Here is my issue with people saying it couldn't be overturned. I don't understand how with what we have seen someone can say there wasn't clear and convincing evidence that it wasn't an interception. Now I think you can may argue there wasn't enough to say he caught it by himself or they caught it simultaneously in bounds. Now with that you have the call on the field that you know is wrong, but aren't sure what the right call should be. You shouldn't be sticking with the wrong call just because you don't know what the right call is. You make the call an incomplete pass or replay the down.
Opinions on that INT
- Thread starter demoncore1031
- Start date
That guy is the worst official in the Big 12. On a consistent basis he has been horrid
I think it's iffy to overturn it to say ISU had possession in bounds to give ISU a TD (if call on field was TD the same would be true).
The more I look at it, it's REALLY obvious OK State never completed a process of a catch in bounds and it should have been ruled incomplete. Where does he cleanly catch that ball in bounds? Never and the video shows it when you look at all angles together.
Maybe the ref based it off who took their hands off the ball first? That's a stupid way to evaluate if it is true. Gotta say tie goes to the runner in this situation(the offense). BUT then of course we're Iowa State.
Your troll game is weak.
Incompetence doesn’t require nefarious intent. Van Vark has a history of it in ISU games, but it’s likely he sucks in general.
It’s obvious that it’s either a TD or an incomplete pass. If they had called it a TD live, it stands, likewise with incomplete. There’s no way the OU Lite db ever had possession through the catch, let alone sole possession. Then there’s the blatant PI inconsistencies.
48-47 ISU.
Last edited:
Except the defender didn't have the ball against his chest; Murdoch did. Murdoch's arm, as you can clearly see in the videos, clearly has the ball, and has it "instantly". So if you believe that the defenders chest constitutes possession, then sure, it's dual possession. Just because the ball stays against his chest all the way to the ground means nothing. The defender loses his grip on the ball as they go to the ground (contrary to your statement that the wrapped his arms around it and kept it there all the way to the ground); MM's grip never waivers. OSU's grip on the ball at the start, middle, and finish of the play are OUTSIDE of the hands of the ISU player. The one still image that OSU fans keep pointing to is just that; a still image from one millisecond of the play, quite conveniently picked out, mind you. A millisecond before that photo, the OSU play didn't have his hand on the ball. It's clearly either a touchdown, or it's dual possession - which of course, is also a touchdown. Every replay from every angle shows this. If you don't like the dual possession rule, that's fine. But there is certainly no way that is a "confirmed" interception - that is a blatant screw job. I get that you're trying to sound cool and like you're the voice of reason here, but there's really nothing to reason - they got the call wrong on the field yesterday.
Exceot the OSU player didn't maintain possession, his hand cllearly comes off the ball as he hits the ground. The only reason it's pinned to his chest is because Murdock has it secured.
Nice try tho.
The funny thing is, I bet that if Murdoch had aggressively wrestled the ball away in the pile and then started celebrating like it was a TD - the refs might have called it differently. Those idiots had no idea what happened, they were huddled and thinking like "what the hell do we do here". Instead OSU players were celebrating like crazy and it sure "looked" from the stands that OSU had an interception just based on the players reaction alone, ours and theirs. It sounds silly, but had Iowa State started "confidently" celebrating and had MM came away with the ball, it would have given the idiot refs an impression of possession. And then the replay would have clearly confirmed the touchdown. Because it was.
Edit: Just watched the KCCI angle again. As they are rolling out of bounds, MM let's go of his possession. That definitely made a difference to that ref
Last edited:
Should be no different than an offensive player trapping the ball against a defender's back like we have seen in multiple instances in the past.
At one point the ball slid out and dm had some possession. Watched it 50 times. It is either a TD or it is an incomplete pass when they role out of bounds. If there is any doubt on who has possession then it goes to the offense. Just ridiculous screw job when you add in all the calls and no calls on pass interference. That said, of course it sucks to leave it up to the officials.
After sleeping on this and thinking about it longer, the more I believe this was an incomplete pass.
Murdock is the one clearly with his hand completely covering the ball, but I wouldn't consider it "possession" since he has it pinned to the OSU player's chest. Without the OSU players chest there, Murdock wouldn't have it IMO.
The OSU player's left hand is not on the ball at all.... because Murdock's hand is between his hand and the ball. The OSU players right hand is touching the ball, but is in no way controlling it or possessing it. And then when the two players hit the ground, the OSU player's left hand (on top of Murdock's) comes completely off the ball, and I believe the ball even moves somewhat.
IMO, there is NO evidence whatsoever that either player ever has clear possession or control of the ball at any point throughout that entire play. I'd like to have that official show me the video evidence that they "saw" where the OSU player had control or possession of the ball?
IMO, the Big 12 did not want ISU in the championship game period. They don't have a big enough name, or national draw for TV viewing. The worst case scenario in the Big 12's mind would probably have been a TCU-ISU matchup for the title.
