First Disallowed TD

Submitted by GPCharles on October 11th, 2021 at 8:52 AM

The tv announcers said if the runner had the point of the football pointed forward instead of straight up and down, it would have be ruled a TD.  I thought all the ball had to do was break the plane of the goal line and ball orientation didn't matter.  That football clearly broke the plane.

Can someone explain it to me?

carolina blue

October 11th, 2021 at 8:55 AM ^

This is correct. The way he was holding the ball (straight up and down) had a direct effect on whether the ball broke the plane. In other words, if he had been holding the ball pointing laterally with the same hand position, the ball likely would have broken the plane and he scores. His grip position on the ball is what made him a few inches short. 

mgobaran

October 11th, 2021 at 10:12 AM ^

I feel like this is a weird complaint after the Nebraska game. 

The play above was a run from the 5 to the 1 foot line. Haskins scored a TD following that, if it wasn't for McNamara's knee hitting the ground before the handoff.

1st TD was a 3 yard rush by Haskins.

2nd TD was a 3 yard rush by Haskins.

Those were the only three chances inside the 5 yard line and all three of them are TDs by Haskins if Cade doesn't trip so easy. 

mgobaran

October 11th, 2021 at 1:35 PM ^

I'm not looking for someone to blame. The coaches blew it in my opinion by not running back to back QB sneaks. When you choose to go backwards from the 1 foot line to hand off, a bunch of things can happen to lose yards. One of those things happened. All that being said, plenty of QBs have made that handoff before their knee goes down. Or had the instinct in scramble mode to pitch the ball back before the knee hits. One of the contributing factors to that play was how quickly Cade's knee went down. 

That being said, my post was mainly about aside from that fluke, Haskins punches in 3 TDs on all three opportunities inside the 5-yard line. The original OP was complaining about needing old players in order to accomplish that, but our current guys are doing just fine. 

O S Who

October 11th, 2021 at 9:03 AM ^

I personally think Haskins made a good call not pointing the ball out in that scenario. That was a long reach and the odds of fumble are high even with the way he held it. Pointing it out seems even more risky to me

kalamazoo

October 11th, 2021 at 11:54 AM ^

I also feel like he was stretching as much as he could (this run and on a few others) without losing the ball or having someone else punch it out.

It is always a risk and I feel he was trying to take the appropriate amount of risk on this and several other plays...definitely aggressive but not "balancing it on his finger" dangerous.

Haskins really gave it a flying chance, optimizing it in my view. Worked hard for the yards whereas many other running backs would have been stopped at the 1.5 yard line.

Blue Vet

October 11th, 2021 at 9:55 AM ^

End of story? You make a good point, that the key thing Saturday was the outcome of the game, and "End of story" is an emphatic line, like a verbal mike drop.

However, the story doesn't end there. What we all read & write & talk about—the reason we're on MGoBlog—is because we relish going over it all.

For instance, if the outcome really was the end of the story, you wouldn't have posted.

XM - Mt 1822

October 11th, 2021 at 9:19 AM ^

actually, the 'first' disallowed TD was the play before, the pass to our WR (# 85?) who had both hands solidly on the ball and in bounds at the back of the end zone.  the ball was knocked out after they had both crossed the end line.  no review.  shades of the calvin johnson, 'complete the catch' nightmare of years ago.

Blue Vet

October 11th, 2021 at 10:02 AM ^

Football's a weird sport. 22 large people run into each other, often at full speed, and then the result of all the collisions is measured almost microscopically. It'd be like digging with a backhoe and then measuring the the hole in millimeters.

In this case, the apparent absolute—and nearly sacred—certainty of "breaking the plane" bumbles against the innately vague and subjective "control of the ball through the whole process."

Don

October 11th, 2021 at 9:38 AM ^

You posed a question premised on your opinion—"That football clearly broke the plane"—and respondents disagreed with your premise, as well as explaining the context of the ref's decision.

Nobody at MGoBlog is obligated to agree with you or to refrain from criticizing an opinion they think is erroneous.

Blue Vet

October 11th, 2021 at 10:08 AM ^

Just as football's a weird sport (see my comment above), MGoBlog's a weird site.

Not only do we agree and disagree, we criticize lots of agreement ("Everybody's like sheep and not seeing the deeper point!") AND lots of disagreement ("Why all this negative stuff? Can't we all just get along?")

