Indiana/Michigan
 

Did anyone see the interception that was called late in the game? Was that the right call? The replay official did not overturn it ... thoughts?

For more input, you might consider posting a video.

I thought it was simultaneous and if anything possession by the offense.

Did not care for the call.

I did care and I thought it was a simultaneous catch from the live situation and I have not seen a replay from a good angle to change my mind initially.

And yes I was at the game. ;)

Jeffrey Rutledge's Photos | Facebook

Peace

Agreed. My U (from my crew) and I saw it and we both looked at each other wondering how that could possibly be upheld.

I am a Michigan fan but I still think it was a simultaneous catch and should have been Indiana's ball.

I am glad the call went the way it did, but I was surprised that the call initially resulted in an interception. It appeared the umpire ruled the catch an interception and after the officials got together no one had a better angle. The TV angles showed the back of the players (that I saw after getting home 10 hours later).

Peace

I saw the play while sitting in the bar, harming my liver before attending the Nebraska game, and was stunned that the ruling was an interception. Even after the replays, I still couldn't figure out how the original ruling on the field was an interception. My friends (non-officials) asked me why I was stunned by it, and after explaining the rule, they all watched the replay and wondered alike.

Any video of the play?

YouTube - 2009: Michigan-36 Indiana-33

9:20 in.

Another video

YouTube - Not an INT: Michigan vs. Indiana 2009


Yet another reason why umpires should not be ruling on passes. ;-)

And this is a Michigan fan's take on it, with still photos:
A Picture Story... Donovan Warren's Game SealingPick - Maize n Brew

Isn't this the state pastime, or motto, or something like that? :D

By the book, this is not a simultaneous catch as both players did not return to the ground at the same time..

Replay Official might have been able to overturn the ruling on the field if there was a camera angle or two from the opposite side. Unfortunately, there wasn't any such view. If anything he could have reminded the Referee that the Indiana player came down to the ground first... and if he had the ball, this could not have been a Simul-Catch. However, maybe he cannot even suggest that? I just don't know.

A SEC guy (director of officiating or something)...
 

said the player that first returns to the ground is considered to have possesion over the player to second return to the ground. It apparently isn't considered a simultaneous catch unless both players return to the ground at nearly the same moment.

Returning to the ground implies that they left the ground in the first place. Neither player was airborne when the ball was caught. My opinion was simultaneous catch.