He didn't go to the ground, maintaining complete possession of the ball throughout the process of the catch. Murdock had sole possession of the ball some of that time.
It's an incomplete catch.
Opinions on that INT
- Thread starter demoncore1031
- Start date
He didn't go to the ground, maintaining complete possession of the ball throughout the process of the catch. Murdock had sole possession of the ball some of that time.
It's an incomplete catch.
This is the winner - if they call the horse collar we have the ball inside the 5 and give it to DM and send it to OT. Seemed like every call and non-call benefited OSU.
My opinions (attempting to logically sort them out):
1. None of this might even matter if they called PI/holding consistently on both defenses.
2. It was a really hard call to make on the field and did look like an interception to me without enough clear evidence to overturn.
3. 15 years ago it's even an easier interception call because bam bam, catch down.
4. Now with "process of the catch" the officials are definitely wrong to CONFIRM that in replay. Process of the catch cannot possibly include another player who did not catch the ball instantly jumping up with ball in hand.
- Not mad about interception.
- Really mad about completely blown PI/holding calls.
- Slightly mad that they say that replay can CONFIRM process of the catch where the guy barely even has the ball and doesn't come up with it.
There was no chance they were calling it a TD from review. I was more shocked they confirmed it. Still think they could of called it incomplete.
We did not need to throw it up for grabs on 2nd down. Zeb had already missed that throw twice.
Correct replay review on the catch/interception was "Ruling stands". Confirming that as completing a catch process is 100% not correct. Same result either way though.
In real time I thought it was an interception. But watching the replays, I'm failing to see how it wasn't at least a simultaneous catch in favor of ISU.
This is my view. I'm not happy about the interception as I felt our guy established possession on the OSU defender's chest, but I'm not mad about it either because that's a tough spot to put the refs on, especially when the defender has the ball and his hand wrapped up. I don't think it should have been confirmed, either - that should have been "stands" at worst. What I'm really upset with is the inconsistency in officiating. Should have been 1st and goal inside the 5 after Lazard was held/interfered with.
I think we at least run one play with Montgomery that next play with less yardage needed too. It had a big effect on the game. If nothing else the next play isn't identical because there should have been 2.5 yards less field available.
Iowa's on TV right now and you're one a cyclone message board.
You, sir, have not seen what non-ISU fans are saying about that call. Hell, check reddit and an outright majority there (non-ISU fans) saw that as a TD.
Last edited:
Actually I would have put Lanning in. You can either have him go "rugby" again, or fake a run and hit an open receiver in the end zone because with Lanning in you know they're keying in on him running.
What about the missed hold on Okie State's last TD?
Who knows, it likely would have been different though with only 2 yards needed in a fairly called final drive.
Honestly at that point I was glad for us to get the time. It was another blown call late but a few first downs and a field goal and we don't even get the ball back like we did.
Yeah, my tone is changing too. I initially thought it was an INT, but after seeing some gifs, it doesn’t look like the OSU guy ever had a hand on the ball. Marchie trapped the ball against the OSU guys body and then when they rolled, Marchie had possession. It looked like the OSU guy came down with it, but Marchie had the ball trapped and the OSU guy had his hands on top of Marchie’s hands, not the ball.
Unless you move Ia State University to either okieville or longhornville ......its never gonna happen.....
