Anyone depending on a stillshot should not be taken seriously. At this point, anyone that still thinks it was an INT is trolling.
Opinions on that INT
- Thread starter demoncore1031
- Start date
I have yet to actually talk to anyone who watches all the replays a few times, and comes away saying that is an interception. Obviously a few people on here, but no one in person.
I had a few co-workers this AM who are not ISU fans talk about how it "sucked to lose on an interception". Showed them the OSU guys camera angle, and they are now wondering why more isn't being made about the refs blatant error.
Yup, one of my coworkers is a huge hawk fan. Hasn't missed a game (home, away, or bowl) for the last 7 years. He said they went to a bar in Madison after their game and saw the replay and they were laughing about it because they love when ISU gets screwed. They know it was a TD, and the troll on here knows it, too. But he's getting the reaction he wants so he'll keep at it until you guys ignore him.
I try to ignor the 6 inch hemorrhoid I have too.
But as with our friend, it just won't go away.
I've wondered this as well. I can see the "definitive proof" argument in some situations. But here, where it is obvious the ref had no worldly cue what to call, why create a presumption? Who does that benefit and what would be wrong with just going to the monitor to determine which call, based on the video available, is most likely?
Someone with enough computer savvy could also show you 2 different still shots where the OSU player's left hand (you know, the one on top of Murdock's that isn't touching the ball), comes off and isn't even on top of Murdock's hand any longer. He's taking it off and trying to knock Murdock's hand off the ball, but is never successful. Murdock's hand never even budges or leaves that ball until they are about 3 yds out of bounds.
And in that Stanford video where the WR pins the ball on the defenders back with both hands, guess what, it wouldn't have mattered if he only had it pinned with one hand, it still would have been a TD. So what's the difference between that and Murdock having it pinned to the chest of the defender instead of his back? Nothing.
And remember, this call was only icing on the cake. They called us for 2 PI/holding calls on two successive unsuccessful 2 pt conversions in a row down on the other end, but then kept their flags in their pockets down on our end on blatant PI/holding on OSU against Eaton and Lazard in the endzone.
Then after all that, they screw up this horrible INT call where the OSU defender's hand comes off at least 2 and it looks like 3 times on the way to the ground.
No make sense my feathered friend. It was a fade. We had outside leverage. Just thrown short. Now, if you are saying it shouldn't been called, then that is something else. Of course, if we would of scored on it, most would of said a gutsy call and throw.....
Yeah, I think it make sense to call a fade there, especially since we were out of TOs and a sack or a play down inbounds would not have been good.
With Kempt and Lazard or Butler it does...
That’s a very skillful pass to be dialed up on second down, to Murdock no less. I’m not going to beat up Noland or the staff too much given it was a great play by Murdock for a TD. Also, if he doesn’t try to catch the ball it’s incomplete due to how the dB was playing. If that’s a fourth down check down look, it makes sense. However, we have a lot of reads and plays with a much higher probability of success that should have been made the focus of Noland.
In this exact moment there is clearly simultanious possession. Unfortunately for us the still I showed previously showed sole posession by OSU. To have that rule come into play both player have to gain possession at the same time and both need to maintain possession through the process of the catch. Murdock didn't do that.
How can you have sole possession when your hand is literally sitting on top on the WRs hand?
The difference is at no point did the stanford player have control of the football.
OSU fan here. Referees can come out of a review and say they made an egregious error. They could have came out and said interception, touchdown, or incompletion with no regard to what their initial call was. So really, what they initially called had no impact on their final call. I had not seen it happen until Bedlam. The fact is, they didn't believe they made an egregious error.
The most notable difference is that one is pinned on a DBs back and the DB has zero hands on the ball and zero right to argue he had any possession. The other is pinned to the DBs chest and the DB has two hands on the ball and he has every right to claim he had possession. Sure, one of them is only finger tips, but it's still chest and two hands versus back. Not even remotely close to the same situation...you know that, right?
Does it matter what transpired after the play was over? Because the play is already over in this picture.
Not its not. Murdocks hand his pinning it to his chest. His hand is resting on top of Murdocks. Regardless, one still shot doesn't prove anything. You still have to complete the process of the catch going to the ground, and the defender did not do that.
