WORST EVER OFFICIATED SUPERBOWL!!

[G-Man]

THE SEAHAWKS WERE "JOBBED"!!

Yes Pittsburgh is a good team and yes they might have beaten the Seahawks in a fairly played game. But anyone who know's sports and watched this game cannot believe that it was played on an "even" playing field.

Even my sister in law in Cleveland who is a lifelong Denver fan (she was born there) told us that they could see how the officials were "throwing the game"! In her words "the officials have cost the Hawks 14 points!!"

I am very sad that this was the way the Seahawks lost. I mean I could "stomach" it if the Steelers outplayed them, but too lose this way just infuriates me!!

What a sad ending to a wonderful season.

Congratulations to Bill Cowher, a classy tough coach.

Seeya next year in Superbowl 41!

[GoldenEagle]

I disagree.

[LoneStarGirl]

A little biased maybe?

[G-Man]

I disagree.

Good for you, that's what makes the world go round. Oh and which zebra are you related too;)

[GrantDawg]

I feel for the Steelers and their fans. They won on the field, and crying whiners are going to try and take that away from them.

[cthomer5000]

I feel like I was watching a different game, as I can't once remember the officiating being a discussion among those of us watching it together.

I'm asking this quite seriously, can someone list what they feel were the terrible calls that were made against Seattle?

[G-Man]

A little biased maybe?

Irrelevant!

[DeToxRox]

Steelers almost got jobbed by officiating vs the Colts, but they persevered.

The stronger team won.

[G-Man]

I feel for the Steelers and their fans. They won on the field, and crying whiners are going to try and take that away from them.

you wouldn't be saying that....

[gstelmack]

Seattle shot themselves in the foot (managing the last drive of both halves, for instance, and Stevens dropping most balls that came his way), but I'm going to agree that a lot of bad calls went against Seattle. That Offensive Interference call against Darrel Jackson to take away the TD is pretty much NEVER called (and he barely brushed the defender at all), and Hagans was offsides both on the holding call (which was a BS holding call) to take away the throw to the one yard line and on the sack that came on the next play. Plus the bad "low block" call on Hasselbeck when he was making a tackle after the INT. And the Hasselbeck "fumble" that was overturned on replay just wasn't even close; Seattle should never have had to use a challenge on that one.

The officials definitely continued their poor offseason officiating.

[cuervo72]

I feel like I was watching a different game, as I can't once remember the officiating being a discussion among those of us watching it together.

I'm asking this quite seriously, can someone list what they feel were the terrible calls that were made against Seattle?

Honestly, I must have missed it as well. The pass interference call, yes. Other than that, I can't recall anything bad (I did miss a bit of the 1st half rounding kids up, but that was still early).

[G-Man]

Steelers almost got jobbed by officiating vs the Colts, but they persevered.

The stronger team won.

However I will agree with you that the NFL Officials get more incomeptent every year!

[Dutch]

I wanted to watch a good game, not "whine" about the ref's all night. Trust me on that one, grantdawg.

[AlexB]

1 terrible call: Hasselbeck's 'block below the waist' that was a tackle. But Ward would have scored even if he was 15 yards further back if the flag was, as it should have been, picked up.

1 questionable call: holding when Stevens caught the ball at the 1.

Otherwise I think they got everything right: I think the ball grazed the line for Ben's TD, it was a definite push off, and while they got Hasselbecks fumble wrong initially, they reversed it after review. The non-called offsides in the 4th weren't offside. I think that about covers it.

[sovereignstar]

I personally liked the "cut" tackle.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, the refs made a few bad calls, but..Seattle clearly gave the game away. I mean, they should've won and instead, looks like rookies out there. The more experience, better team won. Good game, overall. But Seattle should've played better.

[cuervo72]

And the Hasselbeck "fumble" that was overturned on replay just wasn't even close; Seattle should never have had to use a challenge on that one.

Not close on replay. As the play happened I thought it was a fumble too, I missed what basically amounted to a one-hand touch on the play.

[Tigercat]

Ditto, I actually thought this was a WELL officiated super bowl. They let close fumbles play out so that they could be reviewed correctly later. They didn't make any obviously bad calls. They let the players play except when contact was obvious(such as the offensive pass interference in the end zone).

[INDalltheway]

How about Haggans being offsides (not called), then they call the RT for holding on Haggans on the play that they completed the pass down to the 1 yard line... That was a huge call... The score was 14-10 at that point.

[cuervo72]

1 terrible call: Hasselbeck's 'block below the waist' that was a tackle.

IIRC, there was a very similar play in the regular season that was called the same way, can't remember which game it was in (it doesn't seem like a *logical* call, but apparently the rule is being applied consistently).

[Tigercat]

Forgot about the Hassleback penalty, that was ridiculous, besides that though, thought it was a well called game. Especially compared to a lot of football games I saw this year.

[GrantDawg]

you wouldn't be saying that....

Yes I would. My team got jobbed pretty bad on some bad calls, but I still recognize that they lost the game. That game was much worse than this one, but it still was the bad play of the players that determined the game, not the refs. I have also seen games were the refs were the determining factor, but this wasn't one of them.

[Eaglesfan27]

1 terrible call: Hasselbeck's 'block below the waist' that was a tackle. But Ward would have scored even if he was 15 yards further back if the flag was, as it should have been, picked up.

1 questionable call: holding when Stevens caught the ball at the 1.

Otherwise I think they got everything right: I think the ball grazed the line for Ben's TD, it was a definite push off, and while they got Hasselbecks fumble wrong initially, they reversed it after review. The non-called offsides in the 4th weren't offside. I think that about covers it.
That summarizes my impressions as well. I think Seattle can blame their horrible clock management at the ends of the halves and their 2 missed FG's more than the refs for their loss.

[Eaglesfan27]

I feel for the Steelers and their fans. They won on the field, and crying whiners are going to try and take that away from them.

Me too.

[VPI97]

Honestly, I must have missed it as well. The pass interference call, yes. Other than that, I can't recall anything bad (I did miss a bit of the 1st half rounding kids up, but that was still early).Are you serious? gstelmack pointed out some of the more obvious ones, but you and Corey must have not been paying too much attention if you saw nothing wrong in the way the officiating went down. I didn't have a horse in this game and just hoped for something good to watch, but this was an atrocious game to sit through. The way the game was called has really got to be a black eye on the NFL.

[Dutch]

Me too.

Sorry, I just call them like I see them.

[gstelmack]

That summarizes my impressions as well. I think Seattle can blame their horrible clock management at the ends of the halves and their 2 missed FG's more than the refs for their loss.
I agree 100%. I think the officiating was terrible (and most importantly, terrible mostly against the Seahawks, I can't think of a single bad call that went Seattle's way), but the Seahawks still had their chances and couldn't deliver. The first FG miss was clearly on Holmgren's shoulders as they should have been much closer before attempting it, for example. And Stevens dropped several balls, Engram just wiffed on a first down catch, etc etc etc.

[cthomer5000]

1 terrible call: Hasselbeck's 'block below the waist' that was a tackle. But Ward would have scored even if he was 15 yards further back if the flag was, as it should have been, picked up.
Ok, good point. This was a totally phantom call, and I'm not sure what the ref thought he was seeing. Tough to know how big a deal it was in the scheme of things though, but i do agree that was a bad call.


1 questionable call: holding when Stevens caught the ball at the 1. I thought this was definitely the right call. The DE got a great jump on that play and the OT had to completely hold his right shoulder/arm to keep him from blowing right past him.

Otherwise I think they got everything right: I think the ball grazed the line for Ben's TD, it was a definite push off, and while they got Hasselbecks fumble wrong initially, they reversed it after review. The non-called offsides in the 4th weren't offside. I think that about covers it.
I agree with all those. I do think Ben's ball grazed the line, and while they got the call right (IMHO), i'm not sure why that ref's signal changed from spotting the ball to calling it a TD. That seemed odd, but it didn't focus on it too much since they did review it and i think they got the call right. The fumble did look like a fumble to me in real time, and they did get it right on the replay.

