After further review

[Bayfieldgopher]

I watched the replay today and came to the following conclusions:
1. No way Stoudamire should have been called for a penalty after his catch. All he did was raise both arms in celebration of a great play and it certainly was not taunting.
2. Stoudamire's TD catch was properly overturned as he did not have control. But we scored anyway on the next play.
3. The Gophers got a huge break when T/A fumbled the play B4 the Immaculate Deflection TD. It was close but appeared he took two steps after he caught the ball and fumbled which the Illini recovered.
4. The next play was correct where Bennett grabbed the deflection but Illini should have been flagged for helmet:helmet contact.
5. The personal foul call against Dandridge on the sideline was no worse than two other uncalled late hits by the Illini on other plays.
6. Lawrence did brush the QB's helmet on the roughing the passer but it was incidental contact after he was blocked.
7. Roughing Hauden on our last possession was a correct call.
8. Alford got called for holding when he actually pancaked his man. Best block I have ever seen him make.
9. The pass interference against Campbell was a great play when he reached across the body of the receiver and batted the ball down. But that play often goes against the defender. The replay did not show Campbell's other hand on the receivers back but it wouldn't have mattered as the receiver had zero chance to catch the ball.
10. The holding against Kuznia was not available as they cut out that part of the game on the replay.
11. The horse collar against Wills was a non call as the runner was on his way down due to our other tackler's initital contact. But his hand was on the back of his shoulder pads.

We had some very good pass break ups by Sherels, Carter, Lawrence and the last one by Cooper.
Sherels had his best game. Brown was King of the Hill. Even though we gave up 34, I think this was our best D performance of the year. Certainly the best pass protection Weber has received.

Weber made many great throws and very few bad ones. The INT was due to the ref being in the way of McKnight and definitely was passinterference against the ref.

Absent the penalties, we played well. I hope this is not our best performance of the year.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Easy Bayfield...you're getting ahead of yourself. They don't play the Illini til this weekend

 

[GoldyPush-Ups]

Bayfield must have been referring to the Spartans rather than the Illini. Good to get a review from someone who got a chance to go back and watch the game again though. I can't blame Bayfield for being excited for the Illini game this weekend!

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

Just checking to see if you guys actually read it!! >])

 

[LloydChristmas]

Thanks for the great recap of the refereeing Bayfield.

I'll expect a full rebuttal from Jim Delaney on my desk in the morning

With such horrible BTN coverage & replays I'm surprised you were able to find adequate evidence.

 

[Section 100]

I watched the replay today and came to the following conclusions:
6. Lawrence did brush the QB's helmet on the roughing the passer but it was incidental contact after he was blocked.
10. The holding against Kuznia was not available as they cut out that part of the game on the replay.

6. Still a penalty regardless if it's intentional or not.
10. Without question, it was a tremendous hold.

 

[nsmike]

7. The call was running into the kicker not roughing. It was correctly called and all that was need on 4th and 1.

 

[Iceland12]

6. Still a penalty regardless if it's intentional or not.
10. Without question, it was a tremendous hold.

Agree. Kuznia hold also wasn't necessary, Gray was past him.

I also though that the holding call on Tow-Arnett was lame, he was just siting there and got flagged.

Damn good job by the way Bayfield!

Here's an explanation from a poster on ESPN on the Tow-Arnett fumble that was reversed. I also thought it was a fumble but he claims that College and Pro rules are different and that it wasn't a fumble under College rules. Does anyone know if he was right?

The play you are referring too wasn't a completed pass, at least not by rule, see section 7 of the NCAA football rule book, please note at the Pro level and some HS football levels it would have been a completed forward pass followed by a fumble.
A forward pass by rule can only be completed, incomplete, or an interception. In the play in question the receiver never demonstrated control of the pass as required by the rules (IE he did not tuck the ball in, nor did he remove one hand from the ball, or other requirements of the rule.) he simple spun and took between 1 and 3 steps, while the defenders arm was between his body and the football. Had he demonstrated control of the ball or had the defenders arms not be between his body and the football it would more likely been called a completed pass followed by a fumble.

Anybody?

 

[josh087]

The running into the kicker was very very weak. Give credit to Haudan, he held his kicking leg out there as long as possible hoping to draw contact. Then the MSU guy grazed his leg. Again, give credit to Blake for taking the dive, but I would be absolutely pissed about this call if I was an MSU fan.

Also, if I were an MSU fan I would be upset that the Bennett TD on the first play of the game and the fumble on the ensuing kickoff weren't at least reviewed. Upon watching them in a slow-mo frame by frame they were both correct calls, but I really think those both warranted reviews at the time.

Even the most arduant Gopher fan has to admit the Tow-Arnett catch was a fumble. That was a huge play. And it went against MSU.

The only one that really went against the Gophers was the denied Stoudamire TD. Basically the refs determined the ball was not tightly under his possession while his foot was in. This is where the B10 has to be more consistent. The Penn St. TD right before the half 2 weeks ago was basically the same play where the PSU guy had the ball sliding in his hands slightly but not out of control of possession. That one was ruled a TD, Troy's wasn't. They need to get together and make a judgement on the interpretation where the ball is sliding from the hands to the chest for posession.

There were many questionable calls that went against both teams. However, when it came to crunch time the Gophers got the most important calls of the night to go in their favor.

 

[grunkiejr]

Even the most arduant Gopher fan has to admit the Tow-Arnett catch was a fumble. That was a huge play. And it went against MSU.

Not true. Most fans and people that have played football consider it a catch because he had two hands on the ball and took two steps. Most people grew up with the understanding that that was what defined a catch. However, that isn't the definition anymore. Tow-Arnett didn't tuck the ball or make a football move before it was knocked out of his hands. I agree it looks like a catch--and most people consider it a catch--but under the technical definition of the rules it wasn't a catch. The refs actually made the right call on the play.

The only one that really went against the Gophers was the denied Stoudamire TD. Basically the refs determined the ball was not tightly under his possession while his foot was in. This is where the B10 has to be more consistent. The Penn St. TD right before the half 2 weeks ago was basically the same play where the PSU guy had the ball sliding in his hands slightly but not out of control of possession. That one was ruled a TD, Troy's wasn't. They need to get together and make a judgement on the interpretation where the ball is sliding from the hands to the chest for posession.

I'm not sure what you think you saw but Stoudermire lost control of the ball and the ball touched the ground which is why it was overruled by the replay officials.

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

I watched the replay today and came to the following conclusions:
1. No way Stoudamire should have been called for a penalty after his catch. All he did was raise both arms in celebration of a great play and it certainly was not taunting.

NCAA Football Rule 9-2, Article 1(a)(1)(d) prohibits "Any delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which a player (or players) attempts to focus attention upon himself (or themselves)"; in addition, Rule 9-2, Article 1(a)(2) asserts that "After a score or any other play, the player in possession immediately must return the ball to an official or leave it near the dead-ball spot."

He broke two of these stipulations with a choreographed act which focused attention on himself, and he did not immediately return the ball to the official or leave it near the dead ball spot.

I think if he had dropped the ball and then celebrated there would be no flag or at least less of chance of one.

 

[grunkiejr]

NCAA Football Rule 9-2, Article 1(a)(1)(d) prohibits "Any delayed, excessive, prolonged or choreographed act by which a player (or players) attempts to focus attention upon himself (or themselves)"; in addition, Rule 9-2, Article 1(a)(2) asserts that "After a score or any other play, the player in possession immediately must return the ball to an official or leave it near the dead-ball spot."

He broke two of these stipulations with a choreographed act which focused attention on himself, and he did not immediately return the ball to the official or leave it near the dead ball spot.

I think if he had dropped the ball and then celebrated there would be no flag or at least less of chance of one.

So in your world raising your arms is a choreographed act?

