Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Opinions on that INT

Either way, my problem with the whole play wasn't the call, but how it was called. The two refs closest to the ball stare at each other and both are looking confused. Obviously saying, "did you see it? I didn't see it, did you see it?" Then the furthest guys come running in stare a little more and make the interception call. In a situation like that, why not just call it incomplete? Both guys rolled out of bounds, neither guy had both hands on the ball before going out of bounds, so with the whole continuation of the catch issue, just call it incomplete out of bounds.

We have replay now, they can sort it out that way. I just have a problem with, the whole, "I didn't see it, I'll call it an interception." It reminded me of the Texas fumble they said wasn't a fumble. A few guys in stripes, looking really confused.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cyhiphopp, wxman1 and jbindm
Clonefan32 said:
I can understand it was a bang-bang play. You can see the line judge's initial reaction was having no worldly clue what to call. Tough call to make.

It was always going to replay, which is where my issue lies. The default is dual possession goes to the offense. So I would sure think when you have no idea what to call, which was apparent, you would go to the default rule, which would have made all the difference in this situation.
Click to expand...
In situations like this, why don't refs just rule incomplete. You can review it and if there is not enough evidence, then neither team is affected by the split judgement call.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Clonefan32, cyhiphopp and coolerifyoudid
Clonefan94 said:
Either way, my problem with the whole play wasn't the call, but how it was called. The two refs closest to the ball stare at each other and both are looking confused. Obviously saying, "did you see it? I didn't see it, did you see it?" Then the furthest guys come running in stare a little more and make the interception call. In a situation like that, why not just call it incomplete? Both guys rolled out of bounds, neither guy had both hands on the ball before going out of bounds, so with the whole continuation of the catch issue, just call it incomplete out of bounds.

We have replay now, they can sort it out that way. I just have a problem with, the whole, "I didn't see it, I'll call it an interception." It reminded me of the Texas fumble they said wasn't a fumble. A few guys in stripes, looking really confused.
Click to expand...
Great minds think alike!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clonefan94
Cyliam said:
Murdock doesnt even have two hands on the ball here.
Click to expand...

So Lazard's one handed TD should be negated also?
Boy is that disappointing.
And stop with the screen shot, its weak and you know it. I'd say you're better than that, but I'm being to wonder.
 
Spanky said:
So Lazard's one handed TD should be negated also?
Boy is that disappointing.
And stop with the screen shot, its weak and you know it. I'd say you're better than that, but I'm being to wonder.
Click to expand...

Only if the one hand is pinning the ball to a defenders chest who happens to also have two hands on the ball.
 
Cyliam said:
Look it sucks we lost the game but it was clearly an interception. The defender put the ball to his chest in the air, wrapped his arms around it, and kept it in his chest while be fell to the ground and the offensive player tried to rip it away. Dual possession is when two players gain possession at the same time amd maintain dual possession until the play is complete. That's not what happened.

It was a pick plain and simple, and all the tinfoil in the world isn't gonna change that.
Click to expand...

Go away troll. It's been confirmed you are an Iowa fan.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clonefan32 and coolerifyoudid
quasistellar said:
Okay now this is just straight up silly. Two hands is not a requirement for a catch. You're better than that.
Click to expand...

You can not seriously be arguing that one hand on a football pinning it to the chest of a defender is "control" of the football. You can not be serriously arguing one hand on the football versus two on the football while its pinned to your chest is equal, shared, dual, or simultaneous possession. If Murdock truly had control of the football the defender would not have been able to rip the ball away and show the official the ball.
 
  • Funny
  • Disagree
Reactions: quasistellar, Spanky and Mirata
Clonefan94 said:
Either way, my problem with the whole play wasn't the call, but how it was called. The two refs closest to the ball stare at each other and both are looking confused. Obviously saying, "did you see it? I didn't see it, did you see it?" Then the furthest guys come running in stare a little more and make the interception call. In a situation like that, why not just call it incomplete? Both guys rolled out of bounds, neither guy had both hands on the ball before going out of bounds, so with the whole continuation of the catch issue, just call it incomplete out of bounds.

We have replay now, they can sort it out that way. I just have a problem with, the whole, "I didn't see it, I'll call it an interception." It reminded me of the Texas fumble they said wasn't a fumble. A few guys in stripes, looking really confused.
Click to expand...

That touchback signal by the ref was one of the more tentative signals I've seen. Crazy play.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: wxman1
Cyliam said:
Thats not an issue as his other hand on the ball and the football never leaves his body.
Click to expand...