So in my mind the Seahawks can say they got screwed on 1 single call, the phantom low block penalty against Hasselbeck.

[cthomer5000]

Are you serious? gstelmack pointed out some of the more obvious ones, but you and Corey must have not been paying too much attention if you saw nothing wrong in the way the officiating went down. I didn't have a horse in this game and just hoped for something good to watch, but this was an atrocious game to sit through. The way the game was called has really got to be a black eye on the NFL.
I payed attention like a hawk the entire game. I even polled a few of my firends over the phone just now about what they thought about officiating. None of them thought it was any better or worse than usual.

[sabotai]

Even my sister in law in Cleveland who is a lifelong Denver fan (she was born there) told us that they could see how the officials were "throwing the game"! In her words "the officials have cost the Hawks 14 points!!"That right there leads me to think his post was sarcastic. :D

[Eaglesfan27]

Sorry, I just call them like I see them.

No big deal. Pittsburgh is only my 3rd favorite team. I would be in bliss if it was the Eagles, and then I would be much more upset with all of the criticism of the refs :)

[VPI97]

None of them thought it was any better or worse than usual.I'd agree with that since this has been the worst year for officiating (college and pro) that I've seen since I started watching football 25 years ago.

[gstelmack]

I thought this was definitely the right call. The DE got a great jump on that play
:eek:

Did you even watch the replay? He's across the line with the ball still sitting still in front of the center. He went on the count, not the snap. CLEARLY offsides, and he was offsides on the next play as well.

[ice4277]

But anyone who know's sports and watched this game cannot believe that it was played on an "even" playing field.

I hope you know sports better than you know punctuation.

[G-Man]

Honestly, I must have missed it as well. The pass interference call, yes. Other than that, I can't recall anything bad (I did miss a bit of the 1st half rounding kids up, but that was still early).

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).
(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.
(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!
(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.
(5) The continual calls against the Hawks not beeing called on the Steelers (holding and the like).
(6) 7 for 70 and 3 for 20 in penalties is not even handed. The Hawks did not make mistakes that the Steelers also made. Both sides were seen holding just the Hawks got called and the Steelers didn't.
(7) East Coast Bias (tongue in cheek)...still lives...

I've probably forgotten a few others so I'll come back later when I recall them.

[INDalltheway]

:eek:

Did you even watch the replay? He's across the line with the ball still sitting still in front of the center. He went on the count, not the snap. CLEARLY offsides, and he was offsides on the next play as well.
exactly...

[Groundhog]

Look, I don't support either team, but in my opinion Seattle got screwed.

Perhaps none more so than Ben Rothetuierhtberger's "td".

[G-Man]

:eek:

Did you even watch the replay? He's across the line with the ball still sitting still in front of the center. He went on the count, not the snap. CLEARLY offsides, and he was offsides on the next play as well.

Thanks I had forgotten about those 2 non calls.

[AlexB]

I thought this was definitely the right call. The DE got a great jump on that play and the OT had to completely hold his right shoulder/arm to keep him from blowing right past him.


Just in case it was misunderstood (it's like 3.30am over here and I'm tired - can't work out subtleties (or spell that word by the looks of it :) ) I agree the officiating wasn't horrible.

On the holding, why it was questionable to me was did Locklear actually have a grip on the DE? If he just had his arm out to block him without grabbing him or tripping him, is that still holding?

[illinifan999]

it's always the refs fault, they shouldn't have called an obvious pass intereference on jackson, it's their fault the hawks let up 2 big "gadget" plays, stupid refs letting big ben run loose and throw a big bomb to ward, those big bad refs made Hasselbeck forget how to handle the clock, it's their fault the hawks gave up a 75 yard run to parker. did you see the ref come in and blindside Stevens on 1 of his many drops? those assholes.

every game has calls that favor another team, go back and look at each of the seahawks games this season and ill bet you can find in at least one of them a game where the refs favored them. get over it, the steelers were the better team and the seahawks weren't.

[G-Man]

That right there leads me to think his post was sarcastic. :D

Bring something to the thread or go somewhere else.

Thanks!

[GrantDawg]

it's always the refs fault, they shouldn't have called an obvious pass intereference on jackson, it's their fault the hawks let up 2 big "gadget" plays, stupid refs letting big ben run loose and throw a big bomb to ward, those big bad refs made Hasselbeck forget how to handle the clock, it's their fault the hawks gave up a 75 yard run to parker. did you see the ref come in and blindside Stevens on 1 of his many drops? those assholes.

every game has calls that favor another team, go back and look at each of the seahawks games this season and ill bet you can find in at least one of them a game where the refs favored them. get over it, the steelers were the better team and the seahawks weren't.

And don't forget moving the goal-posts on the field goals. It was all a conspiracy!

[kingfc22]

the steelers were the better team and the seahawks weren't.
I think this statement should be: The seahawks were the better team, but the steelers made more big plays. Same thing happened in the DEN/NE game.

[cuervo72]

Are you serious? gstelmack pointed out some of the more obvious ones, but you and Corey must have not been paying too much attention if you saw nothing wrong in the way the officiating went down. I didn't have a horse in this game and just hoped for something good to watch, but this was an atrocious game to sit through. The way the game was called has really got to be a black eye on the NFL.

I will admit to having missed the "cut tackle" (though I swear that I saw this same call in the regular season, damned if I can't remember the game though) and the holding call. I thought the TD looked legit, and didn't really catch much else. The Hasselback fumble wasn't any worse than your typical fumble review.

[Eaglesfan27]

Bring something to the thread or go somewhere else.

Thanks!

Humor can be an important contribution :)

[lynchjm24]

IIRC, there was a very similar play in the regular season that was called the same way, can't remember which game it was in (it doesn't seem like a *logical* call, but apparently the rule is being applied consistently).

Against the Giants on an Eli Manning INT.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think this statement should be: The seahawks were the better team, but the steelers made more big plays. Same thing happened in the DEN/NE game.
Ultimately, isn't the team that made more big plays, the better team? :confused:

[timmynausea]

Just in case it was misunderstood (it's like 3.30am over here and I'm tired - can't work out subtleties (or spell that word by the looks of it :) ) I agree the officiating wasn't horrible.

On the holding, why it was questionable to me was did Locklear actually have a grip on the DE? If he just had his arm out to block him without grabbing him or tripping him, is that still holding?

He had his arm hooked around the DE's shoulder or it would've been a sack.

I thought that, on the whole, it wasn't a horribly called game. It just so happened that penalties really hurt Seattle. I didn't think there were any really bad calls, though, aside from the Hasselbeck tackle penalty.

[AlexB]

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).

Definitely the right call - the push off caused Hope to take a (small) step backwards away from the ball

(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.

On the replays I think it did indeed graze the goalline, although it was a great attempt by the defender

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

From the Chicago tribune ask the ref:
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-051005askjerrymarkbreit,1,523252.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
The goal line stretches around the world outside at the field of play. The pylon's purpose is to signify that the ball or player is out-of-bounds in the end zone. If a player going in for a score hits the pylon with the ball extended over the plane of the goal line, he is out-of-bounds in the end zone, and a touchdown is awarded.

So the ball didn't hit the pylon, his knee did, and the ball was outside the plane of the goal-line. No TD



(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.

Possibly.

(5) The continual calls against the Hawks not beeing called on the Steelers (holding and the like).

Now you're stretching

(6) 7 for 70 and 3 for 20 in penalties is not even handed. The Hawks did not make mistakes that the Steelers also made. Both sides were seen holding just the Hawks got called and the Steelers didn't.

