The still shot CLEARLY shows Murdock's hand and forearm on the ball underneath OSU DB's hand, I don't know what you are seeing?
Opinions on that INT
- Thread starter demoncore1031
- Start date
The still shot CLEARLY shows Murdock's hand and forearm on the ball underneath OSU DB's hand, I don't know what you are seeing?
To those that are clicking the "Disagree" on this post, let's hear how you can disagree or dispute anything that is said above.
Do you realize you could find a stillshot of Ryen “catching” his drop against WVU?
The rules and supporting video have been posted numerous times. It’s a TD and a great play by Murdock.
I saw this photo on instagram. Again, this clearly shows Murdock’s hand underneath the ball, the other on top of it. How this isn’t called a touchdown is beyond me.
I'm seeing the DB, with both hands, tightly clutching the ball to his chest. I do not know how the rule reads in regard to Murdock's one hand on the ball.
I'd like to read the rules that pertain to this situation. (But, I'm not going to take time to search for them. Anyone have their finger on the rule book passages that apply?)
Wow, you must not know football very well. The ball does not have to touch the ground to rule a pass incomplete. What if the ball is being juggled, or never in control, but does not touch the ground?
OSU player's hand comes off of Murdock's hand when they hit the ground, but Murdock's does not. But you think OSU controlled it?
After all the years of mediocrity, I think we should be happy are having this arguement. Let’s have at it and enjoy. With my rose colored glasses I saw a team that didn’t lick their wounds, didn’t put their heads down and fought tilll the end. Things are looking up in Ames, maybe we should too.
Things would be even better if we didn’t have a chance to play for a confrence title get taken from us by officials
Yep. Remember in this photo that Murdock is wearing the red gloves.
Yes, granted this is after they hit the ground, but Murdock in the air CLEARLY has his entire right hand covering the ball, then when they hit the ground the OSU player's hand comes off, but Murdock's does not, and then as we see in this photo above, Murdock has both hands on it as they roll. But that is CONFIRMED as an INT with video evidence by the officials. OK.
Is this a joke? In your example, the ball would have to touch the ground at some point, gravity would ensure it, unless it is possessed by one or both players in this particular situation. If the ball is being juggled and the receiving player lands out of bounds while juggling it or while finishing the catch, of course it's incomplete at that point. But I don't recall being out of bounds as an issue in yesterday's play in question.
I wasn't saying anything about who controlled it. I was saying that calling it an incomplete pass was not an option.
The ball does not have to touch the ground to be incomplete. Furthermore, this play ended out of bounds, and, IMO, neither player completed the process of the catch before it went out of bounds.
I'm not convinced either guy clearly has possession of the football until the OSU player stands up with it 3 yds out of bounds. You wouldn't call that incomplete? Ok.
Explained above. The players were on the ground with the ball wrestling around for a while before the out of bounds line came into play. They're going to call a possession in that situation, not as incomplete. It wasn't an option there.
And I'm not sure where you guys are coming up with this "ball does not have to touch the ground to be incomplete" nonsense without qualifying it with the out of bounds line being involved. If being out of bounds is not part of the equation, the ball most definitely DOES have to touch the ground to be incomplete.
We're not here to make game plans for the coaching staff, dork. We're here to discuss the game where there was a huge call that didn't go our way despite ample evidence it should have. It's an interesting play and an interesting call worthy of discussion. If you want to write a play by play break down of our 3-3-5, start another thread.
If that is the case, they would have to go with dual possession, which would go to the passing team. Like I said....being incomplete was not an option. They were on the ground so they were already down by rule. If they had been wrestling for possession while standing up and went out of bounds during that process then calling it incomplete would be an option.
And neither of them completed the process of the catch prior to going out of bounds. That's textbook incomplete pass.
Well duh, you're the one that needed to qualify, not those posters.
I think it’s clearly a TD with the different angles posted, as Murdock caught the ball. Dual possession, if you’re being generous to the defender, still means TD.
But, I could see them calling incomplete live based on only Murdoch having possession and getting that possession while out of bounds. And given they don’t really take these reviews seriously, they potentially wouldn’t have overturned it.
Murdock made a GREAT catch imo, one that the refs didn’t think was likely and therefore were prejudice in their review. Unfortunately had Murdock not made an effort, it’s definitely incomplete.
I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense whatsover. Who is saying that the out of bounds line isn't coming into play here?
The official does NOT have to make a call the instant they hit the ground on who has possession. What if neither guy is determined to have possession when they hit the ground?
Your argument doesn't make any sense, I'm sorry. I don't think you can clearly say either guy has possession of the ball before they roll out of bounds until 3 yds out of bounds when Murdock gives up and the OSU guy wrestles it away.
