Teo's Interception

[OUTromBoNado]

I need someone to explain this one to me. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not really up on a lot of the nitty gritty in the football rules. I watched the game, but didn't listen to the teevee commentators, so I don't know what they said. The OU broadcast was fairly convinced it was NOT an interception. After checking the board, I've been fairly surprised at the number of people on here that do think it was an interception. If someone can, I'd like an explanation of that ruling. My interpretation was with the way the ball hit the ground without his hands under it, Teo's catch was pretty much like trapping the ball, which should have been incomplete. I also didn't hear it talked about much during radio post-game shows or on any web news articles. This makes me think I'm wrong about the rule.

I had a bet with a Notre Dame fan at work, and I've been catching hell from him and my co-workers on Facebook all night. In my rage and frustration, I basically popped off with a comment that said, "How many BJs do ND's donors give the officials to keep getting these controversial replay calls every game?"

I'd rather have to go to work and try to save face by saying that I misunderstood the rule rather than half-*** apologizing and coming across as a giant tool. Of course, I'd rather be exactly right with my interpretation of the rule. I can still give ND credit for outplaying and outcoaching OU out of one side of my mouth and gripe about how that call took away any chance OU had out of the other side.

TIA.

[Sooner70]

I'm not a rulesmiester either, so I may stand corrected on what I say here. I think a successful interception has two parts. First part is to successfully get your hands under the ball (no trapping), and second is to maintain control for such a time as to put it away. I got the idea that the first was never in question, per the replays. In other words, he successfully got his hands under the ball, but when his back hit the ground & he rolled over, the ball was bobbled. Then it became a "Did he maintain control?" issue. They replayed it over & over, and the way the announcers ended up (I think Kirk H.)....".....this one could go either way", meaning the replay official could overturn the field ruling of interception or not. Guess they thought there was enough control to not.

[soonercastor]

Not enough evidence to overturn it. One of those plays where the call on the field is crucial.
With that said there was definitely PI on Saunders that should have been called.

[LRoss]

Anybody have video of this? I thought it looked like PI in live action too, but after the close/controversial/garbage int they never really showed the replay from far enough back to see.

[GrapevineSooner]

It was clearly DPI and the ball hit the ground...which caused Teo to clearly juggle the ball.

Not really sure why there should be any debate here.

That doesn't take away from how Notre Dame's defense absolutely shut our offense down, though. Had that drive continued, I'm not 100% the offense would have been able to continue driving down the field for the game tying score.

[S.PadreIsl.Sooner]

The ball touched the ground. Then it was bobbled by the defender. No interception!

Herbstreit saw this but didn't have the balls to say it!

[Jason White's Third Knee]

Hand were under the ball but the ball rolled and was bobbled so possession was questionable. Total judgement call.

The PI should have been called. We were on the weak end of calls the whole game.

[FaninAma]

Hand were under the ball but the ball rolled and was bobbled so possession was questionable. Total judgement call.

The PI should have been called. We were on the weak end of calls the whole game.

We were shutout on calls. 3 crucial calls and we were 0-3.

[Breadburner]

The uncalled PI was the real tragedy on that play.....

[One4OU]

Hand were under the ball but the ball rolled and was bobbled so possession was questionable. Total judgement call.

The PI should have been called. We were on the weak end of calls the whole game.

You are correct that it was PI but that was no judgement call. He had a hand on the ball, it hit the ground jarring it lose.

I believe the part that is being missed is his other hand was under his hip and not close to the ball. It was a trap where the ground helped him control it. What a joke. Another replay error.

Of course this doesn't assume we would have scored but it did end the game.

[PLaw]

We were shutout on calls. 3 crucial calls and we were 0-3.

Every close call went the irish way and the refs on the field were leaving it to the replay booth. If Teo's int had been ruled incomplete on the field, then it would not have been overturned by the booth.

[GottaHavePride]

Guys, Te'o had possession of the ball BEFORE he went to the ground. "Hand under the ball" is irrelevant, he caught the ball at waist height. As he went to the ground it started to slip out, so the debate was if he demonstrated sufficient control of the ball to count as possession.

