Was the Bama INT legit?

It looked legit to me. The ball can touch the ground so long as you maintain control and the ground doesn't aid in the catch.

It was legit

Yes, the correct call was "the call stands". The ball graze the ground as he rolled over on it, but hands were under it and tip of ball hitting ground just secured his interception.

His arms were under the ball.

It was legit. That was one hell of a play by Fitzpatrick

nope ball was moving and hit the ground, that is why coach O was so pissed.

Could have gone either way. Was really hard to tell even zoomed in slow mo, but there wasn't enough to overturn one way or another.

if you were watching he was holding on to the end of the football. he didn't have his hands on the fat middle. therefore no control until he rolled over the ball where the ground helped him secure. wasn't the worst call of the night. compare it though to hurts fumble and Riley's scoop and score. why are they so fast to blow the ball dead on that play instead of letting it go and then reviewing. no way you could tell whether his knee touched in real time. on the interception it is immediately ruled a good catch, so they didn't have to overturn it, just let it stand. reverse the teams on those plays and they go the other way.

i'm so sick of thise crap. bama may have won the game anyway, but you never know because the refs interfered at crucial moments. the personal foul that we didn't get. hurts grounding the ball out of the endzone with another no call. and the no call on the holding on hurts touchdown run. in a scoreless game how can anyone argue that wasn't huge?

quote:

---

compare it though to hurts fumble and Riley's scoop and score. why are they so fast to blow the ball dead on that play instead of letting it go

---

Hurts knee was down before he went over the player and fumbled. That one was not even close.

On TV they never showed a replay that showed any conclusive evidence on INT.

I thought nose of the ball hit the grown and was moving!! No catch!!!