The Gophers likely lose the USC and UCLA games without Koi Perich's big plays. They'd have a 2-5 record right now.

[highwayman]

Yes, you can change one play late in a game and know the outcome. That would be an absurd erroneous penalty on an onside kick that we executed successfully and set ourselves up to win.

Nope. Gophers could throw pick next play. Time is linear.

 

[Dakota2]

Nope. Gophers could throw pick next play. Time is linear.

Once again, you can change one play and know the outcome. We successfully recovered the onside kick. The officials made the wrong call, giving the ball to Michigan and the ability to run out the clock.

Refs changed the play incorrectly to GUARANTEE Michigan the win.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Once again, you can change one play and know the outcome. We successfully recovered the onside kick. The officials made the wrong call, giving the ball to Michigan and the ability to run out the clock.

Refs changed the play incorrectly to GUARANTEE Michigan the win.

You are describing what actually happened in the game.....there is no change there.....the refs made the call they did (everyone agrees it was a bad call) and yeah, making that call essentially guaranteed Michigan the win (although we did have another shot at the onside kick after the bogus call on the first one). But again....that is what actually happened.

You keep arguing with everyone that had the call not been made the Gophers were guaranteed to win and that is what others are trying to point out is not accurate but you are getting ultra defensive about it. If the ref doesn't make the bogus offsides call there definitely is a strong chance we end up winning that game.....but it was in no way shape or form a sure thing. We still would have had to execute multiple plays and something certainly could have happened over the course of those plays that would have kept us from winning. Or we could have ended up in overtime and lost there. There simply is no way to know for sure and that is all anyone is saying.

Nobody disputes that it was a horrible call and it sucks that it went against us because it robbed us of the chance to try and win the game after the onside kick was recovered.

 

[PMWinSTP]

One could also say Gophs lose both games without Max, or Jackson, or...

...but they won with the players they played.

 

[Flecknation]

Posts like these are so dumb. Yes, Koi showed up, you could probably say the same about ever team in the nation and their star player. Bama could have 3 loses if it wasn’t for (insert blank) player

Insert
"The Gophers likely lose the USC and UCLA games without QB Max Brosmer touchdowns"

 

[Dakota2]

You are describing what actually happened in the game.....there is no change there.....the refs made the call they did (everyone agrees it was a bad call) and yeah, making that call essentially guaranteed Michigan the win (although we did have another shot at the onside kick after the bogus call on the first one). But again....that is what actually happened.

You keep arguing with everyone that had the call not been made the Gophers were guaranteed to win and that is what others are trying to point out is not accurate but you are getting ultra defensive about it. If the ref doesn't make the bogus offsides call there definitely is a strong chance we end up winning that game.....but it was in no way shape or form a sure thing. We still would have had to execute multiple plays and something certainly could have happened over the course of those plays that would have kept us from winning. Or we could have ended up in overtime and lost there. There simply is no way to know for sure and that is all anyone is saying.

Nobody disputes that it was a horrible call and it sucks that it went against us because it robbed us of the chance to try and win the game after the onside kick was recovered.

I will tell you exactly why I "keep arguing with everyone" and hopefully you will accept this and not feel compelled to continue to write War and Peace-length chapters to tell me everything that might have gone wrong if we were correctly awarded the ball.

I want this talked about. On GH, BTN, SportsCenter, Outkick, the China Daily or anywhere else. Not because the Gophers lost a game that they had odds on favor of winning with a correct call.

This is horrible for college football. It robs our game of credibility. This play has to be reviewed to get it right. We review close first down rulings. We endlessly review catches from the first minute of the game onward. We review a foot touching the chalkline, TDs, turnovers, and sometimes the official clock.

Yet we do not review a critical play at the end of a game that literally guaranteed Michigan a win.

Sadly, on GH, bringing this up gets a standard "You don't know that for sure". We might have turned the ball over the first play (odds anyone?), we might have had multiple penalties, we don't score a TD and Kessich misses a chipshot (can't be ruled out but odds are good the opposite happens).

None of that is the real issue. The real issue is something is very wrong with this policy of no official review and people should be calling for a change.

 

[MNVCGUY]

I will tell you exactly why I "keep arguing with everyone" and hopefully you will accept this and not feel compelled to continue to write War and Peace-length chapters to tell me everything that might have gone wrong if we were correctly awarded the ball.

