Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60
  1. #41
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    1,392
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    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.
    Nebraska and Oklahoma made up one of the greatest college football rivalries of all time. They played every year between 1928-97, and two times every four years since then. Their games in the Big Eight decided the conference championship 16 of 19 times between 1970-88. OU leads the series 44-38-3. --The Associated Press, December 1, 2010

  2. #42
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner79 View Post
    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.

  3. #43
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    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.

  4. #44
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by King Barry's Back View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1 Sooner Eclipse's Avatar
    Location
    On top of the Summit
    Posts
    2,174
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner79 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sooner Eclipse; 10/28/2012 at 10:14 PM.
    Socialism is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

  6. #46
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    1,757
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by EatLeadCommie View Post
    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.

  7. #47
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Posts
    12,528
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by Sooner Eclipse View Post
    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.

  8. #48

    Re: Teo's Interception

    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.

  9. #49
    Sooner Starter tator's Avatar
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    897
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by C&CDean View Post
    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.
    he likes the fight in this post. he likes the resolve.

    he'll take this post around and post it on any sucker's message board that's beat him 5 years in a row.

    he learned stuff today.

  10. #50
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderSooner79 View Post
    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.

  11. #51
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Posts
    12,528
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by jkjsooner View Post
    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.

  12. #52
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member
    Location
    "Chocolate" City
    Posts
    5,071
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by jkjsooner View Post
    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.

  13. #53
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    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...v=P0lggQVR9TM#!

  14. #54
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    3,179
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

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

  15. #55
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    1,126
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    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.

  16. #56
    Sooner Starter TexasIsOUsBtch's Avatar
    Location
    Sapulpa, OK
    Posts
    708
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    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?
    "i can't carry a pen in my pocket, i'm afraid it will puncture my scrotum!"

  17. #57
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member bluedogok's Avatar
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,038
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by thecrimsoncrusader View Post
    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.
    Last edited by bluedogok; 10/30/2012 at 10:08 PM.

  18. #58
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasIsOUsBtch View Post
    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.
    Last edited by jkjsooner; 10/29/2012 at 10:20 PM.

  19. #59
    Sooner All-Big XII-2-1+1-1+1
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

    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.

  20. #60
    SoonerFans.com Elite Member picasso's Avatar
    Posts
    21,963
    vCash
    500

    Re: Teo's Interception

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •