The Interception That Wasn't

[PalmBeachSooner]

I am a 5th year HS official. I worked one year in Texas under NCAA rules so I have some credebility here. Below is the interpretation of the rule that applies.

At first I thought it was an interception, then after seeing Robinson lose control when going to the ground I thought good call because of the requirement to retain possession when going to the ground. However, the key here is that Robinson did not leave his feet so the requirement to maintain control when he went to the ground doesn't apply. He made the interception in stride, never leaving his feet and he had control when he went to the ground. He rolled over and then the ball came out. This should have been ruled an interception. I don't know what the ruling official saw but at a minimum this should have been reviewed

I'm not here to blame the loss on the officials but to elaborate on the rule.

To catch, intercept or recover a ball, a player who leaves his feet to
make a catch, interception or recovery must have the ball firmly in his
possession when he first returns to the ground inbounds with any part of
his body or is so held that the dead-ball provisions of Rule 4-1-3-p apply
(A.R. 2-2-7-I-V and A.R. 7-3-6-IV).
1. If one foot first lands inbounds and the receiver has possession
and control of the ball, it is a catch or interception even though a
subsequent step or fall takes the receiver out of bounds.
2. Loss of ball simultaneous to returning to the ground is not a catch,
interception or recovery.

[MyT Oklahoma]

Your a good man. Thanks for the explanation.
_________________________________________
"This is the voice of The Sooner Football Network."

[IronHorseSooner]

Then, why was is not delayed for review? Also, what is your opinion of the 2 personal foul penalties?

[crimsonclass]

Are you sure? You say Robinson wasn't airborne, and I do not recall. I have not seen a clip since watching the game yesterday, so if anyone can provide a clip, I'd appreciate it.

The Rules:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Football_Rulesadc982b5-03fb-4e27-828c-c2d26b95e6c1.pdf

These are the 2 rule interpretations that I found that seem closest to the situation:

p. 206-207 (In this one, the receiver is not airborne, but is going to the ground on his own)
XIV. Receiver A85 stretches out at the Team B two-yard line and possesses
the ball but is going to the ground on his own as he is attempting to
complete the catch. As A85 falls to the ground in the end zone, the
ball immediately comes loose and falls to the ground. RULING:
Incomplete pass. Any receiver going to the ground on his own in the process of making a catch must maintain control of the ball when he
hits the ground.

P.207 (In this one, the receiver was airborne and was hit by a defender)
XV. Receiver A85 is airborne in the end zone and possesses a pass, but
while airborne is hit by a defender, which causes A85 to fall to the
ground. Immediately upon hitting the ground, the ball comes loose.
RULING: Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver contacted before
completing all the requirements of a catch must still maintain control
of the ball after hitting the ground.

[OKLA21FAN]

had the final score been a 3 point difference I probably would have been upset more. but the fact of the matter is that Texas went on to score another TD and made this 'call' non applicable and yesterday, Texas was the better team.

bottom line, UT out played OU in the 4th, that was the difference

but here is you clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR23Bz46IpI

:gary:

[bri]

We could have challenged. We didn't.

If you want to blame someone, blame our coaches. Otherwise, let it go.

[thesnowbishop]

I posted this in 2 other threads, but I have to vent somehow:

Just got back from Dallas, and this is the one play that bothered me the most. We were sitting in section 2 12 rows up, so it happened right in front of us. It sure looked like an oskie in live action. They showed it on the jumbotron after Texas had already kicked the field goal. It was then that I realized that the ball came out when Robinson hit the ground. However, I also saw the play on an ESPN replay and Robinson looked like he took one or two steps with possession, and the fumble came when he hit the ground.

Regardless of the call, I can't believe our coaching staff didn't call a time out or challenge the call outright. Maybe they didn't have a good viewing angle of it; maybe Lamont didn't protest to the staff enough; maybe the ruling was just obviously correct. It could have been a huge swing of momentum. I am not ripping the staff, and it was one hell of a game that we just plain lost. This was a moment that should go in Bob's shoulda' bank.

