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.
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.
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?
"This whole world is 3 drinks behind..."
I had flashes of the 2009 game against Florida on that play.
i didnt see any replays,i was there. but the PI should have been called and whether or not it was caught wouldnt matter
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.
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.
It did make a difference because that essentially sealed the win for them. It's not like it happened in the first quarter.
"If you're going to be at Oklahoma, you need to win, you need to contribute, you need to do all the little things to make this team succeed.'" T-Lew
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.
Last edited by FaninAma; 10/28/2012 at 06:58 PM.
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.
It looked to me like it rolled off his hand and hit the ground, it should have been an incomplete pass.
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.
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.
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...
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.
...Never again will you be haughty on my holy hill.
Zeph 3:11
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?