Post Game Observations Michigan '14

[jimmymac]

Enjoy: https://vine.co/v/OuYHajJMHFh

 

[dshans]

Normally I like to be a little "noble" about such things, BUT to my eyes Gardner was moving to the playing area as if he was going to be a defender --- NOT bailing out as a "vulnerable QB" --- and a football player MUST be allowed to block anyone in that circumstance. "Behind Schmeehind", Redfield delivered a legitimate block under any normal circumstance.

We won the damm game 37[38]-0 and Shumate got a pick-6. Let others believe what they will.

... and regardless, that whole situation had to send recruits' hearts through the roof.

Mike: getting a little feisty in our dotage are we?

I'm right there with you. EOD – Early Onset Dotage ...

 

[Bugzly21]

Well that didn't work

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I went to the bakery and bought apple turnovers for all my associates and friends that happen to be Michigan fans. Already distributed them : Only told them I hope they enjoyed them. Didn't say a word about the game. You should have seen all of their faces!

Anyway, one said to me that BVG was the difference in the game, and the reason the old "voodoo luck of Michigan" was gone. Telling.

 

[Irish To The Core]

That block made contact on the shoulder pad and Gardner was clearly in pursuit (weak pursuit, but he was running down the ball carrier nonetheless). The call was blown.

 

[GoldenDomer]

What a fucking game... It was pure joy in my house last night! Next week will be awesome.

 

[Koreyirishkelly]

No reason we shouldn't be undefeated going into Florida State. Love not seeing the bend but don't break style of defense. VanGorder called the defense perfectly. In my opinion, Everett is for sure a top heisman trophy contender. This team is ready to do big things this year and we all know they will. Good weekend when the Irish win and both Michigan and Ohio State lose.

 

[ACamp1900]

No reason we shouldn't be undefeated going into Florida State. Love not seeing the bend but don't break style of defense. VanGorder called the defense perfectly. In my opinion, Everett is for sure a top heisman trophy contender. This team is ready to do big things this year and we all know they will. Good weekend when the Irish win and both Michigan and Ohio State lose.

Stanford and UNC will be games, make no mistake

 

[wizards8507]

Stanford and UNC will be games, make no mistake

I'll eat my shirt if Stanford scores more than 16. Their offense is tremendously bad.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

UNC will not be a game. They are garbage.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'll eat my shirt if Stanford scores more than 16. Their offense is tremendously bad.

I think it matches up with Notre Dame's defense really well though. BVG can't play a nickle against that kind of football.

Having KVR back, and in football form, to keep Ty Montgomery in check will be key.

 

[arrowryan]

UNC will not be a game. They are garbage.

they'll be 2-3 when they come to South Bend

 

[Buster Bluth]

Here's the most important post-game observation, in my opinion:

Last year Michigan went 7-6.

I loved what I saw on Saturday, and Notre Dame should cruise to 4-0...but the real season starts when Stanford comes to town.

 

[connor_in]

Was traveling during the game but listened on ND radio network (Crique sounds better than last week btw). Dvr'ed but have not seen anything but highlights yet.

Two things tho...

One - who is scUm's head coach and where does Flintstone land?

Two - ND ticket $100, trip to bookstore $427.32, shutting scUM outfit first time in ND history(also first time in 365 of their games,longest current streak) and in the last game with them for the foreseeable future, BEYOND PRICELESS!!!!!!!

Fvck Michigan

 

[BGIF]

Redfield's hit was perplexing. I watched the game alone, at home, with no distractions. I'm not sure how it was roughing the passer...as possession had already changed. Mayock mentioned it was illegal because Redfield was BEHIND Gardner. That was a head scratcher too. A player can only block a QB on a return then, if he's in FRONT of him? That would most likely be an illegal block/block in the back then.

The ND play by play lists, PENALTY RO (Redfield). I guess that's supposed to be Roughing the passer but obviously Gardner was not in the act of passing nor was the hitter a step or two from Gardner's passing motion and proceeded into him. Wrong description but still a foul.

Redfield's hit was a foul despite the testerone laments to the contrary on this site. Before the Targeting and Defenseless player rules went into effect it would probably have been called a clip, block in the back, or unsportsmanlike conduct ... they're interpretative calls.