[AlbqSooner]

I am a 5th year HS official. I worked one year in Texas under NCAA rules so I have some credebility here. Below is the interpretation of the rule that applies.

Thanks for posting that. After reading that and re-viewing the the clip posted by Okla21, I am convinced we got jobbed on that call. However, as said, we did not lose by 3. Perhaps the momentum change would have made a difference, perhaps not.

I watched a GREAT football game yesterday. Unfortunately, the Sooners did not come out on top.

[sooner59]

Are you sure? You say Robinson wasn't airborne, and I do not recall. I have not seen a clip since watching the game yesterday, so if anyone can provide a clip, I'd appreciate it.

The Rules:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Football_Rulesadc982b5-03fb-4e27-828c-c2d26b95e6c1.pdf

These are the 2 rule interpretations that I found that seem closest to the situation:

p. 206-207 (In this one, the receiver is not airborne, but is going to the ground on his own)
XIV. Receiver A85 stretches out at the Team B two-yard line and possesses
the ball but is going to the ground on his own as he is attempting to
complete the catch. As A85 falls to the ground in the end zone, the
ball immediately comes loose and falls to the ground. RULING:
Incomplete pass. Any receiver going to the ground on his own in the process of making a catch must maintain control of the ball when he
hits the ground.

P.207 (In this one, the receiver was airborne and was hit by a defender)
XV. Receiver A85 is airborne in the end zone and possesses a pass, but
while airborne is hit by a defender, which causes A85 to fall to the
ground. Immediately upon hitting the ground, the ball comes loose.
RULING: Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver contacted before
completing all the requirements of a catch must still maintain control
of the ball after hitting the ground.

I saw it zoomed in on ESPN late last night. The problem was that he did not simply stretch out, catch the ball, then fall to ground. If so, the call would have been correct. He caught the ball with one foot down, then took another step or two, then fell on his back (still possessing the ball). After that, he rolled over and it looked as if he might have even just let the ball go thinking he had intercepted it because he immediately jumped up and celebrated. Even if he did not just let it go, he had possession, took a couple steps, landed with possession on his back and was touched by a longhorn player. He should have been down on the spot. Not saying we would have won, but we might have. Same with the two PF penalties keeping drives alive. What really lost it for us was giving up a TD on a kickoff while up 14-3 and having the momentum. Special teams is our achilles heal this year, and its painful to watch. :(

[Big Red Ron]

We could have challenged. We didn't.

If you want to blame someone, blame our coaches. Otherwise, let it go.
That's not entirely correct. When replay is used, a Replay Official (usually a former college or NFL game official) reviews every play at its conclusion from a secure booth in the press box. Most plays are routine and the game continues without interruption. If, however, the following criteria are met, the Replay Official may interrupt the contest by paging the game officials to stop the game before the next play starts. The criteria are:

There is reasonable evidence to believe an error was made in the initial on-field ruling.
The play is reviewable.
Any reversal of the on-field ruling, which can only result from indisputable video evidence, would have a direct, competitive impact on the game.The booth should have stepped in (I've seen far less important plays reviewed than this one) but the coaches should have thrown the flag if the booth wasn't going to do their jobs.

[aurorasooner]

Originally Posted by PalmBeachSooner View Post
I am a 5th year HS official. I worked one year in Texas under NCAA rules so I have some credebility here. Below is the interpretation of the rule that applies. Maybe you could e-mail Shinn or Clay Horning at the NT and they could get clarification from Walt Anderson at the Big 12 office. I doubt if the Big 12 office will comment, as conferences are more interested in sweeping officiating screw-ups under the carpet instead of setting the record straight so the next time it happens the conference officials and especially the replay officials know the exact rule. Shocked the hell out of me when ABC came back to the game and Texas was kicking a FG instead of our offense having possession on the 20.
Did Robinson have control?
John Shinn
The Norman Transcript

DALLAS — Late in the third quarter Oklahoma had a huge shot at changing the momentum of the game when Lamont Robinson appeared to intercept a Colt McCoy pass in the back of the end zone with the Sooners up 28-27.

