MGoFilm Analysis Ep. 4.1 || Penalties on Indiana

Submitted by FanNamedOzzy on October 18th, 2017 at 1:55 PM

Hey guys. Decided to analyze the officiating this week for the analysis. I started with the Indiana penalties / missed calls since I thought it'd be shorter. Well, the number of missed calls made it a bit longer than I thought it would be.

I added a counter at the top right of the screen to create easier discussion. Instead of having to describe the play, it allows you to just say "Clip 7" or "Play 9" or something. Hopefully that'll make things easier for everyone.

If you want to support this series, please subscribe to the MGoFish youtube channel. It will only increase the frequency of this content in the future!


View on YouTube

As always, I'm open to new suggestions on how I can improve these. They've come a long way from episode 1. Thanks for the positive feedback thus far and go blue!

**EDIT**

User AC1997 correctly mentioned the punt return in the 4th that set up an IU TD drive. There was a clear block in the back against IU on Glasgow that I failed to include in the video. After the Michigan video, I'll likely post a third one with some clean-up / fringe no-calls I didn't initially include or ones I missed.

Comments

Brhino

October 18th, 2017 at 2:05 PM ^

Question: Why are twiches from running backs always flagged as false starts?  They're allowed to be in motion, forward or otherwise, so long as they're not moving forward when the ball is snapped.  

VikingDiet

October 18th, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^

The same reason why an overly enthusiastic quarterback barking out the cadence can get called for a false start based on head movement. The motion acts to draw the defense offsides.

Motion is a legal movement and any effect it has on drawing the defense offsides is incidental, and no player may be moving toward the line of scrimmage at the snap of the ball, that is an illegal shift.

joeyb

October 18th, 2017 at 3:19 PM ^

You don't have to be moving laterally, just not toward the line. The 1 second rule is for setting the offense in general. The entire offense must remain set for 1 second before the snap with the exception of a single man in motion. If you have someone move toward the line or have more than one person go in motion at the same time, then you need to reset for 1 second before snapping.

lhglrkwg

October 18th, 2017 at 3:28 PM ^

But don't we often see a running back motion out of the backfield where (out of a shotgun set) the running back will take a step or two forward and then run out to a WR spot? I rarely see a running back out of shotgun go to the outside without taking a step forward first. Why isn't that a false start?

Bb011

October 19th, 2017 at 8:48 AM ^

For a similar reason that the defense can yell out plays or anything really, but can't yell hike or something to mimic the snap count. The offense can't make a sudden movement to draw the defense offsides( even if the twitch is an accident).

Sleepy

October 18th, 2017 at 2:11 PM ^

I would love for this to happen every week!  Except after Ohio State.  Because that would inevitably cause me to drop-kick my work computer out the window.  Which would be bad.  For me.  And the computer.

mGrowOld

October 18th, 2017 at 2:21 PM ^

1. Thank you for doing this.  Awesome job!

2. I subscribed as requested.

3. I would humbly suggest changing the font color for your descriptions to one color only (probably the yellow) as it's real hard to read the ones in red and having it four separate colors makes it difficult for the eye to focus on.

FanNamedOzzy

October 18th, 2017 at 2:25 PM ^

Fair enough with #3. Thought different colors would help align with my explanations of each as I'm going along, but can see why it would be hard to look at.

Perhaps a more "muted" version of each color would work better? A paler green, orange, red, etc.? I'm guessing that would still have the effect of distinguishing each description (good vs. questionable vs. bad vs. missed) without being hard on the eyes.

buddha

October 18th, 2017 at 2:24 PM ^

This analysis / video review definitely seems like a labor of love! Thank you for doing it and sharing with the board!

Question: In your reviews (not sure if you've done other reviews focused on the refs), have you noticed any tendencies in the refs? Meaning, have you noticed if refs / ref units have certain tendencies toward good / questionable / bad / missed calls? I'd be curious if some seemingly give Michigan the benefit of the doubt (or converse...actually, mostly converse. Not sure one has ever given UM the benefit of the doubt!).

 

FanNamedOzzy

October 18th, 2017 at 2:29 PM ^

It definitely is! Love going through the games and analyzing different aspects of it.

In regards to your question, this is the first time I really looked for penalties / analyzed each penalty, so I don't have any analysis outside of this game. I do think, especially after the Michigan part of this analysis, that the refs were just bad. Didn't seem like they were necessarily trying to give any team the benefit of the doubt or anything like you said.

Everything thus far points to an inconsistent but very flag-happy crew.

mGrowOld

October 18th, 2017 at 2:49 PM ^

And I really liked that you were something I am incapable of being.

Objective.

If the Intentional Grounding penalities that werent called actually werent intentional grounding (per the rules) I'm glad to know that.  

