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.