And whether or not it should have been pass interference is another issue entirely. Either way, if the WR had just kept control of the ball instead of bobbling it up in the air, that would have been a spectacular play.

[BoulderSooner79]

I thought he had hands under the ball and certainly not enough evidence that he did not. It looked to me that the impact with the ground to the back of his hands is what caused him to juggle possession. He then regained control w/o the ball ever touching the ground.

[jkjsooner]

If he gained possession before going to the ground then it's even more controversial since he clearly did not maintain possession as the ball hit the ground. The ball did hit the ground, his hand was under the ball, and possession was temporarily lost after the ball hit the ground.

The only way that was an INT is if the ball hitting the ground is as if it never hit the ground IN ALL RESPECTS when his hand is under it. That is not how I interpret the rule.

[BoulderSooner79]

If he gained possession before going to the ground then it's even more controversial since he clearly did not maintain possession as the ball hit the ground. The ball did hit the ground, his hand was under the ball, and possession was temporarily lost after the ball hit the ground.

The only way that was an INT is if the ball hitting the ground is as if it never hit the ground IN ALL RESPECTS when his hand is under it. That is not how I interpret the rule.

That's the way I interpret the rule as well. I think his hands were under the ball and it never hit the ground.

[jkjsooner]

It did hit the ground. There is no doubt about that.

My understanding of the rule is that when your hand is under the ball as it hits the ground possession is simultaneous with the ball hitting the ground and the benefit is by rule given to the receiver. However full possession was not maintained at that point.

Anyway I could be wrong with my interpretation. Either way what happened wad clear in the video. It is not a judgement call. It is simply a matter of rules.

[BoulderSooner79]

It did hit the ground. There is no doubt about that.
...


You are wrong about doubt because I don't think it ever hit the ground and the big12 replay refs agree. I would go as far as to say that it may have been overturned had it been called incomplete. That would have been much more likely than overturning the INT call. The only place there is no doubt the ball hit the ground is in your mind.

[TahoeSOONER]

It was clearly PI before the INT

[BoulderSooner79]

It was clearly PI before the INT

May have been, I never got a good look - I'll have to watch the replay. LJ was certainly trying to put the ball into a small window.

[Sooner Eclipse]

I think his hands were under the ball and it never hit the ground.
This is not true. There is a replay angle clearly showing the ball on the ground. While he was in the act of catching it but before he bobbled.

[Widescreen]

He had one hand on the ball and the other side of the ball was on the ground. It wasn't until after that that he got his 2nd hand on the ball.

[freshchris05]

It was hard to overturn because of the ruling on the field. But we don't get that call. CFB needs ND back, you know how many hoodies will be sold today?

[soonercastor]

I had flashes of the 2009 game against Florida on that play.

[jkjsooner]

You are wrong about doubt because I don't think it ever hit the ground and the big12 replay refs agree. I would go as far as to say that it may have been overturned had it been called incomplete. That would have been much more likely than overturning the INT call. The only place there is no doubt the ball hit the ground is in your mind.

And several others here who saw the ball touching the ground. Maybe your view is o ly in your mind.

[soonertodd]

i didnt see any replays,i was there. but the PI should have been called and whether or not it was caught wouldnt matter

[LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0lggQVR9TM

From the video replay it looks to be an interception to me, the ball does not appear to hit the ground. But the defender hit OUr receiver before the ball got there, no doubt about that.

[EatLeadCommie]

If it had been a catch by Saunders with the same thing (hitting the ground, etc), it would have been an incompletion. Enough said. End of story.

Watch the Teo interception and our endzone interception of McCoy in 2008 that was ruled incomplete and tell me who got the real interception. I've read the rules before, and unless they have changed the Teo interception was anything but.

That said, I'm not sure it would've made a difference because Landry wasn't very sharp last night and Heupel's playcalling was bad.

[Widescreen]

It did make a difference because that essentially sealed the win for them. It's not like it happened in the first quarter.

[Okie35]

If it had been a catch by Saunders with the same thing (hitting the ground, etc), it would have been an incompletion. Enough said. End of story.

Watch the Teo interception and our endzone interception of McCoy in 2008 that was ruled incomplete and tell me who got the real interception. I've read the rules before, and unless they have changed the Teo interception was anything but.

That said, I'm not sure it would've made a difference because Landry wasn't very sharp last night and Heupel's playcalling was bad.

Landry wasn't ever sharp? He was around 62%. The playcalling was terrible though. I don't know why nobody else gets involved. Why do we only do that against Texas? Where was Whaley?

[FaninAma]

Landry wasn't ever sharp? He was around 62%. The playcalling was terrible though. I don't know why nobody else gets involved. Why do we only do that against Texas? Where was Whaley?

Landry completes a high percentage but he makes the receivers slow down or stop or reach back for his passes. Stats don't tell everything.

I thought Mike Stoops did the worst job he has done all year of mixing up his blitzes. He allowed the RS freshman to get too comfortable in the game.

I think the long TD run altered his normal agressiveness. We coached tight once again in a big game.

[EatLeadCommie]

Landry wasn't sharp. There's no question about that. He was throwing behind or in front of his guys almost every play, including a lot of the completions. To his credit, he didn't make any completely dumb plays. But I remember one play in particular when Herbstreit was practically fellating the ND defense and how they were anticipating the underneath throw, blah blah blah... They almost got the pick because LJ underthrew it. If he throws it where it should've been, it was a 1st down. It wasn't some great bit of anticipation by the ND defense.

As for anybody seriously arguing that the ball didn't hit the ground. It CLEARLY HIT THE GROUND. I have a 70 inch damn TV and the ball hit the ground. Clear as day. It hitting the ground is what made it pop out of his hands. It was not an interception.

[bluedogok]

It looked to me like it rolled off his hand and hit the ground, it should have been an incomplete pass.

[BoulderSooner79]

This is not true. There is a replay angle clearly showing the ball on the ground. While he was in the act of catching it but before he bobbled.

I didn't see and I was looking hard and hoping I would see it. But this play would be a good psych test to see if people see what they want to see. Tell a bunch of OU and ND fans that there is a correct answer on whether the ball hit the ground or not. And tell them there is $100 prize for getting the answer correct and then sum up the answers and look at the stats. I'll bet the different fan bases would have vastly different scores even though the prize should get them to see what really happened instead of what they wanted to see.

But I see all the folks posting that it's just "fact" the ball hit the ground. If that were true, the replay would have overturned it. They had all the angles and took their time. And the booth refs were big12 refs.

[dennis580]

The ball touched the ground. Then it was bobbled by the defender. No interception!

Herbstreit saw this but didn't have the balls to say it!


The ball can touch the ground on a reception or interception. That doesnt make a ball incomplete. Anyway it was a tough call. Certainly was not enough to overturned. It was a weird play, and a very close play.

[BoulderSooner79]

And several others here who saw the ball touching the ground. Maybe your view is o ly in your mind.

Could be, but it doesn't matter squat what is in my mind or yours. Only what was in the replay refs minds counts. And this was not a case of no good views; the angles were good. Had I been in the booth the INT would stand and I'd have been ruling it with clinched teeth and wearing crimson shades.

[Widescreen]

The ball can touch the ground on a reception or interception. That doesnt make a ball incomplete.

It does make it incomplete if one hand is one the ball and the other "hand" is the ground. That's what happened on that play. Not surprised it wasn't overturned though.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Guys, Te'o had possession of the ball BEFORE he went to the ground. "Hand under the ball" is irrelevant, he caught the ball at waist height. As he went to the ground it started to slip out, so the debate was if he demonstrated sufficient control of the ball to count as possession.

And whether or not it should have been pass interference is another issue entirely. Either way, if the WR had just kept control of the ball instead of bobbling it up in the air, that would have been a spectacular play.

This hasn't been the rule for several years. If you go to the ground, then you are not considered to have control until after you hit the ground. The key here was that the referee said "The ruling on the field STANDS, not is CONFIRMED" which means there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it or to say it was correct. Personally, I thought there was enough evidence to overturn it, but you aren't going to get that call in a big time game.

What I DO wish is that on INTs that Pass Interference was an allowable review...

