: 1st and 20 on Michigan 21. (3.92 EP)
Refspectation: 85% Holding happens often inside but this one was right on the play in clear view of the back judge and referee. There's yanking on the shoulders, and then there's total bear hugs and this is a case example of the latter—Jenkins-Stone tries to fight playside and can't because the guy has his jersey too. This stuff gets called 85% of the time and that would be 95% if Wisconsin didn't exist.
Markov expected points swing: 3.08 EP, but that's low since MSU can't kick field goals.
----------------------------
9. Reschke is Early Part I
The situation: M ball, 2nd and 5 on MSU 20 (4.22 EP)
What occurred? Rudock is under pressure and tries to complete an outlet for basically no gain to Karan Higdon. MSU LB is right on this and leaps over Higdon's back, maaaaybe a tidge early, and breaks it up.
The call: No call
Was it legit? Yes.
The result: 3rd and 5 on MSU 20 (3.69 EP)
Should have been: n/a
Refspectation: 75% Live the salty audience was expecting a pass interference, and if they threw one it'd be hard to argue it. But this is a pass into good coverage near the line of scrimmage so the refs were absolutely correct to let it go.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
10. Reschke is Early Part II
The situation: Very next play. M ball, 3rd and 5 on MSU 20 (3.69 EP)
What occurred? Quick underneath to Butt on the outside, Reschke jumps underneath and arrives a second early.
The call: No call
Was it legit? No.
The result: 4th and 5 on MSU 20 (2.58 EP)
Should have been: 1st and 10 on MSU 15 (4.61 EP)
Refspectation: 75% Bang bang play that is easier to call on review than live. Still, given the game so far and the close call right before this one I think it's reasonable to expect the refs to call this, say, 75% of the time. Understandable that they didn't, but also frustrating.
Markov expected points swing: 2.03 EP
----------------------------
[I got requests for the McGarrett Kings scoop catch and the MSU push-off OPI at the end of the 2nd half. The officials got both obviously correct. Also the Chesson false start if you were wondering. I'm not reviewing those obviously good calls, but give the refs mental credit for making them.]
----------------------------
11. Kerridge Measured
The situation: 3rd and 1 on the Michigan 33 (1.51 EP)
What occurred? After a lot of push on heavy dive the officials blow the whistle and spot it where they saw it.
The call: Ball placed just short
Was it legit? Yes.
The result: 4th and inches on Michigan 33 (0.17 EP)
Should have been: n/a
How bad was it? Watch the play. Now here's the spot.
You can't ask for better. This was fine.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
Not reviewing these but I screengrabbed in case you doubt the first two goal line reviews.
Knee is down here.
Ball is down here. Don't know why the line judge wasted everyone's time by calling a TD he didn't see. Ironically this is the play right before that one guy flicks off ESPN.
----------------------------
12. A Glacier Technically Makes Forward Progress
The situation: 3rd and inches from the 1 yard line. (5.25 EP)
What occurred? Houma's initially stuffed, no whistle yet. Smith starts shoving, AJ Williams is still carving a path, and the pile is lurching forward at the rate of an inch every 5 seconds. Finally Houma gets through and they signal a TD.
The call: No whistle (forward progress).
Was it legit? Probably not?
The result: Touchdown (7.00 EP)
Should have been: 4th and inches. (3.53)
Refspectation: 80% They could have blown the whistle on the initial stop; it was a break for Michigan that they didn't. After a second the pile is going forward so the officials are right to keep it going for 10 seconds. I think Michigan got a break here that it wasn't whistled immediately.
Markov expected points swing: –3.47
----------------------------
Not reviewing this either but this…
…is a catch. Bad call on the field, correctly overturned.
----------------------------
13. Don't Pick It Up
The situation: 2nd and 10 from the MSU 32 (3.11 EP)
What occurred? Michigan lined up Chesson in the backfield and had him run a circle route. Bad matchup for Reschke, who gives a little too much arm to reroute then gets his leg tangled in Chesson's legs. Flags come flying.
The call: Pass interference.
Was it legit? Yes.
