This will be the third time that MSU influences how a college game is played

To say staee always needs some voodoo to win this game isn't fair to them

They are sometimes the better team (2020 for sure, 2017 given our QB issues, pretty much every year of the RichRod/Hoke era, etc.)

But it really is illuminating that they need historic levels of voodoo to pull off the number of wins they've gotten vs us and others over the last 20 years.  Like, they are the champions of winning a coin flip.  So kudos to them for that.  Nobody takes advantage of pure dumb luck like they do (punter bobbles a routine snap, refs fuck up a replay review, Spartan Bob, the trip and even against other teams like the rain delay vs Penn State in 2017, Zeke Elliot getting sick in 2015).  Hell, they're gold medalists in after-the-fact mental gymnastics to explain away how their luck was actually some big brain maneuver that paid off.

At least Auburn is aware of their ridiculous luck and even embrace it.  But Sparty is the guy who finds a $100 bill on the ground and claims that his hard work and effort is why he found it.  And then feels disrespekt'ed when others rightfully call him out for his luck.  And they'll be the first ones to play the fluke card if and when it ever happens in our favor.

It’s a good question Don, but I too have noticed it called more starting in the 2016 season. Albeit, maybe because I was more aware of it / felt the sting each time it was called.

Would be interesting to research if there is a penalty by rule database out there somewhere.

It's the feeling that the only way to get something like a holding call for us we seem to require a big lead or they owe us a call after a bad one against us.

Feel like never get calls because if a call is missed or messed up, officials subconsciously or consciously aren't worried about repercussions from their errors.  Ohio State lost a CFP game to Clemson on similar fumble recovery touchdown that was erroneously overturned, and their AD and coaches went guns blazing on every ref and media appearance after that.  That kinda pressure sticks in the back of people's minds whether they're aware of it or not.  A ref on the field for an Ohio State game is gonna be extra cautious not to blow a call, or at least rule against Ohio State unless they have exacting evidence to do so.

And the worst part is we get accused of throwing our weight around despite practically doing the opposite.  How long did it take to get the MSU/OSU double home/away issue fixed?  Remember when Warde criticized Harbaugh after the 2016 rather than taking umbrage with the officiating?  Or When Illinois's AD raised all hell last year because a rule they voted for twice kept them from a league title?  If our AD threw their considerable power around, it's very possible that it could actually have tangible results on the field.  Ohio State twisted the league's arm into changing the rules of the season at the last minute and the league did so like a puppy trying to please it's owner.  That absolutely has at least a small material effect on officiating (and players for that matter).

I think that's part of our inability to make big plays late in the biggest games is that you're subconsciously waiting for the other shoe to drop (ie. for us to get screwed) while other teams have no such qualms because they're always on the end that benefits.

You seem like a "Michigan shouldn't have put themselves in a position to lose to the refs" kind of person, at least based on your first comment ("none of this would've happened if..."). I've never understood this logic. Both teams put themselves in a position to lose to the refs. If they overturn KWIII's first TD and call it a fumble, they probably lose that game. That would've been an equally terrible call as our overturned TD because there was no clear angle. 

Coaches are held accountable for bad games. Players are held accountable for bad games. If refs have a bad game, we aren't even allowed to talk about it. It's insane. 

The sub penalties sucked but none of them altered the game - don't over-exaggerate.  The fumble likely *did* alter the outcome, but that is flukey... not much to do about that.

I call bullshit on ‘wanted it more’. I’d like to see you tell Aiden Hutchinson, McNamara or anyone else on the team that state ‘wanted it more’. It’s such a lazy, tired argument that it invalidates  pretty much everything else in your post

That is a stupid statement and sentiment. None of that matters if we do these 5 things. You can say that about every close game. Refs making stupid mistakes costs people games. Not because of a player or a coach's decision. But a ref. That should never happen. I am a Lion's fan and I whine about every stupid play they run. I will whine and will get over it. I cannot tolerate losing a game because of a ref's mistake.

Magnus. I read your blog post about the game, but what are your thoughts on Michigan AFTER the game. Improving? Where to shore up deficiencies etc. Are you encouraged or not. Appreciate your insights as always. 

The refs are supposed to only be looking for incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field. This is not a screw up. The only way the call on the field could have been reversed is if the ref “re-officiated” the play. That’s the point. 

You are getting into semantics but as it is being used, re-officiating the play = using your best judgment as to what the call should be, regardless of what was called on the field (i think he's down by contact but can't confirm so going by my hunch and calling him down)

Proper replay either confirms the call on the field was clearly (100%) correct (call is confirmed), clearly (100%) incorrect (call is overturned) or cannot definitively conclude one way or the other (call stands). Essentially if everyone including a blatant homer acknowledges the call is wrong, that should be the yardstick

4 games remain, what happened last Saturday hurts and to an extent is BS, but is irrelevant now

Time to "adult" and move on with the season. Your reply here is succinct and makes it simple

I lived in Columbus, Ohio for 25 years, so I get the $hit some on this message board are going through x infinity. This can be a damn good season. Let's hope the team/coaches aren't looking back to last Saturday to where it becomes a distraction rather than lesson(s) learned going forward

Beat IU

Let me translate Klatt, if I may, in way that should be useful. Here's the rule we're working with:

RULE 12

Instant Replay

SECTION 1. Purpose and Philosophy

Purpose

ARTICLE 1.

Instant replay is a process whereby video review is used to confirm, reverse or let stand certain on-field decisions (Rule 12-3) made by game officials.

Philosophy

ARTICLE 2. The instant replay process operates under the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct. The replay official may reverse a ruling if and only if the video evidence (Rule 12-6-1-c) convinces him beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect. Without such indisputable video evidence, the replay official must allow the ruling to stand. (Exception: Targeting rule 12-3-5-a) 

(Emphasis added)

The highlighted passage is consistent with your last sentence. But knowing the likely origin of this language might help understand Klatt's meaning. When the rule I just cited was developed, rules officials had two choices. They could have let booth reviewers substitute their factual judgment for the officials on the field. (I've often heard fans express frustration this isn't done.) But they chose a different route, one in keeping -- and almost certainly not coincidentally -- with the way appellate courts (a/k/a Courts of Appeals) review verdicts.

Before a verdict is made in a typical civil trial, there are rulings of law and findings of fact. Appellate courts review rulings of law de novo, more or less meaning "from scratch." In other words, if it's a question of law, an appellate court will "re-officiate" the lower court ruling. But if the issue on appeal concerns a finding-of-fact, then the finding-of-fact can only be reversed if its "clearly erroneous." You might even translate "clearly erroneous" to mean "evidence [that] convinces him* beyond all doubt that the ruling was incorrect." In other words, findings-of-fact should not be "re-officiated." By the way, it's very rare for appellate courts to reverse findings-of-fact.

So, given what are almost certainly the roots of the video review rules, "re-officiating" the call must mean reviewing the call by a "de novo" standard, rather than by a "clearly erroneous" standard. In our game, though, the replay officials acted as if they were the official making the original call from scratch (de novo), when they should only have intervened if the ruling on the field was "clearly erroneous."  Ergo, ipso facto doodly doo, the replay review officials "re-officiated" the ruling on the field, and that was big mistake. Imho, this is what Klatt meant.

Now, whether replay officials, in practice, actually follow the NCAA rules in another discussion...

* The NCAA is going to have to update its language to recognize the existence of female officials.