Ditto

(7) East Coast Bias (tongue in cheek)...still lives...

tongue-in-cheek noted

I've probably forgotten a few others so I'll come back later when I recall them.

You've missed the only call you actually have a definite case with - low block/tackle

[sabotai]

Bring something to the thread or go somewhere else.

Thanks!Sorry, just thought I'd point out that a Denver fan thinking the officiating sucked in a game that Pittsburgh won is hardly anything worth even mentioning.

And...

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).

He pushed off, textbook offensive pass interference. Get over it,

(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.

All the ball has to do is BREAK the line, which it did, TD.

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

A foot hitting a pylon does not cound as a foot being in bounds.

(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.

He had is arm across the defender's chest. Holding.

[lynchjm24]

Against the Giants on an Eli Manning INT.


The call against the Giants was actually the right call by letter of the rule. The call tonight was just blown as he couldn't have gone through the legs of the player who was still standing up and knocked down by another player after the tackle was over.

[sabotai]

Humor can be an important contribution :)See, if an Eagle's fan (of all people) can understand this, then it should be easy for everyone else to get it. :p :D

[lynchjm24]

The one play I want to see again was a Pittsburgh pass that was deflected and caught by Seattle around midfield in the third quarter. The umpire who was closest threw his beanbag to the spot of the interception and one of the wing officials came in and blew it incomplete. They never showed a replay of it and when I tried to rewind the DVR I hit the wrong button and lost it.

[timmynausea]

The one play I want to see again was a Pittsburgh pass that was deflected and caught by Seattle around midfield in the third quarter. The umpire who was closest threw his beanbag to the spot of the interception and one of the wing officials came in and blew it incomplete. They never showed a replay of it and when I tried to rewind the DVR I hit the wrong button and lost it.


Yeah, that did look like an interception, and the replay they showed cut off that part.

[cuervo72]

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

(3) This play didn't even get reviewed more than once from what I saw, didn't appear to be a controversy there at all AFAIK. Looked like his left foot was in and his right was WAY out of bounds.

(5) The continual calls against the Hawks not beeing called on the Steelers (holding and the like).
(6) 7 for 70 and 3 for 20 in penalties is not even handed. The Hawks did not make mistakes that the Steelers also made. Both sides were seen holding just the Hawks got called and the Steelers didn't.
(7) East Coast Bias (tongue in cheek)...still lives...

(5) Continual? A discrepancy of 4 is continual?
(6) The refs aren't there to be even handed. If they see a penalty they call a penalty. They aren't going to alternate penalties just to "be fair".
(7) If only - then we wouldn't have to hear about those stupid 49ers every Jan/Feb.

[kingfc22]

Ultimately, isn't the team that made more big plays, the better team? :confused:<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">
</td><td>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/sea.gif</td><td>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/pit.gif</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">1st Downs</td><td>20</td><td>14</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">3rd down efficiency
</td><td>5-17</td><td>8-15</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">4th down efficiency
</td><td>1-2</td><td>0-0</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Total Yards</td><td>396</td><td>221
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Passing</td><td>259</td><td>115</td></tr><tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">Comp-Att
</td><td>26-49</td><td>10-21</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Yards per pass
</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.4
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Rushing</td><td>137</td><td>106</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Rushing Attempts
</td><td>25</td><td>32</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Yards per rush
</td><td>5.5</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Penalties</td><td>7-70</td><td>3-20</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Turnovers</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Fumbles lost
</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Interceptions thrown
</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Possession</td><td>33:02</td><td>26:58</td></tr></tbody></table>

This is a stat chart minus Parker's big run (75 yds) and Randle El's reverse-pass (43 yds).

So yea, I think the better team can lose if the other team makes more big plays/timely plays. Anyone looking at those stats would think Seattle beat Pittsburgh.

[G-Man]

Sorry, just thought I'd point out that a Denver fan thinking the officiating sucked in a game that Pittsburgh won is hardly anything worth even mentioning.

And...

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).

He pushed off, textbook offensive pass interference. Get over it,

(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.

All the ball has to do is BREAK the line, which it did, TD.

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

A foot hitting a pylon does not cound as a foot being in bounds.

(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.

He had is arm across the defender's chest. Holding.

Disagree accross the board. But the Steelers did make the plays they had too whne it counted the most. I am just sad that the officials prevented and chance the Hawks may have had...

[dervack]

I feel like I was watching a different game, as I can't once remember the officiating being a discussion among those of us watching it together.

I'm asking this quite seriously, can someone list what they feel were the terrible calls that were made against Seattle?
agreed. Maybe I didn't see it myself, but, eh.

[Swaggs]

Seattle's special teams were terrible in that game.

Their punter kicked short balls into the endzone all night. The one time he didn't, Scobey (sp?) was in position to down it inside the five and let it bounce into the endzone. And their return team had several solid returns called back because of holds.

I'd point the finger at the special teams well, well before I would blame the refs.

[stevew]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005363E.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[illinifan999]

I am just sad that the officials prevented and chance the Hawks may have had...
Pretty sure it was the hawks preventing any chance they had with horrible clock management.

[pbot]

I will admit to having missed the "cut tackle" (though I swear that I saw this same call in the regular season, damned if I can't remember the game though)

You did....Matt Stover...Ravens versus either the Texans or Steelers(I think)...he tackled the kickoff returner like Hasselback did and got flagged.

[Dutch]

I think the most telling thing to do is go to other forums where people are discussing the Super Bowl. Seems like this "bad call" conspiracy is wide spread.

[Eaglesfan27]

See, if an Eagle's fan (of all people) can understand this, then it should be easy for everyone else to get it. :p :D
Hey! ;)


I agree with your assessment of all of those points in your previous post (#49 I think). I like to think I would agree with those assessments even if those calls went against my Eagles.

[brewcrewmaroon]

I guess those saying they didn't see the bogus penalties against the Seahawks were watching without the volume turned up. John Madden and Al Michaels both said all three calls against the Seahawks in the one drive culminating with the interception and call against Hasselbeck were non-existant. Guess they were watching a different game.

[Eaglesfan27]

<TABLE class=tablehead cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR class=oddrow align=right><TD align=left>


</TD><TD>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/sea.gif</TD><TD>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/pit.gif</TD></TR><TR class=colhead align=right><TD class=bi align=left>1st Downs</TD><TD>20</TD><TD>14</TD></TR><TR class=evenrow align=right><TD align=left>3rd down efficiency


</TD><TD>5-17</TD><TD>8-15</TD></TR><TR class=evenrow align=right><TD align=left>4th down efficiency


</TD><TD>1-2</TD><TD>0-0</TD></TR><TR class=colhead align=right><TD class=bi align=left>Total Yards</TD><TD>396</TD><TD>221


</TD></TR><TR class=colhead align=right><TD class=bi align=left>Passing</TD><TD>259</TD><TD>115</TD></TR><TR class=oddrow align=right><TD align=left>Comp-Att


</TD><TD>26-49</TD><TD>10-21</TD></TR><TR class=evenrow align=right><TD align=left>Yards per pass


</TD><TD>5.3</TD><TD>5.4


</TD></TR><TR class=colhead align=right><TD class=bi align=left>Rushing</TD><TD>137</TD><TD>106</TD></TR><TR class=evenrow align=right><TD align=left>Rushing Attempts


</TD><TD>25</TD><TD>32</TD></TR><TR class=evenrow align=right><TD align=left>Yards per rush


</TD><TD>5.5</TD><TD>3.3


</TD></TR><TR class=colhead align=right><TD class=bi align=left>Penalties</TD><TD>7-70</TD><TD>3-20</TD></TR><TR class=colhead align=right><TD class=bi align=left>Turnovers</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD></TR><TR class=evenrow align=right><TD align=left>Fumbles lost


</TD><TD>0</TD><TD>0</TD></TR><TR class=evenrow align=right><TD align=left>Interceptions thrown


</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD></TR><TR class=colhead align=right><TD class=bi align=left>Possession</TD><TD>33:02</TD><TD>26:58</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

This is a stat chart minus Parker's big run (75 yds) and Randle El's reverse-pass (43 yds).

