The Overturn

Submitted by Brian on September 15th, 2009 at 12:11 PM

I addressed a couple of the Notre Dame officiating complaints after the game in yesterday's UV but didn't get around to the big one (other than what I'm pretty sure will be specious complaint about the holding call on Rudolph's screen touchdown, as I've seen a number of Michigan DL hogtied in the first half already). That would be the overturn of Armando Allen's screen touchdown, which was… you know… correct:


Notre Dame fans are accusing Big Ten referees of bias because they did not call Allen out of bounds despite the fact he was, and they are complaining that the video review made a correct call. This may be the most very special instance of internet Notre Dame mentality ever.

The argument here relies on the idea that the review was "inconclusive" given the replays shown on the TV, but those things are not necessarily the same things the replay guy sees. If we are parsing the shadows and whatnot—some Notre Dame fans see that picture and suggest that Allen's heel is not out of bounds—then we're back to semantics. What is "voluntary"? What is "conclusive"? If I close my eyes, does the universe cease existing?

The call was correct. You are not allowed to complain about a referee getting something right. That's not how complaints work.



September 15th, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^

Michigan fans should be complaining the RR had to take a timeout to give the refs time to review it. Isn't the rule that "every play is reviewed" and an official review is just an instance of where they want more time?

If so, why did we have to burn a timeout to give the refs more time on a borderline, major impact, play that should have been thoroughly reviewed in the first place?

Kilgore Trout

September 15th, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^

I don't think anyone is saying we should have challenged it instead of taking a time out, we're saying that the refs should have called down for a review on their own before it got to the point of UM needing to call a time out to give them more time. Every play is under review and it was obvious instantly that the play was at least close enough to have a second look.

matty blue

September 15th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^

i know it's fashionable to make fun of claussen, and all that - and i enjoy it, too - but i don't think you can count him out of it yet. he's completed 67% of his passes for 330 yards a game with 7 touchdowns and no picks. he certainly hasn't done anything to remove himself from the race.

well, nothing except that dance. yeesh.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^

Exactly Brian. I think ND fans are just grasping at anything they can find to bitch about the loss. Would have, could have, should have does not count in sports nor life. So what if they called this play back (it was correct), they had 4 more plays to put points up on the board. Instead of bitching about a call that you think is egregious, they should bitch that their kicker missed an easy field goal or their offense couldn't put it in the endzone.

It wasn't the refs fault for making a CORRECT call. It was the ND offenses fault for not capitalizing on excellent field position and a 1st and 10 from where ever the hell they spotted that ball.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^

I was wondering why Michigan called a timeout and when it came back on I then realized why. I felt it was better to call a timeout then using a review because they might have needed it later on in the game. It was so close but he was out and Notre Dame fans need to stop crying.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^

Yesterday on Blue Gray Sky some commenter said (and I'm pretty close to quoting verbatim here) "there is a difference between evidence, conclusive evidence, and proof."

Which may be true in a courtroom Mr. Law-Talking Guy With a Degree From South Bend, but...My.God. The photo is right there. You can see it, and it's conclusive.

And if I'm wrong about any of this, then I'll fall back on this- God doesn't like you, Notre Dame fans. He smiles when you cry. Deal with it.


September 15th, 2009 at 2:19 PM ^

I say we take a cue from ABC and cut to her every time we need a Notre Dame response.


Anyone with time and a good player up for getting us a database of various Hot ND Chick facial expressions? I think I counted about 20 during the broadcast, covering the entire emotional range.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^

Michigan benefited from three huge and dubious calls.

1. The overturned int. Ok, two days later we look at video evidence, but at the time it seemed weird to overturn it when the camera angles available were hardly conclusive.

2. The terrible holding penalty that overturned a 60 yard completion to ND's tight end. This was huge, and was a horrible call.

3. The "taunt." This was another bad call, as contrary to claims made on this site, is not always called. Regardless, the complaint is more about why was that called and not the shove by Cissoko in front of the same ref?

Michigan got the breaks by the refs in this game, no doubt about it at all. Accept it and move on instead of claiming that sshing the crowd is a clear 15 yard penalty. Child, please.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:50 PM ^

1. The refs made the correct call, but because they made the correct call with less than perfect evidence this means they made the wrong call. Got it.