The result: 1st and 10 on the MSU 19. (4.35 EP)
Should have been: n/a
Refspectation: 75% This is one of those things that looks worse on the first review; live you can see Chesson lost his balance from the shove, which is PI.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
14. Doesn't Holding Imply Contact?
The situation: 1st and goal from the 10 (4.79)
What occurred? Calhoun sheds Mason Cole inside, Braden gets an arm out to impede, barely, while Rudock gets it out to Darboh on the 5. Braden flagged.
The call: Holding.
Was it legit? No.
The result: 1st and goal on the MSU 20. (3.92 EP)
Should have been: 2nd and goal from the 5. (4.98 EP)
Refspectation: 75% You're not allowed to tackle a guy, but you're allowed to put a hand on him, right? Is there something about being outside of his frame? Let me know if I've interpreted the rule wrong. For now I'm going with my gut that this is BS.
Markov expected points swing: 1.06 EP
----------------------------
15. Willie Henryflop
The situation: 3rd and 2 from the Michigan 44 (2.13 EP)
What occurred? Michigan has the stop and Willie Henry is coming from the backside to finish it off since the whistle hasn't blown and the runner isn't down. Whistle goes as soon as he's airborne.
The call: Unnecessary roughness.
Was it legit? Absolutely not.
The result: 1st and 10 from the Michigan 32 (3.63 EP)
Should have been: 4th and 4 from the Michigan 46. (0.16 EP)
Refspectation: 65% Henry doesn't need to jump on this (even if he lands on his teammates' backs) but the whistle clearly didn't blow until he did. In some situations this is just a bad call. To call this in this situation was atrocious.
Markov expected points swing: 3.47 EP
----------------------------
16. Jake Butt Overruled
The situation: 3rd and 9 from MSU 44 (1.66 EP)
What occurred? Rudock whistles a low ball to Butt at the first down marker, and Butt digs it out. Referee right on top of the play calls it a catch but then the sideline judge runs in and calls it no catch (huh?)
The call: Incomplete, inconclusive evidence to overturn.
Was it legit? Noooooo.
The result: 4th and 9 from the MSU 44 (0.10 EP)
Should have been: Probably 1st and 10 on the MSU 35 (3.39 EP), but may need a measurement. FWIW if it's 4th and inches it's 2.26 EP.
Refspectation: 75% The review seems about 99.9% conclusive that he did catch it, and what is the sideline guy doing overturning something the guy right on top of it was all over? What's the point of review? This is another really bad one, especially given:
Markov expected points swing: 3.29 EP
----------------------------
17. We Want a Safety
The situation: 2nd and 10 from MSU 3 (0.69 EP)
What occurred? The replay above only shows a bit of it but I've heard now from enough people who were standing in that end zone to believe what my eyes and Harbaugh's eyes saw, and that was Wormley got past Conklin, who grabbed Wormley's jersey and took him down.
The call: No call.
Was it legit? No.
The result: 3rd and 3 from the MSU 6 (0.86 EP)
Should have been: A safety. Advanced Football Analytics, who are responsible for the Markov thing, call a safety 3.6 points (2 points plus the value of getting the ball at the 40, which is 1.60 EP)
Refspectation: 40% This is what I mean about some of our gripes being things that normally you just let go, even if they're legit, because holding, most of which occurred after the ball is released, is probably called in less than a third of situations like this. But they called a far less egregious one on Braden, and like I said, we all saw it because for a second it looked like Wormley was gonna get at least a hit in. Plus, like, by this point Michigan is so very due, and a safety would be a huge emotional swing in the game. Consider this one me at my bitchiest.
Markov expected points swing: 4.46 EP but I'm not going to count this in the total.
----------------------------
18. No Fair He Beat Our Cheat!
The situation: 3rd and 3 on the MSU 6 (following play) (0.86 EP)
What occurred? State is trying to block Jourdan Lewis off of Burbridge using Josiah Price. Lewis is going down but trying to stay in Burbridge's hip pocket as long as he can. Burbridge is using his arm to make sure Lewis falls, which is why his arm isn't there when the ball comes.
