Gum-throwing incident claims no casualties

The piece of gum Bill Lynch took out of his mouth and whipped at his sideline after Saturday’s controversial interception call  apparently managed to land without causing any damage.

“I haven’t been called by any lawyer at this point,” Lynch said with a laugh when asked about the incident caught by ESPN cameras and shown both during the game and in various TV and internet highlight packages afterward. “I have no idea.”

Lynch, unsurprisingly, wasn’t looking to say much about the interception, which Indiana fans argued should have been called simultaneous possession between IU receiver Damarlo Belcher and and Michigan cornerback Donovan Warren.

“That’s part of the game,” Lynch said. “We’ve all been through it. I really do. I think as coaches and players, you learn that when it’s over, it’s over, and you move on. That’s where we are.”

Lynch said IU will not try to get any clarification or apology from the Big Ten. He said he actually never got an explanation on the play from the officials at the game Saturday.

“I didn’t talk to them,” Lynch said. “I wasn’t listening too well at that point. And really, the guys on our sideline weren’t involved in the play.”


  1. I think you media guys need to get an explaination for us fans. Lynch is right that is part of the game– so they need to move on and control what we can control—(red zone offense)….However, as consumers of college football the Big 10 needs to give an explaination and answer this question. Why isn’t it a simutaneous catch? If it is not– then what is?

    Who cares if it is not supposed to be reviewed? The question is was the correct call made—if yes or no—why?

    As media members you need to get an answer–you need to provide answers for the public on why?

    Lastly, if Lynch had stated the officals used “poor judgement” on that call would the Big 10 fined him? However, OSU calls out the Big Ten office for suspending Coleman—-and it is ok. Big Ten does not have guts to take on OSU for their response of blaming the officials for Coleman’s hit…Ask Tressel why Coleman was in the last 40 seconds of 30-0 game. That was poor judgement…

  2. I suspect that there is more to this incident than “meets the eye.” You had a call on the field which was incorrect but subsequently validated by a booth review that is intended to review and potentially correct misjudgments. Everyone is looking at the same pictures. Apart from Michigan fans (understandably), most everyone else concurs that it was a simultaneous catch and that the ruling was in error. I think the media (not IU) should peak under the covers to find out who actually made the call and why. The explanations provided thus far are just a little too glib and dismissive to be credible.

  3. Water under the bridge…move on…Dwelling on this call won’t get anyone, anywhere. If the had executed better in the red zone the call is a none issue. The team has moved on, so should the fans.

    Beat Ohio State

  4. I have moved on to thinking about the OSU game…The call did not cost us the game. It cost us a chance.

    I just want an explaination to the call. We should get one– it has been done in the past. They talk about how great Big Ten fans are, etc.. but what they want is our money–but they won’t help to clarify the call to give the fans an explaination. To me that says it was a blown call and they won’t admit it.

    Take your own advie and you should move on from dwelling on the red zone offense. Water under the bride we had to kick field goals, right?

    IU should not identify mistakes from the past and try to find out why it happend…just move onto the next game…. Bull crap… You don’t spend a ton of time on it, but it needs to be addressed or it will happen again and again.

    So if I see you at the game on Saturday– I will come up and sucker punch you– then you ask why or you try to hit me back…hey just move on..nothing to see here…no explainations needed…If you would have taken a different route to the stadium– I might not have took it to you. Move on…

    The Titanic hit an iceberg…. move on.. if they would have taken a different route it would have made it….move need for any explainations..move on. plane crashed..move on..

    I just don’t understand why an explaination is so wrong to ask? Big Ten came out with a statement on Illinois vs O$U–two years ago on a blown call.

    I guess that all of the people that told me it was a bad call– (non IU) including us don’t know tthe rules of football–then the Big 10 should take this opportunity to educate us fans for the betterment of the sport….

  5. An explanation should be forthcoming. It also should include some assurance that ‘underdogs’ will get a fair shake in the houses of the ‘big boys’ from now on. I personally am sick of this nonsense. The officials responsible should be reprimanded and or suspended.

    Even officials, even BIGTEN officials, EVEN THOSE BIG TEN OFFICIALS know how ridiculous that call was, and how it took IU’s last opportunity away.

    Go Hoosiers!!

  6. Replay the down..?..Would that be a fair rule-change option? Isn’t that like having enough life boats for the inconclusive, couldn’t see because of ice fog, one Titanic bad call in a game?