In general practice that level of celebration does not warrant a penalty.

 

[Too Long in the Wasteland]

I watched the replay the other day, too. I had noticed many of the things you did. Here are some other notes:

1.Great stiffarm by Stoudemire on the opening kickoff return
2.On the interception Weber threw, the ref had an excellent pick on our receiver. That said, it was a ball that never should have been thrown.
3.Like you said, the overturned TD against Stoudemire was moot (other than it cost me 6 in my BT FFL), but I thought there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it
4.Brilliant display of arm tackling by our special teams on MSU's TD runback
5.I agree that our secondary had some great pass breakups. Both Sherels and Cooper. Sherels is a Mason recruit, but I think Brewster's recruiting is already making a difference in our defense.
6.I agree with the announcers that McKnight made a pro-quality catch on an NFL type play on his big catch late in the game. Kudos to Fisch for drawing up that play.
7.You go back and watch it a few times, and we got a gift on that replay fumble non-call. MSU fans will be beeyotching about that one ten years from now like we still complain about the PU endzone call, the PSU phantom PI, etc, etc...
8.I agree with Ski U that if Stoudemire had just put the ball down he wouldn't have gotten flagged for 15.
9.I can't comment on the running into the kicker penalty, as my DVR ran out right before that play (I had my wife set up the recording, and she didn't add enough extra time).

 

[Gopher024]

Regarding #3

I respectfully disagree. I rewatched this several times and here is my conclusion:

a) He made the catch with his arms fully extended
b) In the replay from behind the offense, as he's bring the ball in his hands are briefly off the ball. Watch closely and you'll see the ball slightly rotate
c) He then regains control as he is tucking the ball away. It's at that moment that the ball is completely knocked free

He never had firm control throughout the play and that's why it was ruled incomplete. You can argue that it wasn't enough evidence, but in my opinion (trying not to be biased) it was the correct call.

 

[PlayHosea]

About point 6.=It's a penalty, no doubt in my mind, Lawrence hit his helmet, but does his penalty nullify everything that happened prior to him "roughing"? Cousins was in the pocket and threw the ball a good 10 yards out of bounds. Grounding in my book.

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

So in your world raising your arms is a choreographed act?

In general practice that level of celebration does not warrant a penalty.

He's gotta put the ball down! That's the deal breaker for the flag imo.

 

[josh087]

Not true. Most fans and people that have played football consider it a catch because he had two hands on the ball and took two steps. Most people grew up with the understanding that that was what defined a catch. However, that isn't the definition anymore. Tow-Arnett didn't tuck the ball or make a football move before it was knocked out of his hands. I agree it looks like a catch--and most people consider it a catch--but under the technical definition of the rules it wasn't a catch. The refs actually made the right call on the play.

Please don't talk to me like I don't know the rules, or am some cenile 60 year old, or that you have some secret that nobody else knows about officiating. Nowhere in my original post did I say anything about two steps. I know what the rule states. By definition the rule of a "football move" is a subjective decision that can vary from official to official. Since it is an judgement call, there is no technical definition other than the subjectivity of the official determining whether a "football move" was made. It's basically the same thing as a check swing in baseball - a judgement decision. Also the tuck can be subjective. Runners hold the ball in different ways. A Tiki Barber possession is probably going to look a lot different than a Deion Sanders possession for example. The facts of the play are that Nick caught the ball with two hands and his back facing the endzone, and ended up with his back facing Weber and the ball underneath only his right arm before it came loose. Certainly you could argue pretty easily he both had the ball tucked and made the dreaded "football move." Heck, he even turned his head slightly as he moved upfield to see whether someone was behind him. To me, subjectively, this would constitute posession and a turnover. For some reason the official felt otherwise. But it wasn't because he was following the secret "letter of the law" when it comes to posession. He made a subjective decision.

 

[ncgo4]

"Cenile (sp) 60 year old"!?! 60 is still a kid! 60 year old girls are cute but too young to marry!

 

[highwayman]

The running into the kicker was very very weak. Give credit to Haudan, he held his kicking leg out there as long as possible hoping to draw contact. Then the MSU guy grazed his leg. Again, give credit to Blake for taking the dive, but I would be absolutely pissed about this call if I was an MSU fan.

I respectfully disagree on this one. As a kicker, the only way you can make a good kick is to "follow through and hold" after the kick. It's standard training on any ball striking motion, in any sport--football, golf, baseball.

The "exaggerated" hold of the leg in the kick is technique every kicker is taught. As far as the contact, the referees will give you a contact with the body, but almost never, never, never, contact with the leg. The MSU defender was not blocked into Haudan, he followed through with his momentum and fell over a blocker.

The rule is there to protect the kicker, who is in a very vulnerable position. The ref had his flag out before Haudan even hit the ground, so a "dive" was redundant.

 

[GoAUpher]

Please don't talk to me like I don't know the rules, or am some cenile 60 year old, or that you have some secret that nobody else knows about officiating. Nowhere in my original post did I say anything about two steps. I know what the rule states. By definition the rule of a "football move" is a subjective decision that can vary from official to official. Since it is an judgement call, there is no technical definition other than the subjectivity of the official determining whether a "football move" was made. It's basically the same thing as a check swing in baseball - a judgement decision. Also the tuck can be subjective. Runners hold the ball in different ways. A Tiki Barber possession is probably going to look a lot different than a Deion Sanders possession for example. The facts of the play are that Nick caught the ball with two hands and his back facing the endzone, and ended up with his back facing Weber and the ball underneath only his right arm before it came loose. Certainly you could argue pretty easily he both had the ball tucked and made the dreaded "football move." Heck, he even turned his head slightly as he moved upfield to see whether someone was behind him. To me, subjectively, this would constitute posession and a turnover. For some reason the official felt otherwise. But it wasn't because he was following the secret "letter of the law" when it comes to posession. He made a subjective decision.

This is why:
1) This rule is dumb. Something like possession should not be such a subjective call.
2) Stop arguing with each other. If it's subjective then you're both right (or wrong...all depends on your perspective, just like the call).

 

[GoGophers2005]

You guys (and the refs) totally missed the boat on the Weber interception over the middle. The reason our receiver bumped into the ref was because the Michigan State linebacker tried to tackle our WR. The ball also happened to be in the air when the LB did this and thus should have been a pass interference penalty on MSU. Once the ball is in the air, even within 5 yards, the defense cannot do what the MSU LB did.

The taunting penalty on Stoudermire was rediculous. I do 10 times more taunting when I'm eating a rack of ribs.

I also agree that if our hit out of bounds was called a penalty that there were at least 2 others that should have been called on MSU that weren't.

 

[GVBadger]

I thought for sure it was an obvious catch and fumble, but a play almost exactly like the play in the Gophers game happened in the Purdue and Wisconsin game. Refs called fumble, replay clearly shows receiver had control of ball and two feet on ground, call is over turned.

I think the refs are calling it one way and the replay guys are calling it another. Both plays the player clearly had control of the ball and both plays were overturned.

They should do something to clarify this rule in the off season.

 

[josh087]

This is why:
1) This rule is dumb. Something like possession should not be such a subjective call.
2) Stop arguing with each other. If it's subjective then you're both right (or wrong...all depends on your perspective, just like the call).

I wasn't arguing about the subjectivity of the call. You can have your opinion on it. Grunkiejr said that it wasn't a catch because of the technical definition of posession. Sorry, but there is no rule of possession that he was following.

 

[josh087]

I respectfully disagree on this one. As a kicker, the only way you can make a good kick is to "follow through and hold" after the kick. It's standard training on any ball striking motion, in any sport--football, golf, baseball.

When did I say Haudan did anything wrong? I was complimenting him on the play.