The call: No call.
Was it legit? No. Should have been offensive PI.
The result: 4th and 3 from the MSU 6 (-1.56 EP)
Should have been: M would have declined, so n/a.
Refspectation: 50%. I clipped this ironically because Spartans thought this was the worst call to go against State. Then I saw the OPI the refs missed.
I want to give credit to the refs for this anyway. It's hard to see stuff at the snap when it happens as quickly as Burbridge and Lewis happen, and while the Price block was obvious on replay it probably wasn't live. A lot of times you see the defense pick up a flag on these because the refs just see the receiver tangled up. Very good job to not get suckered.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
19. Block in the Side
The situation: Punt from the MSU 6 (following play)
What occurred? Wayne Lyons got a legal block. Flag correctly picked up.
Markov expected points swing: n/a
----------------------------
20. Rudock Facemask
The situation: 3rd and 4 and on the Michigan 27 (1.12 EP)
What occurred? The ball batted off of Darboh and back to Rudock. He's swarmed and Chris Frey unnecessarily rips him down by the facemask.
The call: No call.
Was it legit? No. But you can't tell from that video.
The result: 4th and 4 from the Mich 27 (-1.40)
Should have been: 1st and 10 from the Mich 42 (2.27 EP)
Refspectation: 80% The fans got treated to a different angle than they showed on TV, and that's why we booed. Jake Butt also got this angle and turned around expecting the center judge, who is pointing at Rudock's head and also had that angle, would have thrown a flag. Since the camera didn't catch it going to have to trust us that it was about as awful a facemask as you're likely to see. Frey is trying to rip Jake's head off. I don't know why the official missed it since he's right there but refs do miss facemasks pretty often. Frustrating, especially since Frey has a history.
Markov expected points swing: 3.67 EP but that doesn't count the effect of clock runoff.
----------------------------
Quick aside:
Yes, Henry moved first.
----------------------------
21. Worst Thing Ever
The situation: Michigan punting from the MSU 47 with 10 seconds left.
What occurred? You already know. That one guy maaaaaybe lined up in the neutral zone.
But I would never expect that to be called. Don't complain about where that guy's lined up, please.
What could be called is the fact that he bowled over Sypniewski before a second had elapsed:
When a team is in scrimmage kick formation, a defensive player may not initiate contact with the snapper until one second has elapsed after the snap (A.R. 9-1-14-I-III).
UPDATE: via TennBlue in the comments:
Immediately below the rule you quoted, on page 184, is Approved Ruling 9-1-14. Part III says:
Actual referees that have looked at the play have also concluded it was not a foul.
The call: No call.
Was it legit? No. [Edit: Yes.] But like…
The result: Worst thing ever.
Should have been: 15-yard penalty, automatic 1st down, Michigan kneels it out.
Refspectation: 60% Michigan had no business making that relevant, but the thing about the Worst Thing Ever is it makes all the things that weren't relevant suddenly relevant again.
Markov expected points swing: 10.63 if we're just going by Markov. Technically it was the game. Not counting it in the total either. [Edit: fortunately.]
----------------------------
Chart.
This isn't UFR.
Am I a bolded non-person?
Yes.
Chart!
| Play | EP swing | Expectation that call is made | EP x Expectation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Picked a Peppers | 1.91 | 60% | 1.146 |
| Holding on 86 | 6.52 | 80% | 5.216 |
| Lyle's chuck | 0.09 | 90% | 0.081 |
| Targeting on Bolden | 1.93 | 100% | 1.930 |
| RJS bear hugged | 3.08 | 85% | 2.618 |
| Reschke early | 2.03 | 75% | 1.523 |
| Glacial Progress | -3.47 | 80% | -2.776 |
| Braden's arm | 1.06 | 75% | 0.795 |
| Henryflop | 3.47 | 65% | 2.256 |
| Butt Catch | 3.29 | 75% | 2.468 |
| Facemask | 3.67 | 80% | 2.936 |
Removing the safety and the last play because they're such distortions, and saying they should have whistled Houma's forward progress rather than let him inch forward for 10 seconds, this game was distorted by 23.58 points. Accounting for my feels on the difficulty of refereeing, it's still an 18-point swing in expected points by bad officiating.