[CU Sooner]

There is one view where the ball clearly was touching the ground. If he had controled the ball after that it would have been an interception. However, when he lost control of the ball and he bobbled it around in his body it should have been ruled incomplete. Clearly the ground caused him to lose the ball and you must maintain possesion when you his the ground. Rule says it should be incomplete. If he had maintainede possesion even though the ball had touched the ground it would have been a legal INT.

[C&CDean]

WGAS? It's done. Over. Finished. We got our asses handed to us by a bunch of drunk Catlicks. We'll just need to learn to deal with it.

Damn I'm tired of this ****. What happened to us? How about you?

[olevetonahill]

WGAS? It's done. Over. Finished. We got our asses handed to us by a bunch of drunk Catlicks. We'll just need to learn to deal with it.

Damn I'm tired of this ****. What happened to us? How about you?

I blame all these dayum Home losses on NOT HAVIN Tail gates any more :snowman:

[King Barry's Back]

No, the ball hit the ground. Te'o came down with the ball. His hand was UNDER the ball, and his hand made contact with the turf. He MAY have attained possession at this point. A split second later, his momentum caused the ball to rotate, and the ball then touched the ground. At that point, the ball was dead and the fact that Te'o then bobbled the ball was irrelevant.

The correct call turns solely on whether Te'o attained possession before the ball touched the turf. I think the correct call probably was made, but if it was possession, it was for such a brief micro-second that it could easily have gone either way.

My guess as to what actually happened on the field: The ball touched the ground for such a tiny moment in real-time that the on-field officials just didn't see it, and thus the call would have been "interception." Based on that, there was definitely insufficient evidence to overturn.

[jkjsooner]

Could be, but it doesn't matter squat what is in my mind or yours. Only what was in the replay refs minds counts. And this was not a case of no good views; the angles were good. Had I been in the booth the INT would stand and I'd have been ruling it with clinched teeth and wearing crimson shades.

I'm sorry. I thought the officials were monitoring this thread and were going to go back and change the outcome. (/sarcasm)

The fact is you turned into an ahole and called me out as the only one who interpreted what they saw as the ball hitting the ground and clearly many others did as well.

Before you jump on "interpretation", keep in mind that there is never 100% proof on a 2D camera from one direction. On plays where the camera "conclusively" shows a guys toes stepped on the line there's always a one in a million chance that the runner took that step off his heal and the toes actually never touched the white line.

Usually you can fill in a lot of blanks with a little intuition on how nature works. Could the guy really have stepped like he did without the toe actually coming in contact with the ground? Could the ball really have moved like it did if only the hands made contact with the ground. Is it even possible to roll over a ball like that while keeping any part of the ball from touching the ground. From what I saw you could do that a thousand times and every single time some part of the ball would touch the ground just like you could not put your toes 1/8" above the sideline on a full sprint without making contact with the sideline. Just like a ball with a tight spiral can't change trajectory in midair without being touched (remember that one).

Can I conclusively prove that the ball touched the ground? No, but I can't conclusively prove an extrodinarily odd gust of wind didn't change the trajectory of the ball in the Oregon game on the PI call.

From what I saw on replay it would have been virtually impossible for the ball to behave as it did without part of it hitting the ground. As I've stated earlier officials use these common sense interpretations (whether they know it or not) when they make a conclusive ruling on replay each and every time.

[jkjsooner]

Let's take a hypothetical. Let's say we know the ball hit the ground. Let's say a player gets his hands over the front part of the ball and the back part rotates to hit the ground. On hitting the ground the ball pops up (no longer in possession of the receiver) and the receiver catches it at waist high. Is that a valid catch?

I know a simultaneous catch and ball hitting the ground (with the hands under the ball) is by rule a catch but that wasn't what happened here. The catch wasn't completed until later so if the ball did hit the ground then my hypothetical above is the same as the play.

[jkjsooner]

The correct call turns solely on whether Te'o attained possession before the ball touched the turf. I think the correct call probably was made, but if it was possession, it was for such a brief micro-second that it could easily have gone either way.

My guess as to what actually happened on the field: The ball touched the ground for such a tiny moment in real-time that the on-field officials just didn't see it, and thus the call would have been "interception." Based on that, there was definitely insufficient evidence to overturn.

You can't have micro-second possession in football even if you had full control of the ball for that micro-second.