    When those officials go over to the sideline and start peeking under that camera blanket…I don’t know what the hell they’re looking at…Maybe they’re watching a stuffed crust Pizza Hut commercial…Sometimes the official is under so long it feels like he’s visiting a miniature Wizard of Oz… What’s he going to pop out with..?…Will he come out from under the dark curtain of review with heart, brain, or courage..???..The Great Oz says…MICHIGAN BALL! That was a Scarecrow call if I’ve ever seen one! Go back under there and find your brain!

    There’s got to be a better way…

  7. As much as I hate to say it the officials may have gotten the ruling correct in accordance with NCAA guidelines. The NCAA rule book is available for download as a PDF from their website. In the back of the book is a listing of approved rulings or interpretations to the rules. According to AR 7-3-6-II (PDF page 213, printed page FI-50) for a catch to be ruled simultaneous both players have to catch the ball AND contact the ground at the same time. In that case the ball is awarded to the team on offense (Indiana).

    According to AR 7-3-6-III (same referenced pages) a ball caught by two players becomes in the possession of the player who makes contact with the ground first and is not considered a simultaneous catch.

    Under this interpretation if Belcher and the Michigan player both caught the ball in the air at the same time but the Michigan player was the first to come in contact with the ground then it was correctly ruled as an interception. On the other hand if Belcher was the first to make contact with the ground then it should have been ruled a completed pass.

  8. Check out this YouTube clip….I still say this ref went looking for an Oz curtain somewhere..I’m hearing it in his voice….I think he even looks a bit like Ray Bolger…The Whiz must not have been home during this game, but you can bet the yellow-bellied Cowardly Lion act of the heartless Tin Man that made the simultaneous possession IU vs. Michigan call.. that guy is The Scarecrow!!

  9. I agree x2 John M. The idea is to get the rules as close to infallible as possible. I thought that was the reason for the replay review process. But unless AD’s and their departments hold someone’s feet to the fire long enough nothing happens. If there are rules stating the replay booth can not over turn certain judgement calls on the field they believe are wrong what the hell good is the system? You bet pressure needs to be applied in spades!!! Call Rich Falk at the B10.

  10. Rich Falk has retired, he was basketball. Football is Caroli (spelling?) Glass will not comment on any contact he has had with B10. My guess is he has.
    The game is over, so you’re working on the future. There’s nothing wrong with that.

  11. “According to AR 7-3-6-II (PDF page 213, printed page FI-50) for a catch to be ruled simultaneous both players have to catch the ball AND contact the ground at the same time.”

    Doesn’t “contact the ground at the same time”, in itself, fall within the realm of subjectivity and numerous possibilities for varied interpretations….Hmmm? Did they contact the ground at exactly the same time???…60,000 angry Michigan fans..???…a few thousand drunk and completely livid over their Goliath of the Big 10 losing to the David of the bottom dwellers?…hmmm? Do we really want a holy war at the door step of that poor official’s Holiday Inn Express room tonight? Well, how ’bout that…. lookee there…(interpreting…interpreting)…..I see it!…Indiana player is clearly not yet sitting on the ground with the ball..Yes, though he does apparantly appear to be holding the ball, and seemingly has enough time to light up a cigarette and read tomorrow’s sports headline of a Michigan victory,’s quite obvious the Hoosier receiver is suspended in animation 1/16 inch above the ground….the Indiana player is sitting on a magic astroturf carpet!…Yes, that must be it…Just to be safe, let’s look at the next frame…..Oh, yes..Very conclusive…Now I can truly tell that the Michigan player has his right little finger on the ball while his left elbow is clearly embedded into the turf…Hoosier player is still riding the magic carpet 1/16 inch above the actual turf..I can now radio down to the field…Final Booth Interpretation: The booth has clearly reviewed the film and upon interpretation of AR 7-3-6-III that allows for our astounding acuity of vision necessary for the further interpretation needed for complete impartiality and uttermost objectivity in determining the series of split-second camera shot snippets that under powerful and clearly blurred magnification still really can’t prove which player hit the turf with the ball first..????…Translation of interpretation: We have decided that 10,000 of the most hostile fans from one of the hardest economically hit states in the country won’t have to hunt down a zebra in a motel lobby tomorrow morning….MICHIGAN BALL!

    Just make the right damn call. All that rule interpretation garbage is about as bad as Clinton attempting to tell a nation what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.

  12. Even if they made the right call, what upsets me is that the referees pretty much decided to end the game right there. I just am uncomfortable with refs deciding the game when it isn’t necessary. It infuriates me personally. Now, if the refs rule in Indiana’s favor, what’s wrong with giving them a chance? I think that ethically it was the incorrect call, but that’s probably why I am not a referee 😛

Comments are closed.