Feel better?
No, I feel worse. And tired. And sick. I should have done a Lewis-Burbridge matchup instead.
Let that be a lesson.
October 20th, 2015 at 11:16 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 5:29 PM ^
Please repeat this analysis every week. Thank you in advance.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:49 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 6:09 PM ^
I'm really curious how this compares to other games. It certainly feels like we were jobbed, but I wonder if this is actually about the normal level of incompetence.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:29 PM ^
You might also want to pull the video from the TD pass to the FB where our Dlineman (don't remember who) beat theri O-lineman (don't remember who) and the State lineman (from the ground) attempts to leg whip our guy going past. Should've been a 15 yard penalty; instead was a TD for MSU.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:30 PM ^
A post like this is why I love this place. I agree with just about everything except the one you didn't review between 12 and 13. The replay official has to have conclusive evidence to overturn that call. Your telling me from that grainy screen cap that you can tell his toe is still making contact with the turf? Watching the replay, it definitely came up and then back down on the white. He did not drag his shoe, he lifted it and then put it back down. How can you say with certainty that it was in contact with the field?
Conclusive synonyms:incontrovertible, undeniable, indisputable, irrefutable, unquestionable, unassailable, convincing, certain, decisive, definitive, definite, positive, categorical, unequivocal
I can deny his foot was down. I can dispute it. I can refute it. I can question it. That view was from too far removed to tell for certain if his toe was down.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:44 PM ^
I make fun of Notre Dame fans all the time for arguing "inconclusive!" on that one time their guy stepped out of bounds (was it Golden Tate? It was Tate right?)
I watch reviews as independent of the call on the field unless the guy on the field had a unique angle, e.g. when a sideline judge is calling a TD for a ball breaking the plane, since there's no video (in college--they have those cameras in the NFL) with a direct horizontal view that guy has.
I'm more certain, independent of the call on the field, that his foot was down and that's a catch. Once I'm at that point, arguing that the video is inconclusive is arguing they should have gotten the call wrong.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:55 PM ^
Yeah, the moment I saw that first replay sitting at the bar I said "Wow, great catch." If you don't overturn that one there would barely be any plays ever where you'd overturn it.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:27 PM ^
you're more rationale than me, so there.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:30 PM ^
I can't stand the pat response of "quit whining" when you can identify clear reffing errors. We get it from opponents, and we get it from some on the board. It's not whining - we all get that a fluke play gave MSU the game. But the reffing had a clear impact on the game.
So thank you Seth for Zaprudering some of this. It's worth the effort, because it is an important part of the narrative.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:32 PM ^
Here's the situation just post snap:
Defenders are not coming down on the center, they're shooting the gaps on either side. Both guards are blocking toward the center, pushing them into him.
Immediately below the rule you quoted, on page 184, is Approved Ruling 9-1-14. Part III says:
Actual referees that have looked at the play have also concluded it was not a foul.
Plenty of suckage everywhere, but let's not blame the refs for one they got right.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:38 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 5:44 PM ^
The one second clause is for someone coming straight into the snapper before he can defend himself. It does not apply to a defender that gets blocked into him, making incidental contact.
The defender has to make deliberate contact for RtS to be called.
i.e. what happened on the play is exactly what the Approved Ruling describes as not being a foul.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^
Good call. I didn't know this part of the rule. Glad I didn't count it in the total then.
October 20th, 2015 at 7:02 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 6:09 PM ^
because I'm almost positive them defenders weren't running straight into the offensive linemen. They were shooting the gaps. Are the offensive lineman supposed to let them go untouched right by the longsnapper? I would hope not.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:13 PM ^
is not Roughing the Snapper.
Regardless of whether that's how the rule should be, that's how it is. The refs called it correctly.