Posters here are arguing Redfield didn't hit Gardner in the head or neck which applies to the Targeting Rule. He didn't but the primary objective of Targting/Defenseless is to prevent head and neck injury. Watch Gardner's head snap on the hit.

Lax argued Redfield hit him in the chest. He didn't touch his chest. He was behind him. Redfield hit him on the side in the upper shoulder, snapping Gardner's head and neck back.

Redfield also hit him with a BLIND HIT and he crouched and launched himself.

His hit comes under Rule 9-1-4 addresses hitting Defenseless players. For the past two years this type of hit has been addressed and targeted by the refs. Had the refs called Targeting Redfield would have been ejected.

Had Redfield NOT launched himself there might have been no call. And Onwualu would have kept Gardner out of the play.

Had Redfield taken one step to the left of Gardner there might not have been a call but Gardner still couldn't see him, BLIND HIT.

Argue to the semantics until the cows come home but the refs are going to FLAG this type of hit. They did last year and continue to this year.

Had this not occurred on the last play, it might have been explained better. The game was over and the BIG officiating crew wanted to get out of the stadium quicker than Hoke did.


Here's a link to a SBNation article on the play. It includes to videos, one it real time and one in slomo.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...dame-fighting-irish-michigan-wolverines-video

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Did you say B1G0t crew?

"It's not about rising to the level of your competition, it is about sinking to the level of your preparation."

Brian Kelly

 

[BGIF]

Here's an article from the American Football Coaches Association on the pertinent rules.

Targeting and Crown-of-Helmet Guidelines

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples (Rule 2-27-14):

A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
A player on the ground.
A player obviously out of the play.
A player who receives a blind-side block.
A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Here's an article from the American Football Coaches Association on the pertinent rules.

Targeting and Crown-of-Helmet Guidelines

I see this is a big thing for you.

I wonder on your take of the Andrew Trumbetti hit?

As far as I remember when the player approaches from a position where the target's near arm is behind the player, the hit is deemed from the front. But if you want, I could call an acquaintance that refs Bigot, I mean, B1G10 games for his take. I for one am glad I don't have to make such calls. I would feel terrible if I changed the outcome of a game with a bad call.

 

[BGIF]

I see this is a big thing for you.

...

Excuse me?

I've commented on plays,rulings, and controversy for 9 years on this site.

I thought Trumbetti's play should have been flagged and I though it was adequately covered.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Excuse me?

I've commented on plays,rulings, and controversy for 9 years on this site.

I thought Trumbetti's play should have been flagged and I though it was adequately covered.

Sorry, I was trying to decide whether to go back and use italics. But I figure you would know me well enough by now. All that said, you are sexy as hell when you get just a bit indignant! (no italics.)

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

The ND play by play lists, PENALTY RO (Redfield). I guess that's supposed to be Roughing the passer but obviously Gardner was not in the act of passing nor was the hitter a step or two from Gardner's passing motion and proceeded into him. Wrong description but still a foul.

Redfield's hit was a foul despite the testerone laments to the contrary on this site. Before the Targeting and Defenseless player rules went into effect it would probably have been called a clip, block in the back, or unsportsmanlike conduct ... they're interpretative calls.

Posters here are arguing Redfield didn't hit Gardner in the head or neck which applies to the Targeting Rule. He didn't but the primary objective of Targting/Defenseless is to prevent head and neck injury. Watch Gardner's head snap on the hit.

Lax argued Redfield hit him in the chest. He didn't touch his chest. He was behind him. Redfield hit him on the side in the upper shoulder, snapping Gardner's head and neck back.

Redfield also hit him with a BLIND HIT and he crouched and launched himself.

His hit comes under Rule 9-1-4 addresses hitting Defenseless players. For the past two years this type of hit has been addressed and targeted by the refs. Had the refs called Targeting Redfield would have been ejected.

Had Redfield NOT launched himself there might have been no call. And Onwualu would have kept Gardner out of the play.

Had Redfield taken one step to the left of Gardner there might not have been a call but Gardner still couldn't see him, BLIND HIT.

Argue to the semantics until the cows come home but the refs are going to FLAG this type of hit. They did last year and continue to this year.

Had this not occurred on the last play, it might have been explained better. The game was over and the BIG officiating crew wanted to get out of the stadium quicker than Hoke did.