GoBluePhil

October 11th, 2021 at 9:34 AM ^

The point of the matter is that the point of the ball was not close enough to get to the point where the ball crossed the plane of the goal.  So that makes your point no point at all.  

M Ascending

October 11th, 2021 at 9:54 AM ^

As noted by everyone,  the call on the goal line was correct.  What really Frosts my nebrASSka is the no-call on the clear offsides on Cade's INT. Nebraska's left edge rusher (no. 2) clearly crossed the line early and even he knew it, as he stopped momentarily and then continued rushing when he realized the play wasn't called dead. Very poorly officiated game both ways, in which the review process made it slightly less terrible. 

Perkis-Size Me

October 11th, 2021 at 10:09 AM ^

As much as I hated the result of that drive, the calls made there were the correct ones. Haskins did not break the plane, and Cade's knee was down before he definitively got the ball into Haskin's hands on the next drive. 

Michigan won so at this point its moot, but I couldn't really argue with the calls at that point in time. 

kehnonymous

October 11th, 2021 at 10:13 AM ^

This probably is an indictment of me more than anyone else, but TWELVE DAMN YEARS LATER, I legit still get triggered at the thought of us at 1st and goal from the one, because of the 2009 Illinois game where we got stonwalled four times and opened the floodgates to a 38-13 debacle. 

I know that 2021 != 2009 and that you wanna be at 1st and goal from the 1 and that I'm being completely irrational, but we're all here on this blog so who among us is truly rational?

mGrowOld

October 11th, 2021 at 10:37 AM ^

I'll see your 12 year angst over a blown goal line call and will raise you an additional 33 years.

Behold the play that's burned into my and any other old Michigan fan from the 1976 Rose Bowl.  Charles White scores from the three yard line (notice the PAC10 Ref indicating TD while the Big 10 ref has it correctly as Michigan ball

Worst Calls Ever -- to Go Against MIchigan | mgoblog

10 Iconic Moments in College Football History – Top Ten Online Colleges

M_Born M_Believer

October 11th, 2021 at 10:56 AM ^

Cool Story Bro ALERT*****

A friend of mine was the Sports Editor for the University of Michigan paper back late 90's.  He told me that he got to interview Bo in his office one day.  Apparently Bo had a huge photo of the 2nd photo you have there hanging on the wall behind his desk.  My friend asked him about it (he was only 20 at the time thus not old enough to know better) and he told me that Bo went on a ranting tirade for about 30 minutes over that moment and photo.

Yay, one can say that moment was a huge sore point for Bo and the Michigan fanbase.....

mGrowOld

October 11th, 2021 at 11:31 AM ^

Sports Editor Friend Interviewing Bo: "Wow Bo that call sure got you plenty fired up.  I never knew.

Can we take a few minutes and talk about something less upsetting.  Something that probably never, ever happens in a game - I dunno......hmmmm.....how about we talk about phantom holding calls on fake punts.  I'll bet that never happened huh?"

BlueMan80

October 11th, 2021 at 12:07 PM ^

As you drag other past horrors out of the closet....

I watched the Nebraska game with my freshman year roommate who just happened to be swinging by the Chicago area on his way home.  As the replays and bad juju started to roll into the game, he starts getting really negative and fatalistic.  "Here we go again!"  I had to talk him down from the ledge.  Those previous horrors have left some lasting scars.

MacMarauder

October 11th, 2021 at 11:06 AM ^

The bad luck for us was that they had a perfect unobstructed view from the goal line camera. Most of the time on the goal line there are bodies everywhere and it's hard to get a good view of the ball so they stick with the call on the field.

samsoccer7

October 11th, 2021 at 11:09 AM ^

You don't have to hold the ball any certain way when crossing the plane.  It's just that if he held it turned 90 degrees the point would have been sticking out enough to cross the goalline before he was down.  That's all.  It's kind of a stupid comment to make b/c it's all happening so fast, and the chance for a fumble if he starts moving it around.

rice4114

October 11th, 2021 at 11:23 AM ^

Is nobody going to mention that the refs blew the whistle for replay after the snap? The ball was hiked with the points on the board. Crazy how that didnt become an issue for our coaches?

LSAClassOf2000

October 11th, 2021 at 12:12 PM ^

It really came down to orientation as has been described - if the football is oriented along the long axis, the tip breaks the plane before his knee hits the ground. It was oriented along the short axis, however, so those couple inches made all the difference. Physics, geometry....all at play here.