So yea, I think the better team can lose if the other team makes more big plays/timely plays. Anyone looking at those stats would think Seattle beat Pittsburgh.

That assumes you believe stats alone indicate which team is better. I think the team that wins is better. I also believe if these two teams played ten times, Pittsburgh wins at least 6 times. I don't think the refs won this game for Pittsburgh. I do think Seattle shot themselves in the foot multiple times (bad clock management, etc.) Since Seattle shot themselves in the foot, I don't believe they are quite as good as Pittsburgh.

[illinifan999]

Because John Madden and Al Michaels both know everything. Who was the one that said the coach should challenge the call inside of 2 minutes before being corrected?

[astrosfan64]

I feel like I was watching a different game, as I can't once remember the officiating being a discussion among those of us watching it together.

I'm asking this quite seriously, can someone list what they feel were the terrible calls that were made against Seattle?


Agreed, I thought the game was called pretty well. At least it was a non factor.

[Hurst2112]

Disagree accross the board. But the Steelers did make the plays they had too whne it counted the most. I am just sad that the officials prevented and chance the Hawks may have had...

You are funny. Grab the tissues and send me your address. I will send you a copy of the game so you can live all those 'horrible calls' again and again.

Your feelings will scab over in due time. Until then...

STEELERS!!!!!

[astrosfan64]

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">
</td><td>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/sea.gif</td><td>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/pit.gif</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">1st Downs</td><td>20</td><td>14</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">3rd down efficiency
</td><td>5-17</td><td>8-15</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">4th down efficiency
</td><td>1-2</td><td>0-0</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Total Yards</td><td>396</td><td>221
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Passing</td><td>259</td><td>115</td></tr><tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">Comp-Att
</td><td>26-49</td><td>10-21</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Yards per pass
</td><td>5.3</td><td>5.4
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Rushing</td><td>137</td><td>106</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Rushing Attempts
</td><td>25</td><td>32</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Yards per rush
</td><td>5.5</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Penalties</td><td>7-70</td><td>3-20</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Turnovers</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Fumbles lost
</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Interceptions thrown
</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Possession</td><td>33:02</td><td>26:58</td></tr></tbody></table>

This is a stat chart minus Parker's big run (75 yds) and Randle El's reverse-pass (43 yds).

So yea, I think the better team can lose if the other team makes more big plays/timely plays. Anyone looking at those stats would think Seattle beat Pittsburgh.


When you display stats you can't do that.

This is the stats minus the two TD plays. Come on that is terrible.

[miami_fan]

I think the most telling thing to do is go to other forums where people are discussing the Super Bowl. Seems like this "bad call" conspiracy is wide spread.


Woo hoo the NFL has joined the NBA is the "conspiracy business"! Now you just need a big time player(Reggie Bush) to fall to a downtrodden team(Houston) in one of the fastest growing media markets and it have truly hit the big time! :D

Disclaimer: I have no idea if Houston is truly one of the fastest growing media markets

[cuervo72]

You did....Matt Stover...Ravens versus either the Texans or Steelers(I think)...he tackled the kickoff returner like Hasselback did and got flagged.

As much as I'd hate to cop to watching any Ravens games this year, that seems to ring more of a bell than the Eli Manning INT that was also brought up. :D

[dervack]

Disagree accross the board. But the Steelers did make the plays they had too whne it counted the most. I am just sad that the officials prevented and chance the Hawks may have had...
You know, the most telling thing about the incomplete pass that was outbounds was that when the refs called the WR out, he didn't say a word to the refs. He just went back to the huddle. Kind of tells me that he knew what was going on.

[Dutch]

Agreed, I thought the game was called pretty well. At least it was a non factor.

That's fine, but there are apparently a lot of people that don't see it that way.

[sabotai]

Disagree accross the board. Then I suggest picking up a copy of the NFL Rulebook and doing a little reading.

[illinifan999]

There's people who don't think the holocaust happened, does that make them right?

[lynchjm24]

As much as I'd hate to cop to watching any Ravens games this year, that seems to ring more of a bell than the Eli Manning INT that was also brought up. :D

Well even my girlfriend remembered the play from the Giants game, so I know it happened on an Eli pick (I wouldn't watch a Ravens game - so I can't help you there).

[Rizon]

How can ANY calls even go against Seattle when the Seahawks didn't even show up?

[stevew]

There's people who don't think the holocaust happened, does that make them right?

Someone just triggered Goodwins law i think.

[sabotai]

I like to think I would agree with those assessments even if those calls went against my Eagles.Sorry, rules of NFL Fandom, if it goes against your team, you must believe it was a bad call. I think the head of the Eagles Fan Union might be coming to get your union card after you said that. :)

[G-Man]

Steelers made the big plays they had too inorder to score an dthe Seahawks did as well but the zebras called most of them back, accept for the Steven's drops and the missed field goals (though they were from long distance).

Rothelisberger was horrible, probably the third best QB on the field behind Hasselback and Randle-Ell.

I will agree that the Seahawks mismanaged the clock at the end of each half, but these could have been non issues had the refs not made so many blunders.

The Steelers won today and were marginally the better team but teh best team did not win today. That said I am happy for Cowher...

[Dutch]

There's people who don't think the holocaust happened, does that make them right?

That doesn't help your cause of thinking the referee's didn't happen at all. :)

[astrosfan64]

That's fine, but there are apparently a lot of people that don't see it that way.


What calls are we talking about.

The TD for Big Ben? I mean that could of went either way. If anything it was down on the inch line? All it has to do is break the plane.

The Seattle TD? That guy pushed off. Granted he would of had TD without pushing off, but it doesn't matter. HE PUSHED OFF RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE OFFICIAL. He isn't michael irvin, so he can't get away with that.

What other plays are we talking about here? The 15 yards for Matt Hassleback? That didn't even effect the game at all period. The penality wasn't the problem, the crappy pass he threw for an INT was.

Or how about that holding call on the RT. That was maybe the only play you could possibly gripe about. But I'm willing to bet you could find plays where that RT did hold and didn't get called.

[j51]

Did Pittsburgh ever get a first down on their last drive when they were given a timeout after the playclock ran out?

[cuervo72]

Sorry, rules of NFL Fandom, if it goes against your team, you must believe it was a bad call. I think the head of the Eagles Fan Union might be coming to get your union card after you said that. :)

I can't remember any egregious calls from last year's SB. Eagles just weren't good enough.

[path12]

That summarizes my impressions as well. I think Seattle can blame their horrible clock management at the ends of the halves and their 2 missed FG's more than the refs for their loss.

Yep. Kills me and I'm shitfaced right now......but we'll be back next year!
(shit, what a homer thing to say).
;)

[cuervo72]

Well even my girlfriend remembered the play from the Giants game, so I know it happened on an Eli pick (I wouldn't watch a Ravens game - so I can't help you there).

Not saying it didn't happen, the Stover play just seemed more familiar (I'm in MD, so watching a Ravens game would be logical. I have Sunday Ticket so it *could* have been a Giants game, I just wouldn't remember which ones I flipped through this year).

[Galaril]

I agree 100% that the refs for the biggest game of the year were pretty bad. That being said I also, agree the terrible clock management at the end of the first half as well as the missed field goals are why Seattle lost. Pittsburgh got this game uncontested not a very good bowl this year I thought.

[kcchief19]

Sorry, just thought I'd point out that a Denver fan thinking the officiating sucked in a game that Pittsburgh won is hardly anything worth even mentioning.

And...

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).

He pushed off, textbook offensive pass interference. Get over it,

(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.

All the ball has to do is BREAK the line, which it did, TD.