Again, the way I understand the rule is that having the hand under the ball means you by rule possessed the ball before it hit the ground but that implies that you actually met the criteria of possession which means you maintained control of the ball through the entire action.

[Sooner Eclipse]

But I see all the folks posting that it's just "fact" the ball hit the ground. If that were true, the replay would have overturned it. They had all the angles and took their time. And the booth refs were big12 refs.

My 60 HD TV and HDDVR with super slo mo disagree with you. Surely the old ****s up in the replay booth have better equipment than I do. Yet there it is, plain as day in front of me yet again as I stop the play. The last view from the back side (only shown once) clearly shows it and Herbstreit even comments that it clearly hit the surface.

Look, I think we played poorly overall and that we were outplayed. But we had a chance to tie the game and it was taken by a bad call AT HOME.

[SoonerMarkVA]

As for anybody seriously arguing that the ball didn't hit the ground. It CLEARLY HIT THE GROUND. I have a 70 inch damn TV and the ball hit the ground. Clear as day. It hitting the ground is what made it pop out of his hands. It was not an interception.

Agree completely. The camera shot from the ND endzone was unequivocal. I was calm and waiting for them to overturn it, and literally could not believe when they upheld it. I still can't believe it.

[BoulderSooner79]

My 60 HD TV and HDDVR with super slo mo disagree with you. Surely the old ****s up in the replay booth have better equipment than I do. Yet there it is, plain as day in front of me yet again as I stop the play. The last view from the back side (only shown once) clearly shows it and Herbstreit even comments that it clearly hit the surface.

Look, I think we played poorly overall and that we were outplayed. But we had a chance to tie the game and it was taken by a bad call AT HOME.

All I'm saying is there is not total agreement even here. I'm not the only fan here that thought it was a legit INT. To say you think it hit the ground is fine, to say it is FACT is BS. But I'll admit I only have a 52" monitor with HD so I could be under equipped.

[PrideMom]

I noticed that the JUMBO TRON did not re-show the play. But it appeared that the ball was an incomplete pass and hit the ground then ND picked up as a fumble. Why pass interference wasn't called on ND is what Stoops was complaining about because the ND played was a cape on the receiver.

I saw the exact same play a couple of years ago at the OU/TX game where the refs gave the ball to TX even though it was clearly an incomplete pass.....we won any way in that game.

[tator]

WGAS? It's done. Over. Finished. We got our asses handed to us by a bunch of drunk Catlicks. We'll just need to learn to deal with it.

Damn I'm tired of this ****. What happened to us? How about you?

Ya guys, quit talking about a football play that happened in the last football game while you're posting on a football board!

I thought it was pretty clear that it should have been overturned too.

[jkjsooner]

All I'm saying is there is not total agreement even here. I'm not the only fan here that thought it was a legit INT. To say you think it hit the ground is fine, to say it is FACT is BS. But I'll admit I only have a 52" monitor with HD so I could be under equipped.

That isn't all you said. You said this:


The only place there is no doubt the ball hit the ground is in your mind.

My mind, Eclipse's mind, King Barry's Mind, etc, etc.

[BoulderSooner79]

That isn't all you said. You said this:



My mind, Eclipse's mind, King Barry's Mind, etc, etc.

I didn't mean just you - I meant all the people claiming it was FACT when all it takes is few counter examples to show there is doubt. Sorry if you took it personal.

Show me an ND fan thread where they agree it was a bad call that went their way and I'll be on board.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Let's take a hypothetical. Let's say we know the ball hit the ground. Let's say a player gets his hands over the front part of the ball and the back part rotates to hit the ground. On hitting the ground the ball pops up (no longer in possession of the receiver) and the receiver catches it at waist high. Is that a valid catch?

I know a simultaneous catch and ball hitting the ground (with the hands under the ball) is by rule a catch but that wasn't what happened here. The catch wasn't completed until later so if the ball did hit the ground then my hypothetical above is the same as the play.

My understanding is that the ball can hit the ground as long as it doesn't move. The ball clearly moved as it popped up out of his hand after it hit the ground. I don't have any faith that we would have won the game anyways.

[jkjsooner]

Someone tell me at 25 seconds frame 6-13 or so that that ball is not on the ground.