Here's a link to a SBNation article on the play. It includes to videos, one it real time and one in slomo.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...dame-fighting-irish-michigan-wolverines-video

When you say he launched himself, you mean he launched both arms and hands forward pushing him to the ground, right? Because he did not launch his body into a projectile, which is normally seen with a helmet v helmet hit. He compacted for impact and sprung forward with his arms throwing a block.

I can accept that you think it was in the back but it sure looked clean to me and it certainly shouldn't be considered dirty. If he intended to hurt him, he could've de-cleated him by actually launching himself into his thorax, may have even split a rib.

 

[ickythump1225]

HAHAHAHA! That is really all I want to say. FVCK Meatchicken! Go back to Ann Arbor and shop at Wal-Mart.

 

[wizards8507]

If that hit had been on any other player, I don't think they call it. Gardner was pursuing the play and therefore, by definition, not defenseless. The flag was thrown because it was the quarterback and the QB gets special protection even after the turnover, whether he should or not is another story.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I wondered what kind of quick impact Pat Eilers would have on the defense when he came, which is why I posted that article in Mathias's thread. I was thinking of Farley and Shumate in particular. It is really tough, what happened to Kyle McCarthy, and I wish him my best. But thinking it through that has to be incredibly tough on players, from the purely emotional aspect to, position and communication in the defensive backfield.

 

[IrishLax]

BGIF... with all due respect, and I mean that seriously because you are the man and bring nothing but excellent knowledge and contributions to this site... I vehemently disagree with everything you are saying. In my opinion, you are wrong, and that SBNation article is wrong. And two of my friends who ref high school football and aren't Notre Dame fans (Virginia Tech) who were watching the game said it was a bad call for reasons I will outline.

The ND play by play lists, PENALTY RO (Redfield). I guess that's supposed to be Roughing the passer but obviously Gardner was not in the act of passing nor was the hitter a step or two from Gardner's passing motion and proceeded into him. Wrong description but still a foul.

The foul called by the officials was roughing the passer. None of the officials near the play threw the flag, and I can't be sure but on rewind I think the call comes from the far side official who could not possibly have seen the contact well from his vantage point.

As you accurately point out, it obvious was not roughing the passer. Which means the fould could only be:
A) Targeting
B) An illegal block (block in the back, etc.)

Redfield's hit was a foul despite the testerone laments to the contrary on this site. Before the Targeting and Defenseless player rules went into effect it would probably have been called a clip, block in the back, or unsportsmanlike conduct ... they're interpretative calls.

Posters here are arguing Redfield didn't hit Gardner in the head or neck which applies to the Targeting Rule. He didn't but the primary objective of Targting/Defenseless is to prevent head and neck injury. Watch Gardner's head snap on the hit.

Lax argued Redfield hit him in the chest. He didn't touch his chest. He was behind him. Redfield hit him on the side in the upper shoulder, snapping Gardner's head and neck back.

This is what is absolutely ridiculous. I've watched the play from every vantage point available full speed and slow motion. I looked at the gif you just linked. I wish I was better at grabbing still frames and uploading pictures and stuff.

Bottom line is that his right hand clearly hits the front of his chest. This isn't debatable, you can visibly see it and I'll try to still frame it later maybe. His left hand hits is side shoulder. Neither of these points of contact are prohibited.

There is absolutely no direct contact to the head or neck. None. It is absolutely irrelevant that it "whips."

"As Gardner followed the play, Redfield came from his right side, smashing him in the side of the neck and helmet." --- this is laughably inaccurate when you watch the replay in slow motion, and I have no idea why SBNation says this. If you disagree, please still frame and circle where any part of Redfield contacts -- much less "smashes" -- his neck and helmet. Because I can see his hands and they don't.

Redfield also hit him with a BLIND HIT and he crouched and launched himself.

His hit comes under Rule 9-1-4 addresses hitting Defenseless players. For the past two years this type of hit has been addressed and targeted by the refs. Had the refs called Targeting Redfield would have been ejected.

Had Redfield NOT launched himself there might have been no call. And Onwualu would have kept Gardner out of the play.

Had Redfield taken one step to the left of Gardner there might not have been a call but Gardner still couldn't see him, BLIND HIT.