The back judge, however, ruled the Sooner linebacker didn’t control the ball when he hit the ground. The ball came out when Robinson hit, but he also appeared to take a few steps while he clearly had possession.

Robinson, who was inserted into the lineup after middle linebacker Ryan Reynolds was injured earlier in the third quarter, was stunned by the call.

“I had it,” he said. “I did.”

Replays appeared to back up Robinson’s claim.

OU coach Bob Stoops didn’t challenge the play.

“I don’t believe I could have. Incompletions from what I understand aren’t (revisable),” he said after being asked if he could have called for a review on the play. “I know everybody is talking about it … From my understanding, all plays all reviewed.”

If it was reviewed by Big 12 replay officials, it was done quickly. One play later, Texas’ Hunter Lawrence connected on a 28-yard field goal to give the Longhorns their first lead at 30-28. There was no delay for a review.

“It was points,” Robinson said. “It was one play that could have changed the outcome of the game. It could have been a momentum change and momentum is a huge thing.”
print this story email this story comment on this story

[StoopTroup]

BTW...

The coverage on this in the Cotton Bowl blew.

If it had been immediately replayed...I'm betting Bob would have questioned the call....IMO that is...

[IronHorseSooner]

It was only 3 points, and we dis lose by 10, but, as Robinson himself said, it was momentum. Up until that point, OU hadn't trailed at all this year. It is like a goal-line/4th down stand. It would have been a HUGE momentum swing. I am not just saying this as a Sooner fan, but I have watched a lot of sports, in general, and I have not seen a team get hosed as much as the OU football team on a consistent basis.

[starclassic tama]

We could have challenged. We didn't.

If you want to blame someone, blame our coaches. Otherwise, let it go.

we would have just lost a timeout. whats the point? the right call was made.

[PalmBeachSooner]

One other thing to remember is that when a loose ball is possessed (in this case the interception) the play ceases to be a loose ball play and it becomes a running play and different rules apply, ie, the ground can't cause a fumble.

I'm just discussing the play. I'm not complaining or whining. Texas won that game IMO. You can't leave your defense on the field for 15 minutes longer than their defense and expect to have a chance at the end against a good offense.

[rainiersooner]

As stated elsewhere on this board, overall, the officiating was just p*ss poor. There were three specific examples of this that hurt us...but heck, there were probably three specific examples in many other categories of things that hurt us as well (i.e., bad special teams, losing reynolds, our own mistakes getting offside at crucial times). Just a tough day all around.

[NormanPride]

And the calls weren't just against us. The bubble screens that we ran with Manny had linemen way downfield. I hate it when officiating crews get in the way of good football...

[Half a Hundred]

Yep, the zebras were equal-opportunity suck-asses. A game as important as that shouldn't have graduates from St. Mary's School for the Blind officiating.

[JLEW1818]

I blame myself for drinking to much Friday night.

[kangsta]

that was one of the worst officiated games i've ever seen

[hobbes2702]

Not to get yall mad but he didn't have control of the ball until he was falling to the ground thus once he hit the ground it was an incompletion. The ball was moving around until he began to fall. The officials made a good call. It should have been reviewed but it was the right call.

[HopeSpringsEternal]

There were bad calls going both ways. Drop the nonsense about calls costing OU the game. What cost OU the game was the fact that when adversity struck Texas had an answer and OU didn't. That's it and that's all. Not having or gaining "momentum" is just another excuse for mediocrity. Texas didn't have "momentum" for a lot of the game and that NEVER kept them from responding to shot after shot given out by the Sooners or refs.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

On the Replay Show, Stoops said it was a good call.

[the_ouskull]

I blame myself for drinking to much Friday night.

If that's the case, then I blame you 1) for saying "to" when you meant "too" and 2) for not drinking ENOUGH on Friday night.

the_ouskull