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

A foot hitting a pylon does not cound as a foot being in bounds.

(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.

He had is arm across the defender's chest. Holding.That's exactly how I saw it too.

1) The PI call was touchy, but it was a push off. If you do that, you run the risk of getting it called.

2) I think Rothlisberger BARELY grazed the plane -- but even if he didn't, what does it matter? There's a good chance that the Steelers go for it, and I don't think Seattle stops them on the 1/8-inch line, and Seattle lost by 11 -- without that touchdown, Seattle would still have lost.

3) That's just ridiculous; the pylon has nothing to do with being in/out of bounds. His foot came down clearly out of bounds.

4) I couldn't believe Madden said he did't see holding; the RT was beat and he put his arm around Haggans neck to try and stop him. That was a clear case of holding. And I saw the replay -- Haggans started moving just before the snap, but he was still behind the line. On those two plays, he figured out Hasselbeck's snap count and took off perfectly.

Even if you wanted to grant some of this homerism and say the Seahawks got bad calls, the unfortunate truth is that Seattle beat themselves -- I put the blame on Seattle's receivers. Hasselbeck had a few poor passes, Stevens dropped a big ball near the end zone before one of the missed field goals and on multiple occassions Seattle receivers completely failed to pick up the hot reads on the blitz and got drilled in the back by passes because they didn't help out their QB. That play where the ball bounced off the back of Jackson's head and then hit Stevens in the back of the head was indicative of that problem.

Seattle had a great season. No sense in tarnishing that by complaining about bad calls wearing rose-colored glasses. You're team had a great season. Savor that.

[Eaglesfan27]

I can't remember any egregious calls from last year's SB. Eagles just weren't good enough.

I agree. I think if we dug up last year's thread, you wouldn't find me whining about blown calls. I don't remember any truly bad calls last year. NE made the plays and they were the better team.

[stevew]

Haggans was held and turned on that play, pretty much the textbook definition of holding. If you get beat man on man on the right side of the QB out there on an island, and then suddenly you go high and substantially impede the rushers progress, you are gonna get called for holding.

The Hasselbeck call was ticky tacky, but you can't go through a blocker to make a tackle with a dive. I think the ref had a bad angle on this one.

If you are gonna push off, even touch off, on the WR right in front of the ref, you deserve to get called for offensive pass interference.

[cthomer5000]

I agree. I think if we dug up last year's thread, you wouldn't find me whining about blown calls. I don't remember any truly bad calls last year. NE made the plays and they were the better team. Yeah, the only bad calls last year were coming from Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/redface.gif

[robbgmaier]

I'm having a lot of trouble believing there is this much controversy over Ben's touchdown dive. Perhaps the ones screaming that it was not a touchdown are all looking at the ball when Ben's knee goes down. If you go back two or three frames you will see a sliver of the ball over the front of the goal line, with Ben still in possession. That is a touchdown. If you don't want to go back to your DVR and examine the frames that's up to you.

I've only seen 1 reference to the horse collar tackle. Why wasn't that called? I'm a steeler fan and I was pissed about that one. Agree or disagree with the rule but that is exactly what it is there for and it wasn't called. I'm just glad Seattle didn't make one of those later and get it called.

The Hasselbeck penalty. On "change of possession" plays, you are not allowed to go low through a player(s) that don't have the ball even if you are trying to get to the ball carrier. There was a guy in front of Taylor who he did make contact with low before getting to Taylor. The Steelers had the same penalty called against them on the same type of play earlier in the season, although there the contact was more severe. If there is no provision in the book about "weighing the degree of contact" then it's just too bad and they are both penalties. Hate the rule, but the call was correct.

I could go on, but it's out of my system now. The bullshit was just getting a little thick.

[G-Man]

Haggans was held and turned on that play, pretty much the textbook definition of holding. If you get beat man on man on the right side of the QB out there on an island, and then suddenly you go high and substantially impede the rushers progress, you are gonna get called for holding.

The Hasselbeck call was ticky tacky, but you can't go through a blocker to make a tackle with a dive. I think the ref had a bad angle on this one.

If you are gonna push off, even touch off, on the WR right in front of the ref, you deserve to get called for offensive pass interference.

On that holding call the gent he held was grossly offside as he was on the next play and the officials missed both of those....pathetic.

[stevew]

I'm having a lot of trouble believing there is this much controversy over Ben's touchdown dive. Perhaps the ones screaming that it was not a touchdown are all looking at the ball when Ben's knee goes down. If you go back two or three frames you will see a sliver of the ball over the front of the goal line, with Ben still in possession. That is a touchdown. If you don't want to go back to your DVR and examine the frames that's up to you.

I've only seen 1 reference to the horse collar tackle. Why wasn't that called? I'm a steeler fan and I was pissed about that one. Agree or disagree with the rule but that is exactly what it is there for and it wasn't called. I'm just glad Seattle didn't make one of those later and get it called.

The Hasselbeck penalty. On "change of possession" plays, you are not allowed to go low through a player(s) that don't have the ball even if you are trying to get to the ball carrier. There was a guy in front of Taylor who he did make contact with low before getting to Taylor. The Steelers had the same penalty called against them on the same type of play earlier in the season, although there the contact was more severe. If there is no provision in the book about "weighing the degree of contact" then it's just too bad and they are both penalties. Hate the rule, but the call was correct.

I could go on, but it's out of my system now. The bullshit was just getting a little thick.

Yeah, I cant believe they didnt call the Steelers for that Horse Collar tackle as well, that was fairly obvious.

[sabotai]

Yeah, I cant believe they didnt call the Steelers for that Horse Collar tackle as well, that was fairly obvious.I've seen horse collar tackles in a lot of games this year and hardly ever seen it called. I think bydefinition, for it to be a penalty, the player has to actually get his hand inside of the shoulderpads and then pull him down (which is pretty hard to do).

I can see them amending the rule this or next year to just simply say "grabbing the shoulderpad from behind".

[PilotMan]

Will our judgements of the refs get worse and worse and technology is increasingly used and can replay's can second guess every single play and call on the field?

Are they just getting worse or are we more critical because our options are better than they used to be?

If you looked at some of the old games and second guessed every play, how many missed calls would you find?

[Desnudo]

That push off offensive PI call was bush league. Either call it all the time or don't call it. I agree that all the tough calls went against the Seahawks. Whether it was the impact of the crowd, or what, the refs did not do a good job. The holding call that happened, happens on pretty much every play, either call it all the time or don't. It just seemed like they were calls that could be made, technically speaking, but never are, were actually made against the Seahawks. Not a balanced game.

That said, the Seahawks kept screwing up and still should have won it if they had more composure. Hasselback's passes at the end were awful decisions.

[Travis]

The game was the Seahawks to win in the first half. They reverted to their form of a year ago rather than what they had been playing like for most of this season.

That said, the thing that burned me the most about the officiating was the non calls against Pittsburgh. The offsides (the second leading to a sack) that they got away with, and two holding calls (the second that should have been on Ward) near the end of the game when Seattle was trying to get the ball back were back breakers at that point.

Even with those, if the offense finishes their drives and don't take stupid holding calls early on, Seattle is up 20+ to 7 at the half, likely only needing a touchdown or a pair of field goals to ice the game. Alexander had the quietest (near) 100 yard game I've ever seen, but I really thought Hasselbeck played a great game. Again, his numbers won't look great because of his receivers missing chances, like Engram letting one go off his shoulder on the slant, Stevens dropping two plus the helmet to ball tackle that knocked away what appeared to be a big reception. Throw in the two passes negated by holding calls and the touchdown on the offensive pass interference and Hasselbeck likely wins MVP with his play.

Seattle lost the chance to put a stranglehold on the Steelers in the first half, the Steelers made some big plays in the second half (though if Trufant had been one step faster on that Randle-El pass he picks it off and it's a totally different game) and when Seattle's D needed a stop to give the offense a good amount of time, they a) didn't do it and b) didn't get a call to go their way when they could have used it the most (those two missed holding calls really being the two that hurt the most imho).