Argue to the semantics until the cows come home but the refs are going to FLAG this type of hit. They did last year and continue to this year.

Had this not occurred on the last play, it might have been explained better. The game was over and the BIG officiating crew wanted to get out of the stadium quicker than Hoke did.

Here's a link to a SBNation article on the play. It includes to videos, one it real time and one in slomo.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...dame-fighting-irish-michigan-wolverines-video

Here's an article from the American Football Coaches Association on the pertinent rules.

Targeting and Crown-of-Helmet Guidelines

Missing the forest for the trees here. This all applies if and only if the defenseless player is subject to a hit that fulfills the requirements of targeting. That means...

A) No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. --- this obviously did not occur.

B) No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. --- so YES he was defenseless... NO he did not hit Gardner in the "head or neck" with a "helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder."

So it is NOT targeting. And targeting was NOT called. I wish they had called targeting, because on review it would've been overturned and the play would've stood as a TD.

Finally, you can circle back to it being an illegal block... again, not what was called, and I see no contact that would render it a block below the waist, block in the back, clip, or chop block. Those are the prohibited blocks.

 

[BGIF]

When you say he launched himself, you mean he launched both arms and hands forward pushing him to the ground, right? Because he did not launch his body into a projectile, which is normally seen with a helmet v helmet hit. He compacted for impact and sprung forward with his arms throwing a block.

Your right he didn't achieve escape velocity.

Tuitt didn't compact himself nor spring forward but he got flagged last year just the same when it was the ball carrier who lowered his head not Tuitt. Ref still called it and they will continue to. And the semantics many vary from conference crew to conference crew like umpires call strikes in the National and American Leagues.

I can accept that you think it was in the back but it sure looked clean to me and it certainly shouldn't be considered dirty. If he intended to hurt him, he could've de-cleated him by actually launching himself into his thorax, may have even split a rib.

You've quoted my post in full. Please highlight where I wrote he was hit in the back.

I clearly wrote, "Redfield hit him on the side in the upper shoulder ..."


Where did I say the hit was "dirty"? Again, not in my post.


I pointed out the intent behind the Targeting/Defenseless rules and that this type of hit is going to draw ref scrutiny and flags.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Your right he didn't achieve escape velocity.

Tuitt didn't compact himself nor spring forward but he got flagged last year just the same when it was the ball carrier who lowered his head not Tuitt. Ref still called it and they will continue to. And the semantics many vary from conference crew to conference crew like umpires call strikes in the National and American Leagues.






You've quoted my post in full. Please highlight where I wrote he was hit in the back.

I clearly wrote, "Redfield hit him on the side in the upper shoulder ..."


Where did I say the hit was "dirty"? Again, not in my post.


I pointed out the intent behind the Targeting/Defenseless rules and that this type of hit is going to draw ref scrutiny and flags.

All kidding aside. I can see the ND ire for this call. Trumbetti got wasted, on purpose with a ref watching the action. It was the worst no call I have seen in a long time. So maybe the friction of this issue isn't about what you said, or your stand. Just the disparity in interpretations rendered on those two calls.

 

[NDRock]

If that hit had been on any other player, I don't think they call it. Gardner was pursuing the play and therefore, by definition, not defenseless. The flag was thrown because it was the quarterback and the QB gets special protection even after the turnover, whether he should or not is another story.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Agree, protecting the QB has been a point of emphasis in the NFL (and college) for 25+ years. It is was it is.

 

[phork]

If he hit Gardner towards the back of his shoulder, as opposed to the front, he would not have spun around and eventually end up on his ass. He would have bit the turf sideways or face first.

My question though is if the penalty wasn't called, why not kick the extra point? I wanted as many damn points on that board as possible.

 

[Booslum31]

Couple things about the game:

1) Hoke needs to mix in a head-set every so often...to at least give the appearance he is participating in the game.

2) My two Michigan fans can only seem to remember the play of Gardner getting lit up by Max...Ofcourse calling it completely cheep. My stance is that if the QB doesn't want to play football once he throws an INT he needs to sprint to the sidelines.

3) Sheldon Day is rapidly becoming my favorite player.

4) Amir has found a home at the slot

5) OLine was abused during run blocking...hope Soso didn't notice.

6) We have a defensive coordinator.

7( Irish fans made some noise when it mattered.