October 20th, 2015 at 7:16 PM ^
I guess I can't see very clearly if he was pushed by the adjacent lineman or he made the first contact with the snapper. Because if he did without being pushed by the other lineman, then he will be in violation. Anyway, I would say it would be a hard call for the ref to make regardless. When the refs couldn't get a call after extensive review, there is no way they would make a call like this...
October 20th, 2015 at 6:10 PM ^
TennBlue, hello again. I'm still unconvinced that contact was made between the two rushing DLs and their respective opposing "guards", Gedeon and Morgan. My eyes don't see it after reviewing both the sideline and endzone angles in slow motion many times. You can't really tell if Gedeon reaches his man and I'm pretty sure Morgan does not. (FYI, for your heart's sake, I recommend focusing on the skirmish and stopping the clip before the really bad shit happens.) What's not debatable is, as Seth points out, they both made contact with Spyniewski within 1 second of the snap.
I wish we had higher definition and more angles to view to see clearly that there was prior OL/DL contact but we don't. So be it, forget about it. Nonetheless, I think what's lost in this debate is the rule in its current form doesn't go far enough to protect the snapper. If Spyniewski wasn't hurt on that play, he's lucky and really flexible.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:34 PM ^
If it takes super slo-mo replays from 15 different angles to figure it out, there's no way a ref can make the call at field level in real time.
A linebacker crashes straight into the snapper while his head is ducked between his legs, it's a flag. If the ref sees the defenders shooting the gaps and not driving straight into the snapper, there's no foul.
Each ref has a dozen different things they have to watch for on every play. They don't have time to focus on splitting hairs. They watch the snap long enough to make sure no one bashes him in the head while he's defenseless, and move on.
October 20th, 2015 at 7:18 PM ^
I agree with you on this. When they couldn't make calls that were easy, they wouldn't have made a call like this. In Slo-mo it is very hard to see with whom the noseguard made the first contact.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:48 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 7:28 PM ^
You'll die on that hill.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:33 PM ^
I think it's a hold due to the fact his arm(s) are stretched out and he is grabbing. If your hands are inside this never gets called.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 6:31 PM ^
There are soooo many instances of Sparty hands outside Michigan defenders (like the RJS play or the very last play where they held Lyons - why oh why couldn't Lyons just fall down and dive at the Sparty instead of escorting him into the endzone, do something to try to slow him up) that there is no way they should have called Braden, he didn't impede the sparty or slow him down nearly as much as what they did to us without drawing a flag.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:41 PM ^
Yeah seriously, I wondered why he didn't just fall down. But then I re-watched it (somehow without vomiting). He has it well defended enough that he didn't need to fall down. Until suddenly the ballcarrier somehow cuts back across a pile of bodies and gets in the endzone. It was a great move. It was also lucky that he tried to cut back in desperation and nobody else was there. But if Lyons tried to dive at the ground and missed, we'd be even more upset.
The real question is why we had so many release downfield instead of playing safe. We couldn't make a tackle because the caravan of Spartans made it impossible to get to the ballcarrier. If we had guys back, that's an easy tackle out of bounds. What gives?
October 20th, 2015 at 5:34 PM ^
i thought there was pretty egregious holding on the "punt return" at the 15-yard-line. don't know who's being held, and i really can't bring myself to watch it again.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:03 PM ^
I think that's Lyons being held, but for the life of me I still don't understand how he didn't make some sort of play.
He's maintaing good leverage and not allowing a cutback and forcing to sidelines. The clip above in this post ends right before he should be forcing the blocker into the runner and the runner out of bounds.
My brain has erased any other memory of that play and i don't have the will to go find the whole thing and watch to see what happens a half second after above clip ends..
October 20th, 2015 at 6:19 PM ^
#24 Wayne Lyons. Don't really think he was being held though.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:51 PM ^
There's a video floating around of an endzone view of that play. The freeze-frame of the video (what you see before you hit the play button) shows the sparty defender with his hand over Lyons' #24. You can't see Lyons number because of the sparty grabbing and distorting his jersey. You can also see the ump staring right at the play, but he's 180 degrees out of view to see the hold. Just dumb luck for sparty on that play.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:07 PM ^
I thought it was holding too, but, like whether or not Sypniewski got fouled, it's not worth getting bent out of shape about, unlike:
1) the missed personal foul committed on Wormley - I nearly went through the roof because of that;
2) the Bolden ejection.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:36 PM ^
Myth confirmed. This was the absolute worst officiating I have ever seen in my life. Watching I thought it was a 10 point swing, but ~18 points is pure insanity. The replay official who watched that and still called targeting on GIdeon should be fired immediately. Holy shit.
