Opinions on that INT

[AllInForISU]

If you dont understand why this wasn't overturned than you are a homer. That being said, whatever was called on the field would have stood and you could have gone either way. You can watch it in slow mo now and have a legitimate fight about whether it was a TD or INT, they had to make a quick call and happened to call it an INT.

Actually, no. According to what they “saw” on replay they confirmed it was an INT so that being said, if they called it a TD on the field they would have overturned it due to “confirm” meaning they had indisputable evidence it was an INT.

For the record I thought it should have been incomplete. OSU player didn’t gain full possession until after he was out of bounds.

 

[AllInForISU]

The refs were stuck between two rules of thumb.

On one hand dual possession is supposed to go to the offense, on the other hand you need conclusive evidence to over turn a call on the field.

I think the problem was that the wrong call was made on the field, no matter what they should have called it a TD to be consistent with the rules (the fact that it took the refs about 10 seconds to make a call proves this point), then go back and change it if necessary. But since they called it an INT on the field, then they needed conclusive evidence to overturn it which I dont think exists. The replay officials were stuck between these two rules of thumb and I guess they felt like they had to stick with the call on the field since that call was made first.

That is my guess at least.

They confirmed call on field. In their eyes it was an INT and it was clear.

 

[HFCS]

After further review...a bunch of time....this should have been incomplete

Correct...but I admit I was wrong myself.

I was so mad about the PI the play before I didn't want to compound it thinking two calls in a row were wrong.
- He never completed the catch with sole possession in bounds which could have been overturned in review.
- Dual possession for an ISU TD...nowhere near enough evidence to overturn for an ISU TD.
- There's enough evidence that you can tell he never completed the process of the catch in bounds with sole possession.
- In a million years that is not "Confirmed" as called an interception.

Call on the field you can excuse any call of complete, interception or incomplete.
The correct replay review taking the time to read all of the rules is incomplete.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Horrible job by the refs.

 

[FinalFourCy]

What a hell of a play by Murdock. Unquestionably the only call you can make is TD or incomplete pass. The db’s hand moves off the ball. I doubt the refs even bothered to look at this angle with their “confirmed” ********. I hope those refs suffer vast personal tragedies.

 

[Dannynoonan]

My opinion is it’s a ******** call, by the rule it’s bs. If it’s OU or someone else it’s a catch.

 

[Cyliam]

He landed on the ground with the ball on his chest and his arms wrapped around it. I'm not sure what the controversy is about.

 

[cyclones500]

I think they should of just called it incomplete and let the players decide the game.

That's my question, did they HAVE to call it either an interception or complete in that situation? I know once it was left to a booth review, if you can't find evidence to overturn call on the field, it stands. But officials gathered after the play to discuss what happened before making a call, why couldn't they determine "I'm not sure either way" and call it incomplete?

 

[CyGuy5]

The refs were stuck between two rules of thumb.

On one hand dual possession is supposed to go to the offense, on the other hand you need conclusive evidence to over turn a call on the field.

I think the problem was that the wrong call was made on the field, no matter what they should have called it a TD to be consistent with the rules (the fact that it took the refs about 10 seconds to make a call proves this point), then go back and change it if necessary. But since they called it an INT on the field, then they needed conclusive evidence to overturn it which I dont think exists. The replay officials were stuck between these two rules of thumb and I guess they felt like they had to stick with the call on the field since that call was made first.

That is my guess at least.

But the thing is, the replay officials didn’t just say it stood. They confirmed the play. There is no way that was a clear interception

 

[FinalFourCy]

He landed on the ground with the ball on his chest and his arms wrapped around it. I'm not sure what the controversy is about.

Right, Murdock clearly got robbed of a TD and Iowa State a win.

 

[chuckd4735]

He landed on the ground with the ball on his chest and his arms wrapped around it. I'm not sure what the controversy is about.

Arm not arms.

 

[jkclone]

Personally I think there is enough to confirm a touchdown. You clearly have simultaneous possessing IMO. As a result it is clear touchdown. Absolutely no way it was an interception. That much is clear. In no way did the defender have possession by himself in bounds. Anyone that thinks it was an interception is blinder than a bat.

 

[Tre4ISU]

You mean the touchdown? I think you mean the touchdown.

 

[CloneGuy8]

We got screwed. Refs were awful in the 4th quarter.

 

[ianoconnor]

Seeing it in the stadium, I thought they got it right. But after all the replays, etc, hard to argue against simultaneous possession. The "confim" ruling was attrocious.

 

[JackClone]

I believe the question is would have the receiver caught the ball without the defender? Or, would the defender caught the ball without the receiver?
The answer.
The receiver catches the ball without the defender. The defender doesn't catch the ball without the receiver.
It was a touchdown.

 

[cyclonedave25]

He landed on the ground with the ball on his chest and his arms wrapped around it. I'm not sure what the controversy is about.

Show me a picture of the ball actually in his arms and not also Marchie's.
If you can do that, I will agree. If not, then it looks like dual possession to me.

I'll wait...

 

[cyclones500]

"Confirmed" bothered me, just say "Stands".

Seemingly a minor observation, but I agree completely. Officials should be REQUIRED to state a replay review as either "stands as called" or "overturned." ... never say "confirmed."

It isn't a nitpick about word-choice, it's adherence to the principle of how replay is applied.

 

[FinalFourCy]

You mean the touchdown? I think you mean the touchdown.

Live I thought there’s no way it wasn’t an incompletion, but it really looks like a TD with the benefit of replay.

Given how they called PI it’s not surprising they ****** us. Remembering the West catch that was ruled an INT against KSU, it’s infuriating.

 

[Cloned4Life]

Wow seeing that slow mo replay... clearly a dual possession and clearly a TD.