Good game by the Steelers. They had a lead when they'd been outplayed, then did what they had to do to take control. Had Seattle managed the 98 yard touchdown drive it looked like they were headed towards, I think they end up winning the game, but for the first time this year, they really looked like the '04/'05 Seahawks.

Now resign Hutchinson, see if you can fit Alexander in, get Sharper and Hamlin back on the field and get the damn job done next year.

[astrosfan64]

The game was the Seahawks to win in the first half. They reverted to their form of a year ago rather than what they had been playing like for most of this season.

That said, the thing that burned me the most about the officiating was the non calls against Pittsburgh. The offsides (the second leading to a sack) that they got away with, and two holding calls (the second that should have been on Ward) near the end of the game when Seattle was trying to get the ball back were back breakers at that point.

Even with those, if the offense finishes their drives and don't take stupid holding calls early on, Seattle is up 20+ to 7 at the half, likely only needing a touchdown or a pair of field goals to ice the game. Alexander had the quietest (near) 100 yard game I've ever seen, but I really thought Hasselbeck played a great game. Again, his numbers won't look great because of his receivers missing chances, like Engram letting one go off his shoulder on the slant, Stevens dropping two plus the helmet to ball tackle that knocked away what appeared to be a big reception. Throw in the two passes negated by holding calls and the touchdown on the offensive pass interference and Hasselbeck likely wins MVP with his play.

Seattle lost the chance to put a stranglehold on the Steelers in the first half, the Steelers made some big plays in the second half (though if Trufant had been one step faster on that Randle-El pass he picks it off and it's a totally different game) and when Seattle's D needed a stop to give the offense a good amount of time, they a) didn't do it and b) didn't get a call to go their way when they could have used it the most (those two missed holding calls really being the two that hurt the most imho).

Good game by the Steelers. They had a lead when they'd been outplayed, then did what they had to do to take control. Had Seattle managed the 98 yard touchdown drive it looked like they were headed towards, I think they end up winning the game, but for the first time this year, they really looked like the '04/'05 Seahawks.

Now resign Hutchinson, see if you can fit Alexander in, get Sharper and Hamlin back on the field and get the damn job done next year.

The NFC was terrible this year :(

[miami_fan]

Will our judgements of the refs get worse and worse and technology is increasingly used and can replay's can second guess every single play and call on the field?

Are they just getting worse or are we more critical because our options are better than they used to be?

If you looked at some of the old games and second guessed every play, how many missed calls would you find?

Actually, my problems with the officiating is consistancy. What you see called in one game, one half, one quarter is not called in another game, half or quarter. Take Jackson's pass interference call. Someone already compared it to what Michael Irvin used to do. I have seen guys during this season do the same and much more and not have that call. If the rulebook says that a receiver cannot push off, then every time a receiver pushes off it has to be called. None of this "well he pushed off a bit but it did not give him a competitive advantage" crap that we hear. Same thing goes for the horse collar rule. If throughout the season, I saw the same thing being called throughout the league, then the players are at fault for not adjusting. I think the NFL needs to just direct the refs to call the game by the letter of the rulebook. If you can call holding on every play, then call holding on EVERY play. Don't say ignore holding on some plays and then call it on others. Make the entire rulebook a "point of emphasis" just like they did for the 5 yard no touching rule a couple of seasons ago.

[BrianD]

Everyone I watched the game with tonight agreed that the referees were clearly favoring the Steelers. Of course, we also all thought that the bad officiating was not enough to change the outcome of the game.

Jackson's pass interference was clearly a penalty. He didn't push off much, but the push is what gave him the separation to make the catch. He did it right in front of the ref and he got caught. It may not have been flagrant, but I think it was a penalty.

The horse collar play wasn't a penalty either. It is written in the rule that it isn't a horse collar if you are not pulling the guy straight backwards (he was pulled down somewhat sideways), and it is also not a penalty if the tackler is in contact with more than just the collar of the player, which he was.

I didn't see the first of the supposed 2 in a row off-sides playes, but I didn't think the second was off-sides. The guy clearly jumped the snap, but he jumped up and never crossed the line of scrimage. It was timed pretty much perfectly and that is the fault of the snap count. They have to mix it up a bit.

I did also think Ben's TD was called right. It was VERY close, but I thought the football crossed the goal line.

DJ's catch out of bounds in the end zone was out of bounds. People get all excited that his second foot kicked the pylon, but kicking the pylon makes him immediately out of bounds. The pylon is out of bounds past the plane of the goal line. Since the foot hit that before hitting the ground, he is out of bounds.

Everything I just said is about calls that should have gone against Seattle, but there was plenty that did go against them that shouldn't have. The hold that wiped out the pass to the 1 was questionable. Ben's long pass to Ward before the first touchdown should have been an illegal forward pass since he crossed the line while running sideways, and he was holding the ball past the line before it left his hand for the throw. There was also a pretty consistent feel that everything close was going against Seattle.

I don't think it was an evenly officiated game, but Seattle played worse than Pitt and the outcome was probably correct.

[cuervo72]

I agree. I think if we dug up last year's thread, you wouldn't find me whining about blown calls. I don't remember any truly bad calls last year. NE made the plays and they were the better team.

Yeah, the only bad calls last year were coming from Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb. http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/redface.gif

In the case of McNabb we're not talking about blown calls, but blown chunks.

[kingfc22]

ESPN.com's sports nation poll tonight:

What will you remember most about SB XL?

Jerome Bettis wins then retires - 33%
Bill Cowher wins SB - 8%
Willie Parker's record run - 3%
Poor Officiating - 36%
Randle El's pass - 21%

9758 votes so far. This tells me that it is a lot more than a select few that thought the refs were awful tonight.

[DaddyTorgo]

and even from penn

46% Bettis
22% officiating

that's pretty damm telling

[Tigercat]

On the pass interference: The major reason why more offensive pass interferences aren't called is because refs aren't always right by the play and cannot always see the reciever clearly pushing off. If you are a ref you may sometimes be able to guess that the WR pushed off, but that isn't enough to throw a flag. Lots of seperation happens for reasons other than pushing off, so a ref has to be sure.

Jackson clearly pushed off with his arm right in front of the official and because of the push, the defender moved away from the ball. How more obvious can offensive pass interference be besides a pick play? I really don't understand the thinking on that play to critisize the ref.

[cthomer5000]

On the pass interference: The major reason why more offensive pass interferences aren't called is because refs aren't always right by the play and cannot always see the reciever clearly pushing off. If you are a ref you may sometimes be able to guess that the WR pushed off, but that isn't enough to throw a flag. Lots of seperation happens for reasons other than pushing off, so a ref has to be sure.

Jackson clearly pushed off with his arm right in front of the official and because of the push, the defender moved away from the ball. How more obvious can offensive pass interference be besides a pick play? I really don't understand the thinking on that play to critisize the ref.
Yeah. somehow pushing off right in front of the ref - and getting caught - is an example of the refs trying to screw Seattle.

[PilotMan]

Tellling schmelling!

All it says is that there are enough people who were Seahawks fans/Steeler haters who were given a choice in a poll that most appealed to them. Certainly anyone in either of those two categories wouldn't pick any of the other choices and could/would skew the results of an otherwise unscientific poll.

[ISiddiqui]

Put me down as someone who thinks Seattle got screwed on a number of call. I don't think it would have made a difference in the end, but it wasn't a good officiated game in the slightest.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Ben's long pass to Ward before the first touchdown should have been an illegal forward pass since he crossed the line while running sideways, and he was holding the ball past the line before it left his hand for the throw.As I recall, they showed a replay with a red line superimposed to represent the line of scrimmage, and Roethlisberger was at least a yard behind it the entire play.