What's really interesting about that final drive was that they didn't call PI or holding on OSU when we threw it in the endzone for Eaton several plays before. Then there was an obvious horse collar also against Montgomery they didn't call either, and the horrible announcers said that because they couldn't get Montgomery down that it wasn't a horse collar. So if Montgomery gives up on the play and just goes down, then we would have gotten 15 yds? Then the obvious miss call on holding Lazard in the the endzone, finally followed by the mystery INT to seal the deal. Only ISU can have these things all happen I swear. F the Big 12. I wouldn't blame Campbell if he leaves if he thinks this is how ISU will always be treated in this league.
This whole series I'm talking about starts at the 3:59:10 mark of this video.
Murdock is the one clearly with his hand completely covering the ball, but I wouldn't consider it "possession" since he has it pinned to the OSU player's chest. Without the OSU players chest there, Murdock wouldn't have it IMO.
The OSU player's left hand is not on the ball at all.... because Murdock's hand is between his hand and the ball. The OSU players right hand is touching the ball, but is in no way controlling it or possessing it. And then when the two players hit the ground, the OSU player's left hand (on top of Murdock's) comes completely off the ball, and I believe the ball even moves somewhat.
IMO, there is NO evidence whatsoever that either player ever has clear possession or control of the ball at any point throughout that entire play. I'd like to have that official show me the video evidence that they "saw" where the OSU player had control or possession of the ball?
IMO, the Big 12 did not want ISU in the championship game period. They don't have a big enough name, or national draw for TV viewing. The worst case scenario in the Big 12's mind would probably have been a TCU-ISU matchup for the title.
What's really interesting about that final drive was that they didn't call PI or holding on OSU when we threw it in the endzone for Eaton several plays before. Then there was an obvious horse collar also against Montgomery they didn't call either, and the horrible announcers said that because they couldn't get Montgomery down that it wasn't a horse collar. So if Montgomery gives up on the play and just goes down, then we would have gotten 15 yds? Then the obvious miss call on holding Lazard in the the endzone, finally followed by the mystery INT to seal the deal. Only ISU can have these things all happen I swear. F the Big 12. I wouldn't blame Campbell if he leaves if he thinks this is how ISU will always be treated in this league.
This whole series I'm talking about starts at the 3:59:10 mark of this video.
I would also say that I think on either 1st or 2nd down I would have liked to see us send Montgomery in motion out of the backfield to empty the backfield, and try running the QB draw up the middle. That almost always seems to work down there for teams, and OSU probably wouldn't have expected Zeb to do that. If we had Lanning in, they would have had someone spy on him, but not with Zeb IMO.
Hindsight is 20/20 of course. Another thing I don't understand on that final play, our formation there has the 6'5" Eaton lined up more in the slot position on the inside, and Marchie on the outside for the lob play. Those two should be flipped. OSU's DB was actually taller than Murdock it appears. On OSU's 2 pt conversion attempt their WR had like 6 inches on Peavy.
Hindsight is 20/20 of course. Another thing I don't understand on that final play, our formation there has the 6'5" Eaton lined up more in the slot position on the inside, and Marchie on the outside for the lob play. Those two should be flipped. OSU's DB was actually taller than Murdock it appears. On OSU's 2 pt conversion attempt their WR had like 6 inches on Peavy.
This rule change has been excellent in the NFL. College needs to follow suit. 53 first downs yesterday. Let's say they stop the clock for 5 seconds each time (probably conservative). That's roughly 4 minutes of time they could chop off the game. Right now it's taking about an hour per quarter. Being able to chop roughly 15-20 minutes off each game would be a HUGE step in the right direction. This also takes the time out of the hands of the guy in the booth/referee on the field to decide when to start and stop.
The reason the clock needs to stop on first downs is they are completely inept at getting the chains and ball set. Specifically near the end of the game this is important. If a team is trying to tie/win a game, but loses on time because they can't start the plays fast enough because we are waiting for the fat old officials get ready that is worse than the games being longer. Games need to move faster, but the issue isn't really the pace of actual play. The issue is long reviews and ridiculous time outs.
Simultaneous possession rule is a bit more complicated than what has been posted. For example, Blum posts dual passion goes to passing team. That is correct however, it is misleading. According to NCAA rules to have simultaneous possession, the defender and receiver must both be in possession of the ball and either both be on the ground or have their feet touch the ground at the same time if they were in the air when gaining possession. If both have possession, by rule the player to touch the ground first is awarded the catch. Also the NFLcompleting the catch goofy rule isn’t in NCAA rules so. By rule first question at time of catch did both have possession prior to either touching ground. If one had possession and touched ground in end zone prior to dual possession than play is over and that person had catch. Second question if both had possession who’s touched ground first? (I know this seems screwed up rule but it is rule).
So given actual MCAA rules what is correct call?
So given actual MCAA rules what is correct call?
They both come down at the same time. Using the who comes down first shouldn't be relevant here.
Example from 2014 iron bowl where’re replay got it wrong..,Happened in the third quarter. Auburn threw a pass downfield which was ruled to have been jointly possessed by opposing receivers. (The Alabama receiver touched the ground first.) The play was reviewed and upheld and Auburn kept possession.
However, Mike Pereira (and Dave Cutaia later) tweeted that it should have been Alabama's ball because "A simultaneous catch is when two receivers get control of the ball in the air and come down to the ground at the same time." Therefore, "since the Alabama player came down first, it is not a simultanous catch and it is his ball per rule.
