Dear football announcers:

Every pass that comes near or touches a defender was not "almost intercepted." I know this must surprise you, given your predilections, but it is true.

For example, when a pass short-hops off the turf and skips three feet in front of a defender, it was not "almost intercepted," even if no receiver was in the area. "Could have been intercepted had the defender been in a slightly better position" is not the same as "almost intercepted." The latter implies that, in the reality of the play you just witnessed, that the interception almost happened. Being near an incomplete pass does not count.

Just as a receiver who touches a pass only to deflect it six feet into the air did not "almost catch" the pass, a defender who tips a pass at its end point did not "almost intercept" it.

If the ball went into a defender's hands and he dropped it, or should have caught it, or if he otherwise would have been expected to catch it had he been a wide receiver, then yes, that ball was "almost intercepted." If he just touched the ball, or if it was within a five-yard radius of his hands, it was not "almost intercepted."

Please pull your heads out of your asses and stop saying otherwise.

Thank you.

In spite of working on the (birthday, ack!) weekend, I had to stop for about 30 mins and get this off my chest. Not only did OU not lose the game (and I can prove it), but this is finally, finally the perfect opportunity that the NCAA and conferences have needed for years to reverse a game's outcome after the fact, because nothing happened after the disputed call. There is no way the "rest of the game" could have been played differently than it was - the bad call decisively, exclusively, and incorrectly determined the winner of the game.

It's time for the NCAA to stand up and say that, in these all-but-impossibly perfect conditions, they'll choose reality over "oh well, so they gave the game to the wrong team, these things happen." Either the correct outcome is important or it's not, and for too many years, the NCAA (and the Big XII) have said it's not. Now's the time to fix that. That's what the linked story explains.

I know I'm a lone voice in the wilderness on this. If you don't like it, read other blogs.

Update: Berry Tramel's column in the Oklahoman says that no one knows if Henderson scored, that replay made the game worse, and that it should be abolished. He is demonstrably wrong on all counts. Henderson obviously did not score, lack of instant replay would have given Tech the "winning" touchdown on a pass that the receiver obviously did not catch, and the solution to bad replay decisions is to get replay officials who can see and aren't afraid to make unpopular calls, not to eliminate the replay officials altogether. Tramel's argument is akin to "Well, the official in the end zone couldn't see if the pass was caught, so let's get rid of officials in the end zone and make the game faster." Moron.

Update #2: Coach Bob Stoops sees no point in protesting the game, and I agree with that. Stoops's job and focus is not to make sure Big XII officiating is based in reality. The conference, and the NCAA, however, have a very strong interest in that very issue. They need to act on their own, not because OU protests.

They won't, of course, but they should. And it continues to be ridiculous that sports writers are pretending there wasn't enough evidence. Henderson's elbow was down. It couldn't be clearer if it was a button hook in the well water.

Update #3: The Oklahoman's John Rohde weighs in today, agreeing that the call was horrible, but also wanting to get rid of instant replay. His #1 reason? "Who outside of Lubbock would want replay after what happened Saturday?" Remember that replay overturned the other egregious call, a "touchdown" pass where the receiver never caught the ball at all. What the hell is it with the Oklahoman's sports columnists, who want to ditch a fact-checking system the first time it has a significant failure?

And this from a newspaper that still defends George W. Bush. Geez.

Update #4: If you have any doubts as to why I emphasized that the conference and the league need to take drastic action, look no further than this three-day after story from the Oklahoman.

NORMAN -Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg said Monday the conference will review the controversial ending of Texas Tech’s 23-21 win over Oklahoma. But don’t expect a public resolution. Weiberg said he would adhere to the Big 12’s policy of not commenting on game officials’ “judgment calls.”

“Even if we made a decision that a call had been missed, any kind of action related to an official on a judgment call would not be disclosed publicly,” Weiberg said.

[...] Weiberg said the conference office had not received OU’s report on the officiating. In addition to addressing OU’s concerns, the game will undergo an evaluation by a team of former officials, as part of the Big 12’s weekly process of reviewing “every play of every game.” The resulting grades are used in evaluations of game officials and could affect assignments and retention, Weiberg said.

“In very rare circumstances, if there’s a need for any action with an official on a weekly basis, we’ve used (the grades) to reprimand officials or adjust their assignments,” Weiberg said.

You hear that? If they find that those officials made repeated, consistent mistakes that gave the game to the wrong team, the Big XII might speak to them harshly. In "very rare circumstances," they might be assigned to another game. My recommendation was simple: fire officials who make bad calls that clearly decide games, and reverse the outcome.

Weiberg's quotes make it abundantly clear that the Big XII simply does not care if the officials' calls are based in reality or not. Whatever they say, goes, and they'll be held minimally responsible if held accountable at all. This is no plan for any organization.

All four updates have been added to the story, and further updates will be posted there, not here. Thanks for watching.