FWIW I work in marketing and one suggestion for the font color suggestion I raised would be to show several different versions to your significant other and just ask "which one is easiest for you to read?"  A lot of times I'll work on something that looks great to me only to find out I've gotten so immersed in the project I'm not seeing it the way others do.

Just my 2 cents.

FanNamedOzzy

October 18th, 2017 at 3:05 PM ^

Much appreciated! This one was very difficult to stay objective.

The potential intentional grounding plays were technically legal in regards to the rulebook, but the rules themselves are so damn vague, it really has to be thrown to the middle of nowhere for it to be called. A few rule-book gripes I have:

  1. A QB can throw a pass 25 yards over the head of a receiver out of bounds without it being a penalty. There needs to be a rule that takes into account the catchability of the ball thrown out of bounds, in my opinion.
  2. From the rule book "intentionally throws a desperation forward pass that falls incomplete where there is no eligible Team A receiver. It allows for so much wiggle room on what is defined as in the area. There are no specifics. Any rule without specifics suck.
  3. All rules on intentional grounding revolve around the concept of "saving yardage". There are none about saving time. There should be more rules set in place about grounding in situations to stop the clock.

I usually do ask my significant other in regards to styling, readability, etc. More often than not, though, I'm out of town, so when we do talk I try to stay away from topics about football (talk about that enough when we're together haha).

Appreciate all your suggestions, they're quite useful.

ijohnb

October 18th, 2017 at 2:34 PM ^

Two things on the Fant interference.

1) I absolutely think it is PI and I don't really know what the controversy is.  It might be the kind of play that is missed by the officials quite a bit, but I don't know how a defender holding onto the jersey of a reciever for the entire route including well after the ball is in the air is not interference.  I did not understand the uproar over this call at all.

2) Holy moly does McDoom need work as a reciever.  That ball was short from the moment it left O'Korn's hands and he should have been doing anything he could have to become a defender and break the ball up.  Neither that pass, nor anything that may require any improvisation should be thrown his way for quite some time.

 

FanNamedOzzy

October 18th, 2017 at 2:40 PM ^

This one I had a really rough time on. I called it bad since I kind of equate it to the Hill interception that was called DPI as well. I do think there is a strong case for the Fant INT being a valid DPI call, I just think it was irrelevant in regards to the outcome of the play.

I know that doesn't mean that the penalty shouldn't be called, but I guess it kind of goes with #2. I likely should have categorized it as "questionable".

AC1997

October 18th, 2017 at 2:38 PM ^

I hate feeling like a stereotype when I whine about the refs, but they are so bad.  Just SOOOOO bad.  I agree with almost all of your judgments.  I also agree that the OPI has gotten out of control in college and you might as well build your entire offense out of blatantly blocking DBs because it NEVER gets called.  The DPI is tougher and I did think that you got it mostly right.  The Crawford one bugged me during the game but the announcers never picked up on it.

The worst call of them all was the block on McCray.  That's the same type of hit that put Newsome in the hospital and that they called earlier.  It is very dangerous and very obvious.  

The one play I must have mis-watched live was the big IU punt return.  I swear I saw a very marginal block that looked like it could have been in the back right as he got started on the return.  Yet no one else has mentioned it and you didn't highlight it here, so maybe it was legal and I just am so used to any long return earning a flag somewhere. 

FanNamedOzzy

October 18th, 2017 at 2:42 PM ^

You're absolutely right - it was completely a block in the back. Kicking myself that I forgot it. I'll be sure to edit the OP to mention that call.

I'll likely make a third and final vid (after the Michigan one) where I include any plays I initially overlooked.

1VaBlue1

October 18th, 2017 at 3:03 PM ^

I saw both the Crawford DPI and the punt block in the back during the game.  With the DPI, it amazed me how Huard went on and on about how good Fant was there, despite the replay clearly showing Crawford turning, jumping, and raising his right hand for the ball while his left hand stayed glued on his butt.  One replay was all they showed...  It was like they didnt' want to go back and admit the mistake about how well the defense had played there.

The block in the back was also never mentioned.  But, honestly, on the replay I thought it was light enough, and late enough, that it wouldn't have affected the play.  So I didn't get all that worked up about it.  Sure would have been nice to have, though!

pescadero

October 18th, 2017 at 3:08 PM ^

The worst call of them all was the block on McCray. 

 

Definitely not - the McRay block was completely legal.

 

The only reason the earlier one was illegal was because it was a block from the side. A below the waist block which hits the defender from his front (as the McRay block did) is completely legal.