The "exaggerated" hold of the leg in the kick is technique every kicker is taught. As far as the contact, the referees will give you a contact with the body, but almost never, never, never, contact with the leg. The MSU defender was not blocked into Haudan, he followed through with his momentum and fell over a blocker.

Of course they're taught that. But it's not because the exxagerated hold technique gives you an extra 10 yards on the kick. It's to draw penalties - and he did it well, again, to his credit. Look in soccer. You don't ever see goalies sticking their leg out there for 3-4 seconds after they release a punt. They don't need to get their leg down quickly since there is nobody around them - yet you don't see them holding it unnecessarily. What about FG kickers. They don't hold their leg out there either. If it truly helped with distance and technique, wouldn't they do it too?

The rule is there to protect the kicker, who is in a very vulnerable position. The ref had his flag out before Haudan even hit the ground, so a "dive" was redundant.

There's been a couple times this year where Haudan has been hit in the leg (Wisconsin) and a penalty wasn't called, not even running into the kicker. This isn't an automatic call anymore.

 

[GoAUpher]

I wasn't arguing about the subjectivity of the call. You can have your opinion on it. Grunkiejr said that it wasn't a catch because of the technical definition of posession. Sorry, but there is no rule of possession that he was following.

All he said was that there wasn't a football move. Yes, he attempted to define what a football move was (he mentioned a tuck). But that's my point. His "technical definition" is just another subjective opinion on the situation. If its subjective then every one of us gets to have our own definition of what it means. And that is why its a stupid rule change (and why its not worth arguing over).

 

[josh087]

It is a dumb rule change, agreed.

 

[50PoundHead]

3. Coin flip on the Tow-Arnett fumble. As has been pointed out, I've seen them go both ways, so I'll take it.

5. I thought the Dandridge penalty was a classic "retaliation" call in that the MSU player clearly blocked him the back when he was standing out-of-bounds after the play was over. The ref was busy spotting the ball and looked up to see Dandridge push the MSU player without seeing what precipitated Dandridge's action.

6. Sorry to say it, but correct call. It was ticky-tack, but Lawrence's arm came up late in an attempt to hit Cousins' throwing arm well after the ball had been released and his hand brushed Cousins' face-mask. Again, I've seen worse not called and less called, but I accepted the call.

9. Campbell made a great play. Terrible, terrible call.

11. As in the case of the Lawrence penalty, ticky-tack, but clearly callable. Wills' hands were inside the MSU player's pads even though it had nothing to do with the MSU player being tackled. Tough call not to make because it was pretty obvious where Wills' hands were.

Agree on the Weber interception. I think it was McKnight who ran into the official, but not before he was mugged by the MSU defender. Refs are "part of the field" so they have to be navigated around, but the ref probably wasn't in the best of positions. Maybe someone who refs can help me out with my impression, right or wrong.

 

[grunkiejr]

It is a dumb rule change, agreed.

I agree with you that it is a dumb rule the way it was rewritten. In my opinion (and I think the opinion of most people that played football) what happened should be considered a catch. If I were in Tow-Arnett's position and dropped/fumbled the ball I would tell you that I caught the ball and was stripped of the ball. However, I just watched the play again on the BTN replay and I can see why the replay official overturned the call because IMO there wasn't a football move or tuck yet. I don't agree with the definition of the rule but given the definition I agree with the interpretation by the replay official.

 

[harrys ghost]

I agree with you that it is a dumb rule the way it was rewritten. In my opinion (and I think the opinion of most people that played football) what happened should be considered a catch. If I were in Tow-Arnett's position and dropped/fumbled the ball I would tell you that I caught the ball and was stripped of the ball. However, I just watched the play again on the BTN replay and I can see why the replay official overturned the call because IMO there wasn't a football move or tuck yet. I don't agree with the definition of the rule but given the definition I agree with the interpretation by the replay official.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there almost exactly the same situation in the OSU game. Didn't Posey make a "catch" inside the five and Sherels reached around him and poked the ball out (as Posey was headed toward the end zone)? It ended up incomplete after review.