I want this talked about. On GH, BTN, SportsCenter, Outkick, the China Daily or anywhere else. Not because the Gophers lost a game that they had odds on favor of winning with a correct call.

This is horrible for college football. It robs our game of credibility. This play has to be reviewed to get it right. We review close first down rulings. We endlessly review catches from the first minute of the game onward. We review a foot touching the chalkline, TDs, turnovers, and sometimes the official clock.

Yet we do not review a critical play at the end of a game that literally guaranteed Michigan a win.

Sadly, on GH, bringing this up gets a standard "You don't know that for sure". We might have turned the ball over the first play (odds anyone?), we might have had multiple penalties, we don't score a TD and Kessich misses a chipshot (can't be ruled out but odds are good the opposite happens).

None of that is the real issue. The real issue is something is very wrong with this policy of no official review and people should be calling for a change.

See if you had said it like that there would have been less pushback....

The problem is in how the offsides rule is written....our guy was maybe offsides in that some part of his body may have broken the plane before the ball was kicked. The only way to disprove this on replay would be to have cameras shooting directly down the LOS because if the angle is off at all it is nearly impossible to tell.

What they should do is make the offsides rule on kickoffs different then it is for a scrimmage snap. Make it so your feet have to be across the line or something like that where a true advantage is gained by being early on the kickoff. A body part breaking the LOS before the kick doesn't provide a shred of advantage because the ball still has to travel at least 10 yards. To call offsides on a kickoff it should need to be egregious and everyone agrees that IF our guy was offsides it was definitely not by enough to warrant a flag which is why there is near universal agreement that the call should not have been made.

 

[IrishGoph55]

we would have likely won the NC game if our kicker made his kicks.

 

[upnorthkid]

You are kinda missing the point though...UCLA had receivers who could have caught it, the Gophers had other DB's who could have caught it...but what makes Koi special is he is in the right place to make the play. Nobody else was. And then there are the guys who are in the right place but don't complete the play, whatever the situation. Koi has the instincts to be in the right spot and the ability to complete the play. Not many guys do both consistently.

I mean no one else was there because no one else is playing his position as the CF safety on that play. The same position Nubin played, Howden played and Winfield played. We do seem to either recruit very well there or do a good job training our safeties on instincts to make those plays. But that’s exactly where any safety should be sitting on that play against vertical routes and an early thrown ball. The next level is when they start anticipating based on the action to make non routine route plays like fading off a coverage of another guy because they see the QBs eyes. Winfield was extremely good at this late in his career and it’s what you see Harrison Smith do for the Vikings to collect his turnovers. KP absolutely shows that he has the talent for it and I’m hoping that knack will continue to grow

 

[Gopherchase]

One could also say Gophs lose both games without Max, or Jackson, or...

...but they won with the players they played.

There are some real stupid shit on this thread. You win was superstars. I think that’s generally the point here and this whole mumbo-jumbo about other players making the plays or time being linear is just nonsense.

 

[Dakota2]

See if you had said it like that there would have been less pushback....

The problem is in how the offsides rule is written....our guy was maybe offsides in that some part of his body may have broken the plane before the ball was kicked. The only way to disprove this on replay would be to have cameras shooting directly down the LOS because if the angle is off at all it is nearly impossible to tell.

What they should do is make the offsides rule on kickoffs different then it is for a scrimmage snap. Make it so your feet have to be across the line or something like that where a true advantage is gained by being early on the kickoff. A body part breaking the LOS before the kick doesn't provide a shred of advantage because the ball still has to travel at least 10 yards. To call offsides on a kickoff it should need to be egregious and everyone agrees that IF our guy was offsides it was definitely not by enough to warrant a flag which is why there is near universal agreement that the call should not have been made.

But he wasn't offside. Surely you saw the still picture taken directly down the line.

In that picture it was clear that Kingsbury was closest, leaning his head forward. But when that picture was snapped his face mask was six or eight inches short of the line. The rest of his body was a couple feet short.

Then, if you looked down the line to the kicker it was clear Dragun's foot was through the ball and the football was away.

Review would have clearly shown it was a blown call.

 

[PMWinSTP]

There are some real stupid shit on this thread. You win was superstars. I think that’s generally the point here and this whole mumbo-jumbo about other players making the plays or time being linear is just nonsense.

Are you being sarcastic? Because that's the way this post reads.

 

[Word]

But he wasn't offside. Surely you saw the still picture taken directly down the line.

In that picture it was clear that Kingsbury was closest, leaning his head forward. But when that picture was snapped his face mask was six or eight inches short of the line. The rest of his body was a couple feet short.

Then, if you looked down the line to the kicker it was clear Dragun's foot was through the ball and the football was away.

Review would have clearly shown it was a blown call.

I 100% agree with you it was a blown call. So bad the big ten changed how the officiate kickoffs. And I also agree there was a good chance, based on how the Gophers were playing, that we tie or win the game after that recovery. We can't say the Gophers for sure would have won but I think it was a better than 50% chance.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

I 100% agree with you it was a blown call. So bad the big ten changed how the officiate kickoffs. And I also agree there was a good chance, based on how the Gophers were playing, that we tie or win the game after that recovery. We can't say the Gophers for sure would have won but I think it was a better than 50% chance.

I still think our chances were less than 50%. Three realistic scenarios after the recovery that wasn't: (1) we score a TD and win in regulation; (2) we kick a field goal and go to overtime; and (3) we don't score and lose in regulation. In my opinion, with the field position and time left, we were more likely to miss the field goal than get in the end zone, and if it went to OT it would have been a roughly 50/50 proposition. I think going to OT and getting the 50/50 was the most likely outcome, but I also think we were more likely to miss a field goal than put it in the endzone in regulation.

Shame we didn't get to find out. It was great to see them execute the onside kick, but even without the blown call, our work was far from done.

 

[Dakota2]

I 100% agree with you it was a blown call. So bad the big ten changed how the officiate kickoffs. And I also agree there was a good chance, based on how the Gophers were playing, that we tie or win the game after that recovery. We can't say the Gophers for sure would have won but I think it was a better than 50% chance.

What did they actually change? Where one of the officials would stand? The only change needed is to include this play in allowable official reviews.

 

[Word]

What did they actually change? Where one of the officials would stand? The only change needed is to include this play in allowable official reviews.

Agree review would be better. I was just pointing out the big ten was admitting they made a mistake by making the changes they did.

 

[WAGopher]

What did they actually change? Where one of the officials would stand? The only change needed is to include this play in allowable official reviews.

I think a better change would be to make the yard line the offsides reference instead of the vertical plane. This would allow the officials to focus on when the players feet touch over the line. They already are looking at the ground for a kick, or about knee high for a punt after a safety. This would make offsides on a kickoff a more accurate call.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I still think our chances were less than 50%. Three realistic scenarios after the recovery that wasn't: (1) we score a TD and win in regulation; (2) we kick a field goal and go to overtime; and (3) we don't score and lose in regulation. In my opinion, with the field position and time left, we were more likely to miss the field goal than get in the end zone, and if it went to OT it would have been a roughly 50/50 proposition. I think going to OT and getting the 50/50 was the most likely outcome, but I also think we were more likely to miss a field goal than put it in the endzone in regulation.

Shame we didn't get to find out. It was great to see them execute the onside kick, but even without the blown call, our work was far from done.

They would have had 1:30 left and 1 TO while inside the 40. And would have had all the momentum. I do believe in that situation Fleck would have been somewhat aggressive and try to win it in regulation.

 

[Dakota2]

Agree review would be better. I was just pointing out the big ten was admitting they made a mistake by making the changes they did.

Sure, I agree it was an off-handed admission of the mistake and an attempt to "correct" it. But it's actually laughable that after 100 years of college football someone has now discovered a much better way to see the play.

Pretty weak response.

 

[Dakota2]

I think a better change would be to make the yard line the offsides reference instead of the vertical plane. This would allow the officials to focus on when the players feet touch over the line. They already are looking at the ground for a kick, or about knee high for a punt after a safety. This would make offsides on a kickoff a more accurate call.

Except my understanding of the rule is that no part of the player's body can break the plane before the ball is away. If that's true, watching the feet down the line would not matter. They do have to look higher.

All of which makes it sometimes a difficult call and subject to human error. Solution: Review it and get it right.

 

[WAGopher]

Except my understanding of the rule is that no part of the player's body can break the plane before the ball is away. If that's true, watching the feet down the line would not matter. They do have to look higher.

All of which makes it sometimes a difficult call and subject to human error. Solution: Review it and get it right.

That’s why I said change the rule on kickoffs to reference the yard line and not the vertical plane for offsides.