 

Coda17

October 18th, 2017 at 2:39 PM ^

I thought the block in the back was a maybe because he didn't block him that much, just prevented him from turning around. However, look at the crazy hold on Rashan Gary (I think it's Gary, the one who took down the QB). I don't know how that was missed as it was happening while he was tackling the quarterback. I saw this live and was already getting mad at how little our opponents get called for holding when they hold us half the time.

uncle leo

October 18th, 2017 at 2:43 PM ^

I could be alone in this. Is 10 yards on holding calls just WAY too much? I really feel like if a team gets a big gain on 2nd down and then basically loses a net 20 or so from a holding, it's the end of that drive.

I'd be all for that call being bumped down to 5 yards. There is holding on every play, it's just whether or not you get caught.

RDDGoblue

October 18th, 2017 at 3:03 PM ^

I feel like if there is a hold that keeps a QB upright on a 7 step drop, then 10 yards and replay the down is not enough.  The sack would be nearly a 10 yard loss and a loss of down as well.  

 

Maybe 5 yards from the spot of the foul and a loss of down?

Hail Harbo

October 18th, 2017 at 3:59 PM ^

A hold that prevents a sack is actually a penalty the offense should be glad to have.  Even if the hold occurs five yards back, the loss of down and the five yards is much more penal than no loss of down but a ten yard walk off.

Bo Glue

October 18th, 2017 at 2:45 PM ^

One thing I noticed though, on the block below McCray's waist. The rule you highlight mentions that both feet must be on the ground. But his left foot is clearly off the ground based on the way he flies when hit. If it were planted he'd probalby be down an ACL.

FanNamedOzzy

October 18th, 2017 at 2:52 PM ^

The rule reads:

"A block below the waist is a block in which the force of teh initial contact is below the waist of an opponent who has one or both feet on the ground. When in question, the contact is below the waist"

So it's not below the waist when the opponent is jumping. However, McCray did have one foot on the ground, so it should have been called. The only possible argument you could have is that the blocker hit McCray's hands above his waist, which is legal:

"A blocker who makes contact above the waist and then slides below the waist has not blocked below the waist. If the blocker first contacts the opposing player's hands at the waist or above, it is a legal 'above the waist' block."

I still think it should have been called a penalty, but maybe the hands part is what kept the refs from throwing it? Hard to say.

jackw8542

October 18th, 2017 at 3:05 PM ^

If you look at the PI call, McDoom was trying to move towards the ball and was pushed away by Fant, making it impossible for McDoom to get to the ball and giving Fant undisputed position for the interception.  If he does not push McDoom away, then McDoom either catches the pass or prevents the interception.  So, I think it was a good call for that reason - he kept McDoom from moving towards the throw.

ESNY

October 18th, 2017 at 3:26 PM ^

Haven't had a chance to review the video yet but I clearly recall Fant just straight arming and preventing McDoom from moving towards the ball which was much more egregious than tugging on the jersey.  Was not sure why the announcers ignored that aspect of it.  

You can't impede a WR from going after the ball unless you are going for the ball you don't have to cede your position.  Fant clearly illegally prevented McDoom from reaching the ball by straight arming him.  Even though he got the call, McDoom needs to do a better job selling it

Hail Harbo

October 18th, 2017 at 4:04 PM ^

The Zebra was pulling the flag even before the ball arrived.  It was a good call predicated upon the actual foul.  Compare and contrast with the Perry takedown which was completely and erroneously ignored though Perry tried to sell it after the fact.

taistreetsmyhero

October 18th, 2017 at 3:13 PM ^

Is really more a block in the side, and hardly a block at all. The intention of that rule is more to dissuade blindside blocks from offensive players coming in the opposite direction of the flow of the ballholder. The WR in this case is moving parallel to the play, and is never upfield of the ball, so it is not a block in the back. I would be pissed if someone called that against Michigan.

I also think that some of your defensive holding penalties, if called consistently, would kill the Michigan defense. Grabbing jerseys is pretty much a must for press coverage

umaz1

October 18th, 2017 at 3:25 PM ^

I watched the shortened version that cuts out between plays and commercials on YouTube. The refs in this game were absolutely horrendous. I was quite frankly surprised that Michigan won the game after seeing these atrocious calls and missed calls. This was on par with the OSU game last year. It seems that every week Michigan has to defeat their opponent and the refs.

pescadero

October 18th, 2017 at 3:37 PM ^

Throwaways to stop the clock aren't legal because of some nebulous receiver "in the area".

 

They are legal because the rule for intentional grounding requires that the throwaway be done "attempting to save yardage".

 

If you aren't under pressure when you throw it away - no receiver has to be anywhere.

kevin holt

October 19th, 2017 at 5:40 PM ^

Looked into this and it turns out to be incorrect.

"A forward pass is illegal if:
...
g. The passer to conserve time throws the ball forward into an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver.
h. The passer to conserve yardage throws the ball forward into an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver.
[Exception: It is not a foul if the passer is or has been outside the tackle box and throws the ball so that it crosses or lands beyond the neutral zone or neutral zone extended.]"