3. Despite being the right call, they shouldn't have called it, because they don't always call it. Ok. Also, no one is disputing Cissoko probably could have got a penalty for that shove. Which was in the 2nd Q IIRC, and ND scored on that drive anyway.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^

Michigan got all the breaks in that parallel universe you live in, buddy. I should know, I spent time in that same universe after our game last year, and after that 2005 game when we were jobbed out of a touchdown.

"Accept it and move on."


September 15th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^

Anytime the OL latches on and twists the way Young did on Graham on the play in question will get flagged.

ND got flagged for it early in the game (so did Michigan, by the way. The refs have been told by the NCAA to be more vigilant with latch and twist moves) and they did not adjust their blocking style. Young needed to latch and twist on that play or the defender gets the QB and screen pass never happens. Sadly for Young and ND, that is a clear holding violation.

Learn the rules, chief. And quit cry babbying it up.


September 15th, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^

I feel that we should assemble a set of dubious calls and non-calls that went against us, and then sit around and complain about how we didn't win by 17. That should help balance out all the whining coming from the Notre Dame fans, and then maybe we could all call it even and admit that it was an awesome game that Michigan won.

Also, for what it's worth, it looked to me that on the long screen pass completion overturned by a holding call, our defenders let up on the gas, like they saw the holding call and didn't want to get in any trouble (see: the earlier screen pass, which also generated a holding flag, but also resulted in a face mask penalty on the tackle, canceling out the holding). I'm not sure that's really what you want your defenders to be doing (what if it wasn't actually a holding call?) but that's what it looked like from my point of view.

matty blue

September 15th, 2009 at 1:39 PM ^

watch #2 again. the reason claussen had time to wait for a crossing tight end was a CLEAR holding on the wing...and don't forget the shitty pass interference call the play before that got n.d. out of the end zone after forcier's punt. as we like to say, you can't have on without the other.


September 15th, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^

#1: So you're saying Michigan benefited that the refs made the right call? And this is wrong/lucky how? Were the refs supposed to have made the wrong call?

#2: Could be right, could be wrong; also could have just not shown on the TV angle - ref sees a different angle, and clearly thought he saw a hold.

#3: The rules explicitly state that this is a penalty. Whether it's always called or not is a red herring. It's always *supposed* to be called. A violation of code = penalty. If the beef is about an unrelated act that you think should have been called, I don't see why this penalty is brought up at all.


September 15th, 2009 at 2:45 PM ^

If you want to complain about holding calls, please re-watch the game and see how many times Brandon Graham was held with no call. The fact is Notre Dame had the ball and the lead with less than five minutes left in the game. They have no excuses.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^

I think the Domer's issue is that they used the video replay instead of an MS paint version of what "actually happened". Maybe mommatheregoesthatman can help out on the re-enactment.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:52 PM ^

I could be wrong, but I thought I remember seeing that specific angle on the ABC broadcast while the play was being reviewed. That was actually the angle where he looked _less_ out of bounds. This shot made the ABC crew think that maybe there's not enough evidence to overturn it. So, WNDU is full of crap. Maybe I just dreamed all of that, I'll have to watch it again.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^

The claim of Photoshopped or anti-catholic bias can be solved if we'd just looked for the sideline chalk on the kid's shoes, it's there.

I find it interesting when ND coaches and fans complain about bad calls. ND gets that "Home Cooking" every time in their stadium. It must be the reflection from that golden dome. Their refs only has eyes for ND.

South Bend is one of the toughest places for visiting teams to win at because of the bias calls that ND receives. When you take them away from their stadium they become as every other team... beat-able.


September 15th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^

Rich Rod said in his press conference he called the timeout after seeing it on the replay board. (we need to create an award for the video crew).

The rule is that every play is reviewed, but only until the next play. ND lined up quick and tried to kick the point so there would not be time to review......the timeout stopped them and gave time for the review.


September 15th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^

You know, it helps to read the article you are commenting on.

The argument here relies on the idea that the review was "inconclusive" given the replays shown on the TV, but those things are not necessarily the same things the replay guy sees. If we are parsing the shadows and whatnot—some Notre Dame fans see that picture and suggest that Allen's heel is not out of bounds—then we're back to semantics. What is "voluntary"? What is "conclusive"? If I close my eyes, does the universe cease existing?

The call was correct. You are not allowed to complain about a referee getting something right. That's not how complaints work.