Tell me that it's possible to roll over the ball like that (rolling your weight from one end of the ball to the other) without it touching the ground (even if both hands were under the ball).

Dude either has the largest hands I've ever seen or set some type of finger strength record to keep that ball from touching the ground.

Remember, he has not met the football definition of possession at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P0lggQVR9TM#!

[cvsooner]

It's not an interception and it was clearly PI committed on Saunders. The officiating was terrible.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

NBC paid the refs a crapload of cash. NBC has been waiting 20 years to get their money's worth with Notre Dame and it has finally came to frution. I hate refs.

[TexasIsOUsBtch]

I'm sorry if this has been covered already, but got so irritated at all the stupid bickering about whether the ball touched the ground or didn't, and all the people that "know" the rules... I will look for the exact verbiage of the rules, but the fact is, the ball touching the ground or not was NOT the missed call... The rule is, for instance on a pass caught on the sideline- A player must control possession of the ball and get one foot down, he must secure the ball all the way to the ground. When the player hits the ground the ball must be secured, if the ball moves (bobbles in any way), even if the ball NEVER touches the ground, it is INCOMPLETE! The only difference in what I just stated and what happened was the foot in bounds part, same applies in the middle of the field. Fact is when #5 made impact with the ground, the ball bobbled, so whether the ball hit the ground or not is irrelevant! By rule, it was incomplete! That being said, I've always thought this was a contradictory rule. If the ground can't cause a fumble on impact, how can it cause an incomplete pass?

[bluedogok]

NBC paid the refs a crapload of cash. NBC has been waiting 20 years to get their money's worth with Notre Dame and it has finally came to frution. I hate refs.
The game was on ABC, so they got the ratings. Next years game will be on NBC since it will be in South Bend.

[jkjsooner]

I'm sorry if this has been covered already, but got so irritated at all the stupid bickering about whether the ball touched the ground or didn't, and all the people that "know" the rules... I will look for the exact verbiage of the rules, but the fact is, the ball touching the ground or not was NOT the missed call... The rule is, for instance on a pass caught on the sideline- A player must control possession of the ball and get one foot down, he must secure the ball all the way to the ground. When the player hits the ground the ball must be secured, if the ball moves (bobbles in any way), even if the ball NEVER touches the ground, it is INCOMPLETE! The only difference in what I just stated and what happened was the foot in bounds part, same applies in the middle of the field. Fact is when #5 made impact with the ground, the ball bobbled, so whether the ball hit the ground or not is irrelevant! By rule, it was incomplete! That being said, I've always thought this was a contradictory rule. If the ground can't cause a fumble on impact, how can it cause an incomplete pass?

The out of bounds situation is very different scenario as a bobble when you hit the ground out of bounds means that your were out of bounds before you secured possession (since a bobble when hitting the ground means possession wasn't secured). You can secure it later but you'll be securing it while out of bounds.

In this case if the ball never touched the ground there would be no question. If you are in bounds it doesn't matter if the ball is bobbled when YOU (i.e. not the ball) hits the ground as long as you gain possession before the ball hits the ground.

Note: Securing a catch is a process not a momentary event. It begins when the ball is first controlled and ends when the receiver has fully met the criteria. This is where you hear the term "make a football move" in the NFL. On an out of bounds play you have to begin he process (control the ball) while in bounds and you can complete the process (maintain possession while going to the ground, etc.) while out of bounds. However once you bobble before completing the process you must begin the process again and if that happens out of bounds then it is not a catch.

[jkjsooner]

Here is what I found:

ARTICLE 7. a. Any forward pass is incomplete if the ball is out of bounds by
rule or if it touches the ground when not firmly controlled by a player.

So the hands under the ball interpretation only applies if the player is firmly controlling the ball. It was clear Te'o was not controlling the ball at the point that many of us believe the ball was touching the ground. His hand being under the ball is irrelevant if he is not controlling the ball.

I think Herbstreit was wrong when he said that it doesn't matter ifthe ball touches the ground ifthe hands are under it. That is only true if the receiver has control of the ball at that point.

[picasso]

Not an INT. Wasn't even that close. The ball freaking bounced it hit the ground so hard.