Then what happened to your "two hands > one" (which is wrong in itself) argument? If they both have one hand on the ball then how are you going to say it's not simultaneous possession? It's obvious that you're too dense to actually try and understand the rules and you're just going to be a broken record about how it was a perfect call.
 
Mirata said:
Then what happened to your "two hands > one" (which is wrong in itself) argument? If they both have one hand on the ball then how are you going to say it's not simultaneous possession? It's obvious that you're too dense to actually try and understand the rules and you're just going to be a broken record about how it was a perfect call.
Click to expand...

Its not a diffulicult concept. The football was brought to the defenders chest who at all times kept the ball pinned to his own body with a minimum of one hand. At no point did Murdock ever have the ball against his body, and on a few occasjons he had just one hand touching the ball. Listen we've had our fair share of calls go against us over the years. Hell that non-overturn on the Texas fumble a few years ago would be laughable if it weren't so damn tragic. But that isn't what this was, and folks that keep insisting it is sound a lot like my Uncle Murray who went to his deathbed refusing to believe we landed on the moon and never owned a TV because the governemnt used them to spy on people.
 
  • Useful
  • Disagree
Reactions: quasistellar and VeloClone
Cyliam said:
Its not a diffulicult concept. The football was brought to the defenders chest who at all times kept the ball pinned to his own body with a minimum of one hand. At no point did Murdock ever have the ball against his body, and on a few occasjons he had just one hand touching the ball. Listen we've had our fair share of calls go against us over the years. Hell that non-overturn on the Texas fumble a few years ago would be laughable if it weren't so damn tragic. But that isn't what this was, and folks that keep insisting it is sound a lot like my Uncle Murray who went to his deathbed refusing to believe we landed on the moon and never owned a TV because the governemnt used them to spy on people.
Click to expand...

It's actually a little simpler than that. You're making up your own rules. We're reading the rulebook. Guess you can't cure stupid though, so have fun playing away that it was a perfect call because it says so in the Cyliam College Football Rulebook for the Mentally Challenged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DurangoCy
It wasn't clearly anything. If it was, at least one of the officials would have made a decisive call right away. Instead they all spent a good five seconds looking at eachother hoping that someone had seen something definitive. It could have been called a catch, an interception, or an incomplete pass and any one of those calls would have held up on replay because nothing we saw was definitive. ISU came up on the wrong end of a guess call. Sucks, but that's what happened.

On to Baylor.
 
jbindm said:
It wasn't clearly anything. If it was, at least one of the officials would have made a decisive call right away. Instead they all spent a good five seconds looking at eachother hoping that someone had seen something definitive. It could have been called a catch, an interception, or an incomplete pass and any one of those calls would have held up on replay because nothing we saw was definitive. ISU came up on the wrong end of a guess call. Sucks, but that's what happened.

On to Baylor.
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten that this call was "confirmed"? That means that the officials say it was clearly an interception. It means that the call on the field wouldn't have mattered and that they would have called it an interception no matter what. It means that they are 100% sure that AJ Green had sole possession of the ball from that replay.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: amishclone
Mirata said:
Have you forgotten that this call was "confirmed"? That means that the officials say it was clearly an interception. It means that the call on the field wouldn't have mattered and that they would have called it an interception no matter what. It means that they are 100% sure that AJ Green had sole possession of the ball from that replay.
Click to expand...

No, I guess I had missed that. Huh. That kind of changes my opinion. I could understand not overturning it; that made sense, painful as it was. But I never saw anything that would make me say with 100% certainty that it was an interception. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Cyliam said:
Its not a diffulicult concept. The football was brought to the defenders chest who at all times kept the ball pinned to his own body with a minimum of one hand. At no point did Murdock ever have the ball against his body, and on a few occasjons he had just one hand touching the ball. Listen we've had our fair share of calls go against us over the years. Hell that non-overturn on the Texas fumble a few years ago would be laughable if it weren't so damn tragic. But that isn't what this was, and folks that keep insisting it is sound a lot like my Uncle Murray who went to his deathbed refusing to believe we landed on the moon and never owned a TV because the governemnt used them to spy on people.
Click to expand...

The football was first brought to the defenders chest by Murdock's, whose one hand is underneath the defenders one hand. The defender never had two hands on the ball until he ripped it away at the end as his left hand is on top of Murdocks hand. Also, you can use the defenders body to help you make the catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom