Video Request: Michigan @ Northwestern--19:07 of 2nd half

[Raymond]

Hook-and-hold call. I haven't seen the play yet.

https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/ind...BXkXET2BkXf_44

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Bumping

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Give me until the end of the night and I will post this play.

Figured something out.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Gee that’s hard to determine in real time. I’m so glad I have replay in my high school games.

So was the original call on white here, and then they went to the monitor and charged blue instead? Or was the call on the floor on blue to begin with?

Looks like this is now considered an F1 foul this year? I haven’t been up to date on the edicts of Art Hyland. When did this change?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

The rule was put in this year. Hook and Holds are automatically Flagrant Fouls. If he tosses the player, it is a FF2.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Gee that’s hard to determine in real time. I’m so glad I have replay in my high school games.

So was the original call on white here, and then they went to the monitor and charged blue instead? Or was the call on the floor on blue to begin with?

Looks like this is now considered an F1 foul this year? I haven’t been up to date on the edicts of Art Hyland. When did this change?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As described in the news story, the original foul against Northwestern stands, because by rule you cannot erase that, and the Michigan player is assessed a Flagrant 1--for the clampdown and the exaggerated action to draw a foul.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

As described in the news story, the original foul against Northwestern stands, because by rule you cannot erase that, and the Michigan player is assessed a Flagrant 1--for the clampdown and the exaggerated action to draw a foul.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

While I don't dispute that being the rule, it is unfortunate. They've basically reviewed the video to confirm that the other player was really the one commuting a foul, a deceitful one at that, and can't undo the foul on the player that was the victim of the shenanigans.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I don't dispute that being the rule, it is unfortunate. They've basically reviewed the video to confirm that the other player was really the one commuting a foul, a deceitful one at that, and can't undo the foul on the player that was the victim of the shenanigans.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I don't dispute that being the rule, it is unfortunate. They've basically reviewed the video to confirm that the other player was really the one commuting a foul, a deceitful one at that, and can't undo the foul on the player that was the victim of the shenanigans.

Same reason a blarge results in a double foul unlike what they do in women’s basketball — coaches are paranoid and would rather have a double foul than trust the refs to get together and decide on one call over the other.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Same reason a blarge results in a double foul unlike what they do in women’s basketball — coaches are paranoid and would rather have a double foul than trust the refs to get together and decide on one call over the other.

I disagree. The blarge has about a 50/50 chance of being resolved "correctly". It is based purely on judgement and one official has to defer to the other by some system that assumes one is right. Perhaps it is 60/40, or even 70/30, but we see enough single whistle block/charges that are called wrong to say it is much more accurate than that. So, the wrong player still gets the foul in a fair number of situations.

In this case, it is a matter of revealing a deceitful act, using slow motion video, that couldn't be seen live, an act meant to fool the officials into calling a foul on the opposing player.