October 21st, 2015 at 2:07 AM ^
The Alamo Bowl vs. Nebraska in 2005 was worse. That was like watching Hans Moleman's kids ref.
Oklahoma's getting completely boned at Autzen in 2006 is the most Godfather-ish reffing I've seen. This game is definitely up there though.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:36 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 5:37 PM ^
That's hot
October 20th, 2015 at 5:37 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2015 at 5:50 PM ^
One of the main things going into this was not to start clipping and assessing every hold. If it's a call I'd expect the refs to make less than 50% of the time it's not worth getting upset over, either way.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:02 PM ^
What's in the rule book obviously does not apply directly, it's more of a "I know it when I see it" sort of call by some informal code the refs won't share with us.
So I rarely even look for it anymore. It just gets called sometimes for reasons I don't understand.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:08 PM ^
I thought there was a hold on an M defender (23? the youngest Glasgow? did they burn his redshirt?) who was chasing down the punter (a second or two before Morgan stopped him). Didn't matter much (just a few yards of field position), but if Morgan didn't stop the punter just short it could've been huge. Any one else see that? I can't replay it because I deleted my recording in lieu of setting my DVR on fire.
October 20th, 2015 at 8:01 PM ^
about it immediately, but was appeased when they stopped him short. Definitey saw it the way you did, tho.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:38 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 5:45 PM ^
How can the B1G replay official overturn this clear helmet to helmet call last week vs. NW (there are actually two penalties committed on Rudock) yet NOT overturn the very clear non-targeting on Bolden (and for that matter the Henry call as well)?
Full-on incompetence.
October 20th, 2015 at 6:13 PM ^
If they cannot see that this is leading with the head with helmet to helmet contact, they have a major problem. And Rudock slid TWO yards before the second guy hit him (on the helmet as well). He was already attempting to get up.
October 20th, 2015 at 11:25 PM ^
What talking head types were saying ad nauseum about the Bolden play is that they are supposed to go by "if in doubt, it is targeting." I mean, if that's true, just because some talking heads said it and all that.
October 20th, 2015 at 7:31 PM ^
He should be fired.
Fin.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:49 PM ^
When I watched the play live, I thought there was holding on Peppers, and you can just barely see it in the video -- he's got a hand on the slot receiver when he makes his cut to the inside. You can't see it clearly from that angle, but I saw the receiver's jersey get pulled and I immedaitely started looking for a flag.
What confused me is that the official appeared to throw the flag very late and on the opposite side of the field -- the foul I saw was at about the 45 on the far side; the flag ended up at the 42 on the near side. Still, karmicly speaking, that one seemed legitimate to me -- even if the guy who threw the flag saw something different than I did, it would have balanced out.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^
I wanted to avoid tickytack defensive holding specifically because both teams are handsy. Again, if the refs aren't calling it more than 50% of the time it happens, let it go.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:54 PM ^
October 20th, 2015 at 5:58 PM ^
The fact that MSU wanted DPI called ever on Lewis is hliarious considering the way their defensive backs have played the last few years.
October 20th, 2015 at 5:58 PM ^
Even if you only count the 80%+ plays it's still well over 10 pts.
Though I thought this live I had since dropped it but this is so egregiously eye-opening I have to be the guy to bring it up:
When you look at the amount of $ that was on M in this game and then add in all the officiating blunders, some of which were at very important points in the game, it just begs for vegas/refs conspiracy talk.
Total speculation that is pointless and will never be proven and even if so we can't go back and change anything but, well i guess it just made me feel a tad better to get that off my chest.
Onward I suppose.
Comments