or maybe that rule isn't in play anymore... glad to see Zook stand up for that one. He probably didn't even know what the fuss was about.

This is an absolute joke. I've said it before, the Refs in this league are a HUGE reason why the conference is soooo crappy! In both football and basketball.

Can't wait to hear the Big Ten's explanation for this one....

While the team did not play well enough to win this game, that's still no excuse for the Ref standing 5 feet from the play to make the wrong call, and then for the review booth to rewrite the rules...

This is like the 2nd or 3rd time a review that was obviously in Illinois' favor still went against them

I don't know if the receiver had complete control of the ball. At least that's what the refs saw.

Since the defender ripped the ball before the receiver showed possession, int.

This will actually be the BT's defense of the call. However, the WR did have possession.

It's either a reception or it's incomplete. It can't be an interception.

We probably lose the game even if Zook sticks with Charest, but my God, Zook has an innate ability to come off looking like a buffoon in victory and in defeat. I think he flips a coin to determine the starting tailback each game.

as soon as he has both hands on it and starts to roll over (knee was already on the ground) the tape should go black because anything that happens is after the play. If that wasn't conclusive, then what is the point of replay?

Now on to the Sept. 26, 1995 PBA matchup that follows this game...

This is not true. Lets say a receiver is on the ground and the ball hits him on his chest and rolls down to his gut, then a defensive player picks the ball off the guys gut (or wherever?) that would be an interception. Now I am not saying that is what happened here as it looks as though the receiver had possession prior to the "strip", but I am sure the call on the field was that the receiver did not have possession prior to the defender striping the ball. I will tell you that I officiate HS football in Florida and on the field that play happens quick and can be missed easily. Still, not sure how the replay does not see the play as it happened?

This is correct. And unfortunate.

However, expecting that this team might have gone 60+ yards in 32 seconds is wishful thinking.

They deserved the chance, but it wasn't going to happen.

They did deserve the chance, but as you say, they had 0 chance of pulling it off. Another coaching staff maybe, but not these guys.......and all the play call does is give RZ and co. an excuse.....

All fine and good, and hoestly I think that is what they will say but I think the wr had possession before he rolled over onto his back.

Plus the ball was caught and down the minute they both had their hands on the ball.

I have to disagree here. The play that was called a couple of plays before could easily have been a touchdown. Duvalt got separation, but the pass was off target. The point is, if that previous throw to Duvalt is good, we are looking at an Illini win. Nothing wrong with the playcalling on that one.