Comments on: Wonder, Think & Know: Pure Michigan Edition

By: Kevin McNamara

Kevin McNamara — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:58:07 +0000

In reply to Moe. Not a cheap shot at all. A very bad call and as previously mentioned, if that call had affected the game's outcome, there would have been a huge controversy.

By: Kevin McNamara

Kevin McNamara — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 14:50:06 +0000

In reply to GraceHallChapel86. totally agree

By: NDBonecrusher

NDBonecrusher — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 23:51:03 +0000

Right on, Mike. It looks like BVG (besides being a crazy f***er as you correctly pointed out) is having the time of his life, as are his lads. Their evolution in just one week was remarkable, and they have set a high bar for the performance against Purdue.
The ND defense was the story Sat night, not the offense. With all the young talent, and leaders like Day and Smith, how good are they going to be? Where is that ceiling? What if they get Williams and Russell back?
I hope they keep working and growing. They will need the maximum level of improvement for the October gauntlet. Let’s have another shutout against Purdue!

By: McCafferty

McCafferty — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 23:12:24 +0000

I wouldn’t label the hit a “cheap shot;” however, I do think it was a poor decision and that, were the situation reversed, we would be upset with the opposing team’s player. The replay that I watched showed Gardner beginning to brace for a hit from a Notre Dame player approaching from him from the front. I don’t think he was pursuing the Shumate. I wouldn’t expect a player to make an about face and run from the play, and I do not think that Gardner was giving any more than a token gesture of movement towards our guy. He was out of the play. I suppose an overhead view would demonstrate definitively whether this picture is accurate or not.

By: John

John — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 20:03:37 +0000

Redfield should have hit him harder. IMO

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:34:08 +0000

In reply to Moe. Not a cheap shot. Really insignificant to the game outcome. My concern is the call being made at all. What if the game were a tight one and it was for the win. The refs made a call that was completely ouit of it's element. This means the ref upstairs needed to be involved with this call. The only reason they let it go was because the game was over. The QB was effectively a defensive player at the time of the push with hands from Redfield,from the side (not the back). SO once the interception was made the officials and the player all have a different set of rules. They get to switch their mentality from O to D. Considering that Redfield and anyother ND player on the field would be blocking and on the O. The officials should have changed their stance also and did not. This allowed them to officiate from a stance they should not have been taking.

By: Mike Coffey

Mike Coffey — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:45:03 +0000

In reply to J Peloquin. I think you're replying to someone else -- I don't believe it was a cheap shot at all.

By: jdthom

jdthom — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 13:39:39 +0000

In reply to Mike Coffey. It should not have been a flag. Gardner was running with the play and would have made a tackle if he was in position. Redfield did not spear him or use his helmet or go for his head. He made an effort to get to the front of Gardner. As Mayock said earlier in the game when Michigan got a very similar hard hit on ND's #98 (Trumbetti), "That's football."

By: Bquigz5

Bquigz5 — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 12:37:46 +0000

In reply to Don in LA. Thank you.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:11:42 +0000

Redfield got the flag because he left his feet. The block itself was legal, but leaving your feet while doing so is an automatic and easy flag.

-MW-