Baylor benefits from Bradford pick

Comments Comment on this article6

By John Helsley
Published: October 5, 2008

There was only turnover in Saturday's game, yet the one was entertaining.

A Sam Bradford pass deep for Juaquin Iglesias hung in a stiff south wind, was tipped and then fell toward Iglesias, who was sprawled on his back on the turf. Iglesias grasped for the ball, but so did several Bears, with Baylor's Lake Jordan eventually emerging from a pile with an interception that had to be confirmed by replay.

Advertisement

It resulted in just the third interception this year for Bradford, who boosted his touchdown total to 18.

Iglesias' explanation was nearly as adventurous as the play itself.

“I saw it,” Iglesias said. “I should have caught it, it hit my hands. I'm kind of bobbling it and then they keep coming in, I'm trying to catch it... I don't know. They caught it. But I should have caught it the first time.”


Toolbar sponsored by: David Stanley Ford
Bookmark and Share


Comments

Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.

Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.

Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).

   
Eh, there were two bad calls...first, the ball clearly rested on the ground above Iglesias's sholder, and should have been ruled an incompletion. To rule that an interception signifies that the ball wasn't on the ground, and for that to happen, Iglesias would have had to have caught it with his arm and thus down by contact. That was bogus.

On the pass interference call, the defender on Iglesias very obviously had his hand inside Iglesias and was thus holding him illegally. That is defensive holding, and it is a perfectly legit call as that is illegal anywhere on the field regardless of where the ball is. Pass interference, however, requires a catchable ball and that was no present as it was intercepted before it got there. There was a penalty, but it should have been called for defensive holding, rather than pass interference.
Jason, Norman - Oct 6, 2008 1:30 PM
Report as inappropriate
I still never saw the pass interference, even when I watched the game again. I couldn't believe they wouldn't replay it to show at least what was called.
Andrew, Irving - Oct 6, 2008 10:59 AM
Report as inappropriate
It definitely hit the ground, but what really bothered me was this: The referee who was within five feet of the play and watching the ball the whole time called it an incomplete pass, but the umpire came running in from 30 yards downfield and overruled him. To the extent that the replays were "inconclusive" (they weren't, imo, but the replays they showed after the commercial break were all zoomed in, so you couldn't see the ground in the replay), that should have been advantage OU, but since the umpire reversed the call, that made the call on the fiel and INT instead, advantage Baylor. Ultimately, I'm not complaining, because Sam definitely threw an INT into the endzone earlier in the game, which was called back on a questionable, and at-best ticky tack, pass interference call. So, imo, it all came out in the wash.
James, Norman - Oct 6, 2008 10:45 AM
Report as inappropriate
It was as good as a punt, so in that manner it was beneficial. But how BLIND could the officials and announcers be? It CLEARLY hit the turf. Did we import PAC-10 officials just for this game?
Andrew, Irving - Oct 5, 2008 7:38 PM
Report as inappropriate
It looked like it hit the ground to me.
Ryan, Broken Arrow - Oct 5, 2008 11:14 AM
Report as inappropriate
It went into the books as Bradford's third pick of the season, but the replay clearly showed it hitting the turf. Under the circumstances, the int. came on third and 9 and we would have probably punted, so putting Baylor on the 10 was not that bad. I know we went for it on fourth and inches in the same series, but I dont think they would have gone for it on fourth and 9
john, prague - Oct 5, 2008 10:45 AM
Report as inappropriate