A little more clarification on the IU interception
I did not see this posted, but certainly neg me down if I just missed it.
Here is a link to the NCAA rulebook [pdf] for reference.
I looked up the ruling, and under A.R. 2-2-7-III and A.R. 7-3-6-I-IX, "[i]f a forward pass pass is caught simultaneously by opposing players inbounds, the ball becomes dead and belongs to the passing team."
Under the replay rules for passes (Rule 12 Section 3 Article 2), there is no mention of simultaneous catches being an on-field call capable of review, so I'm not sure even if it could have gone to review. But presuming it could, the outcome was effectively made when the ref ruled it an INT.
So if that had been the ruling on the field, then I don't think the call is overturned and IU keeps the ball. But since it was ruled an interception, Rule 12 Section 7 Article 1 requires that it be reversed only via the oft-repeated "indisputable video evidence." Based on the video shown, it is hard to tell whether or not there was clear possession by IU.
A tough call for IU, but a great win for the good guys.
NOTE - Please correct me in the commnents if I missed something.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:10 PM ^
I would have to agree.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:11 PM ^
they can whine (and the rest of the big ten whiners will) all they want.
Final score UM 36 IU 33 (god, did I just type that)
September 26th, 2009 at 5:12 PM ^
I think the refs messed up, but as you said there wasn't any indisputable evidence, so the replay booth made the right call. You couldn't see the ball in any of the replays.
Not going to apologize for it, though. We've had our fair share of games stolen by the refs and we'll lose our fair share in the future. Today we're the beneficiary of a missed call. Them's the breaks. (Easy for me to say when we win.)
September 26th, 2009 at 5:15 PM ^
Yep, this is about right, while all four Indiana fans and Irish will complain about this, there is no camera angle that demonstrates the ball was in possession of either player until you saw the ball again in the hands of Warren. The play call then goes to the call on the field, which was an interception.
For all those that contest this, please explain to me how a ball thrown 10 yards away from a receiver out of bounds is not uncatchable.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^
I'm relieved that Michigan pulled out the win, because we looked horrible for most of the day. Really lucky that Indiana was really just a bad team. However, that was not an interception. I really wanted for it to be one (for Warren's sake), but it shouldn't have been. If that play is the other way we would all be up in arms over the call. We got a lucky call to cap a lucky win.
The pass interference has nothing to do with this play so I don't see how anyone needs to explain that bad call.
Never would I have thought to miss an offensive lineman so much as we did today. Go Blue!
September 26th, 2009 at 5:29 PM ^
To be honest, I would not have been up in arms had that been called a completion on the field. It was clearly contentious. The ball could have been called either way. The only clear point of view they showed was when Donovan was already on the ground with the ball. Does that mean anything? No, but it doesn't overturn the call on the field either.
I was far more upset with the PI call earlier than anything related to that call.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:04 PM ^
I think he meant we would be up in arms had we been in Indiana's position not if the call had gone the other way.
What pass interference is everyone talking about? Is that the uncatchable ball out of bounds? Cuz yeah, that was a little bit of BS
September 26th, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
Hmm, yeah, I could see that. I guess I just looked at that entire play/few seconds after the KO return as kind of non-important to the overall drive that I didn't have the same reaction as when that PI call was made. That isn't to say a drive killing, game ending interception is less important than a random PI call in the middle of the game, it's more that there was one play that was clearly wrong and one play that was very contentious.
All the same, IU was more than due for a turnover at that point. Back towards the mean, etc.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^
is to watch the replay, the official who threw the flag never even looked to see where the ball landed. Not even a glance.
atrocious, atrocious, atrocious
September 26th, 2009 at 5:20 PM ^
Like Donovan had the ball as they hit the ground. He clearly had it before any referee wold have been able to discern possession.
The color guy on the game brought up that "tie goes to the receiver" crap, but that is actually very rarely called. Whoever fights for the ball and wins usually gets he call.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^
I had a front row seat and the INT happened right in front of me. I definitely thought it was a simultaneous catch, but hey, the ref's screwed us over earlier in the game and they were just making up for it.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^
At least we seem to be at least a wash with the blown calls this year. In recent years it seems like an awful lot of these went against us...its karma
September 26th, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^
Usually in catches like this, the ref has favored the offense 99% of the time, so we really caught a break when the ref announced it was our ball. I knew the burden of proof for Indiana was too high to even consider a reversal. Had the ref called Indiana's ball, we would have no chance as the burden is on us to have indisputable evidence.
In catches like this, the ref usually has the final say. I'm not sure if I have ever seen a simultaneously caught ball reversed before.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:28 PM ^
It is harder to make the call for simultaneous possession when the receiver doesn't end up with the ball. He was in the process of losing the ball to Warren when going to the ground. I was surpised that it was reviewable, but there wasn't really enough there to overturn it. If the ball pops out as a receiver goes to the ground, it is ruled incomplete. If the ball ends up in the hands of the defender as the receiver goes to the ground, why shouldn't it be an interception?
Yeah, the PI call on the massive overthrow was horrible, but I doubt IU fans were complaining about that one.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
Just a thought here..
I was at the bar and they had the sound turned way up so I could hear Ward and her sniveling little boyfriend calling the game...does anyone remember after the terrible PI call, when Tate got hit from behind by one of the DEs after a pass on an obvious roughing the passer call, that Bentley said something along the lines of, "it's a makeup call"?
Really? Like, the QB goes down after throwing the ball five seconds earlier and thats a makeup call? Argh I hate second string Big Ten announcers.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:37 PM ^
Yeah. That bonehead called it a "ticky tack" penalty.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:34 PM ^
Even more clarification from Maize n Brew: It wasn't a simultaneous catch
September 26th, 2009 at 5:46 PM ^
Those frames are unbelievable. Warren obviously had the ball and the offensive player was trying to get it away from him.
That should end the discussion!
September 26th, 2009 at 5:47 PM ^
And I tend to think they show the call on the field was correct.
I also think that seeing the face of IU's coach go from white to IU red (to match his windbreaker) in about a heartbeat was pretty amazing.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:50 PM ^
+1 to you sir, for giving the link that will forestall arguments with any IU fans I may know
September 26th, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
Thanks for the link. Was hoping someone else who knew more about the call would fill me in.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:37 PM ^
I was listening to the radio broadcast and Brandstatter was convinced Warren had control, once he saw the replays. They also mentioned that replay officials have 9 different camera angles to view these plays, so if there was anything there to overturn it they would have.
September 26th, 2009 at 7:08 PM ^
got the pick, and a millisecond later the IU reciever got his hands on it...So to me, that millisecond gave us possesion and at that point all IU guy could do is strip it, or get his hands on it and try to make it look like a simutaneous catch.