[larrymcg421]

I think what happened is the men in the black helicopters came to the refs the night before and threatened to execute their families if they didn't ensure a Pittsburgh victory. Little did the refs know that Seattle ineptness would make their jobs very easy.

[larrymcg421]

Let me add that my comments are only meant for those that complain of a conspiracy!!1!!

There were some questionable calls, but it's hardly the officiating disaster that people are claiming. No call was as bad as the one in the Pittsburgh game that negated Polamalu's INT. The game was over after that play, but the refs reversed it and Indy got another chance. Still, Pittsburgh played on. They continued to smother Peyton Manning, and even after a disastrous fumble, their QB made a courageous game saving tackle.

Bad calls or not, nobody forced Hasselbeck to throw that INT. Nobody forced Seattle to display terrible clock management. Nobody forced Stevens to drop that many passes. The championship teams overcome bad calls. Offensive interference on Jerry Rice? So what, next play Montana to Rice again, 6 points.

The refs did not give this game to Pittsburgh. They did not take it away from Seattle.

[Bee]

I don't know if it was the WORST officiated Super Bowl, but it was definitely a badly officiated Super Bowl. I also think most of the calls went against Seattle, but that happens all the time and you have to overcome it. Seattle didn't. I think the piss poor coaching of Holmgren, the inability of the Seattle offense to get the ball into the endzone and giving up 2-3 big plays on defense were more factors in the loss.

[TroyF]

That assumes you believe stats alone indicate which team is better. I think the team that wins is better. I also believe if these two teams played ten times, Pittsburgh wins at least 6 times. I don't think the refs won this game for Pittsburgh. I do think Seattle shot themselves in the foot multiple times (bad clock management, etc.) Since Seattle shot themselves in the foot, I don't believe they are quite as good as Pittsburgh.


I'm sorry Eagles, but I don't understand how anyone can think this way. The Seahawks, even with the big plsy did shoot themselves in the foot and had EVERY 50/50 call go against them.

I think the better team lost that game and I think if they replayed the game, Seattle wins it at least 7 times, if not more.

The sad part about this is that for the people who thought the reffing was horrible (and I believe it was beyond horrible) are forced to deal with people acting as if we are saying Seattle didn't make their own share of mistakes. They did. They missed two long FG. They had horrible clock management at the end of the game. They gave up a long TD run they shouldn't have.

But when you watch the replay on TIVO, some of these calls weren't that close. The three biggest key missed calls in the game are right there if anyone wants to see them. Those saying Haggans jumped twice in a row are exactly right. Watch the replay. You don't even have to TIVO it. Haggans was CLEARLY over the line on two consecutive plays. He didn't time the snap count, he beat it.

On the first play they called a ridiculous holding penalty that cost Seattle having the ball 1 and goal at the one. The second missed offsides resulted in a sack. And the third play of the series was the INT where the Steelers were given an extra 15 yards because somehow Matt Hasselbeck was trying to BLOCK the Steeler blocker and just happened to accidently tackle the ball carrier in the process.

I don't think the ball crossed the plane on the TD, but the Steelers probably score on that one anyway.

Another call not talked about a lot was the Bettis hold on Pittsburghs last first down. That cost Seattle their last time out and that hold was far, far more blatent than anything Seattle did all day.

In 90% of the cases, when the refs call a horrific game, it doesn't really matter in the end. I'm not so sure that's the case with this game. The correct call is made on Haggans and that game is 17-14 Seattle and it's a completely different game. Despite the bad clock management, the close plays that didn't go their way and the gadget plays, Seattle would have been in prime position to win that football game.

Those are three of the worst back to back to back calls I've ever seen in any game, any situation during the time I've watched NFL football. And every single one of them went against Seattle.

Again, good for Cowher, Bettis, Ward, Big Ben, Porter, Pololmau, Hampton, Smith, Parker (what a great story, two hundred times better than the Bettis story but people are too stupid to see it), and the rest of the Steelers.

I have nothing against any of them and I'm especially glad Cowher gets the monkey off his back. He's always been a great coach and people will have to shut the hell up about him now.

I have nothing against the Steelers, but I do not think the reffing was solid, good, acceptable, or fair. And I think if you replay the game tomorrow, Seattle becomes a 10 point favorite and wins the game with relative ease.

[BrianD]

As I recall, they showed a replay with a red line superimposed to represent the line of scrimmage, and Roethlisberger was at least a yard behind it the entire play.

They showed a regular replay where you could see the down marker on the sidelines. It very much looked like the football was beyond the marker before it left Ben's hand. It was close but I thought he went beyond the line.

[Samdari]

The Seahawks, even with the big plsy did shoot themselves in the foot and had EVERY 50/50 call go against them.

I think that is the crux of it. Every call that had a huge effect on the outcome (the OPI, Ben's TD, and the holding call on Stevens' catch to the 1) went against the Seahawks. I think only the holding was a terrible call. To me, that was the biggest call of the day, as I got the feeling during that drive that the Seahawks were about to take the lead, and would have gone on to win. And nothing happened during that play that constitutes holding in the NFL, it was totally phantom. Ben's TD, I feel sorry for the official, as that is possibly the closest call I have ever seen. That ball was within literally millimeters (not saying which side :)) of the line. A very tough call, even with multiple slow motion looks at it. I think you can't fault the official whichever way he calls that, I just wish he had not changed him mind on the way to the ball. I thought Jackson's OPI call was a good one, but, as my wife points out (and is a pet peeve of mine) that much contact is not called OPI in this league with any degree of consistency. I think it should be, but too often is not.

I kind of feel like you Troy in that the Seahawks actually looked better most of the day. But, I would still say that the players determined this game more than the officials. For the first 20-25 minutes of the game, Seattle dominated, moving the ball at will, consistently stuffing the Steelers, and were only up 3-0. I noted at that point they would probably regret that, as you have to take advantage of your opportunitites in games against closely matched teams. The officials, for the most part, had little hand in that. I don't agree the Seahawks would win 7, I see this as 5-5, as the breaks and calls would even out over the course of 10 games.

You want to blame someone, I I would look into the backgrounds of Jerramy Stevens and Michael Boulware. Boulware was so bad, I thought several times during the game that he had to have been paid to throw the game. And it was not the officials ripping the ball out of Stevens' hands the whole game, it was him dropping passes. If he catches those 5 drops, and gets the one back from the phantom holding call, the Seahawks win, with Stevens having 175 yards and the MVP.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have no strong emotional connection to either team, but was rooting for the Steelers, out of respect for the way the Rooneys run the team, how much I like Bill Cowher, and that Hines Ward is just about my favorite player in the game.

[AlexB]

And I think if you replay the game tomorrow, Seattle becomes a 10 point favorite and wins the game with relative ease.

If you replay the game tomorrow Seahawks would be missing Marquand Manuel, Rocky Bernard and Andre Dyson... Not trying to be pedantic (well OK, I am a little bit ;) ) but the point is that Pittsburgh's offence got far more yards 2nd half when they picked on a 3rd string safety and to a lesser extent back-up CB (who did also make a potentially game changing INT), and Bernard's injury coincided with the Bus running through the middle a little more.

The morning after the night before, the game started off with the Seahawks in superiority, and for a number of reasons the game turned in the Steelers' favour:

1. Yes, the Steelers got the rub of the green with the calls, but I still think there was only one horrible call (on Hasselbeck) and two questionable ones (Locklear holding, and another holding on a punt return that I've remembered this morning). The other calls we have seen been called either way, but on review I think the correct decisions were made.

2. More to the point the Seahawks made too many mistakes, dropped passses mainly be Stevens, an unquestioned hold in the 1st that pushed them to a long FG attempt stalling a TD drive, Mack Strong not falling forward to get a 1st down on a 3rd down reception, Kelly Herndon stumbling on the INT return (he had one man in front and a blocker after Big Ben was flattened, but tripped allowing another Steelers defender to get there), being fooled by the Steelers blitz on a couple of key occasions. They should have converted at least some of these plays and the supposed poor calls would not have mattered.

3. Terrible clock management by the Seahawks at the end of the 1st gave the Steelers a little momentum (or maybe lost Seattle some), follwed by Parkers TD on the 2nd play from scrimmage in the 2nd half was big.

4. Injuries began to mount on the Seattle D.

5. Terrible clock management at the end of the 2nd as well, and there were a couple of throws to the flat that Hasselbeck should noit have made, plus Stevens (again) failing to get out of bounds.

No-one can argue that the penalties didn't hurt Seattle (whether they were actually unfair is highly debatable), but they far from the only reason, and IMO not even the main reason, they lost. And I do think the Seahawks lost rather than the Steelers won.

[PilotMan]

No-one can argue that the penalties didn't hurt Seattle (whether they were actually unfair is highly debatable), but they far from the only reason, and IMO not even the main reason, they lost. And I do think the Seahawks lost rather than the Steelers won. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Unfortunately, I think that this is the case for the game. One reason why it was such a dissapointing Super Bowl to watch, especially for Steeler fans,who after watching the last 3 playoff games, knew that their team could do so much better. It wasn't that Seattle was beating them, but they easily could have beaten themselves as well. Certainly not the way that you want to remember the game.

[Butter]

As per usual at FOFC, I think the 2 sides are overstating their cases a tad. The officiating was not good and/or consistent, and the Steelers definitely benefitted from at least 2 calls directly (the Hasselbeck low-block call set PIT up near mid-field where they love to run those gadget plays... which is exactly what they did, and the phantom hold on the Stevens pass to the 1 yard line essentially takes a TD away from SEA).

However, even with those calls, SEA still had a chance to make it a game. But they had a bad drive at the end of the first half to set up a low percentage 50+ yard FG attempt, then missed a later FG, and Stevens was pretty awful all game long. Also, the Steelers essentially shut Alexander down, I think he might've had 1 10+ yard run all night.

Even if you take away those bad calls, the Steelers still might end up winning because the whole tempo of the game would've changed, and they would've been forced to throw. But Ben had a pretty poor game, and it would've been a lot more interesting at least.

I know how it is to have people question your team's right to a title thanks to poor officiating (see: Ohio St. v. Miami, 2002... and the call was even more questionable there), but after a while those criticisms will fade and you'll be able to fully enjoy the title. Congrats to the Steelers and their fans from a still bitter Cincy fan. Hopefully we'll be able to take you down next year.

[larrymcg421]

I know how it is to have people question your team's right to a title thanks to poor officiating (see: Ohio St. v. Miami, 2002... and the call was even more questionable there), but after a while those criticisms will fade and you'll be able to fully enjoy the title. Congrats to the Steelers and their fans from a still bitter Cincy fan. Hopefully we'll be able to take you down next year.

Being a Miami fan, I think that call could have gone either way, but the way it went didn't seem consistent with how the refs were calling it earlier in the game. Still, Miami could have and should have won the game. Even forgetting the many mistakes Miami made that led to the OT, they had the ball on the 1 yard line when the game ended. The point is, Miami didn't lose because of the officials and neither did the Seahawks.

[Ksyrup]

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Unfortunately, I think that this is the case for the game. One reason why it was such a dissapointing Super Bowl to watch, especially for Steeler fans,who after watching the last 3 playoff games, knew that their team could do so much better. It wasn't that Seattle was beating them, but they easily could have beaten themselves as well. Certainly not the way that you want to remember the game.
It was a strange game for me to watch, as a fan of neither team. Although the game was close, had momentum swings, and wasn't really over until about the 4 minute mark, the game was still not very good. It was poorly played by both teams for the most part, and when you add in the bad/questionable officiating, it really wasn't all that fun to watch. It really did seem like Pittsburgh backed into the win and Seattle blew any chances they had to win it, rather than one team going out and claiming the title. We see dozens of games like that during the season, but in the SB, you hope that's not the case. Oh well.

[Dutch]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2320683&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2

Here's commentary I side with.

The best line - "Not taking anything away from the Steelers, but keep it real."

Game's third team upstaged Steelers, Hawks
By Michael Smith
ESPN.com
Archive

DETROIT -- Three weeks ago, after the Steelers held on to upset Indianapolis, Joey Porter was unhappy about the overturning of Troy Polamalu's fourth-quarter interception that could have sealed the win much earlier. Believing that deep down the league preferred Peyton Manning and the Colts to win, Porter publicly criticized the game officials, asking them not to "take the game from us."

Well, the Steelers can call it even now, as the officials who performed well enough throughout the season to earn the privilege of working Super Bowl XL performed Sunday as though they were trying to make it up to the Steelers by giving them the game -- not just any game, but the biggest game. And, yes, this time the other guys, the Seahawks, cried conspiracy, only not quite as loudly as Porter.

"You know, that's what happens when the world is against you," one Seahawk said after the 21-10 loss at Ford/Heinz Field. "No one wanted us to win. They wanted Jerome Bettis to win and go out a hero, and they got it."

Seattle had its share of goats: in particular, tight end Jerramy Stevens, who dropped four balls, and kicker Josh Brown, who missed two field-goal attempts. Almost to a man, the Seahawks pointed the blame finger at themselves for converting only one of three red zone attempts (when they had been the best in the league in that area, scoring a touchdown on 71.7 percent of their trips inside the 20-yard line); for allowing Ben Roethlisberger to improvise and complete a 37-yard pass to game MVP Hines Ward to the 1; for giving up a 75-yard touchdown run to Willie Parker; and for getting beaten by a trick play on Antwaan Randle El's pass to fellow receiver Ward for a touchdown, a first in Super Bowl history. If you read between the lines, though, they pretty much spelled out in bold letters that they had plenty of help in handing Pittsburgh its fifth Lombardi Trophy.

Namely, the boys in black and white.

"Those things are out of our control," Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said of the three major penalties that helped change the game completely. Not saying the outcome of the game would have been any different, but for sure it would have been a different game. "That's the way [the officials] called them," Hasselbeck continued. "The Steelers played well enough to win tonight, and we didn't. They should get credit. It's disappointing, it's hard, but what are you going to do?"

Here's what referee Bill Leavy's crew did, point blank: It robbed Seattle. The Seahawks could have played better, sure. They could have done more to overcome the poor officiating. We understand that those things happen and all, but even with all the points Seattle left on the field, there's a good chance the Seahawks would have scored more than the Steelers if the officials had let the players play.

In the biggest game of the year, the biggest game in sports, even, the officials were just a little too visible. In that regard, the Super Bowl provided a fitting conclusion to a postseason packed with pitiful performances by the game's third team. There were incorrect down-by-contact rulings in both NFC wild-card games; a touchdown that could have gone either way and should have gone the other way -- in favor of Tampa Bay -- in the Bucs' loss to the Redskins; the Patriots got no love in Denver in being hit with a bogus pass interference penalty and not catching a break on Champ Bailey's fumble at the goal line that looked as though it could have been a touchback; and, of course, the Polamalu play.

Still, what happened to the Seahawks wasn't the same as, say, New England going into Denver and playing badly (five turnovers) on top of the bad calls. Seattle gained almost 400 yards and turned it over just once.

You see, you can spend weeks -- and we did; two, in fact -- analyzing and dissecting matchups and giving each team the edge in certain areas and trying to figure out how the game is going to play out, but the two things you can't account for are turnovers and officials. The latter were the X-factor Sunday. Edge: Steelers.

It actually was a fairly clean game from a penalty standpoint, without a whole lot of yellow on the field -- 10 accepted penalties between the teams. Seven were against the Seahawks, though, a team that tied with Indianapolis for the second-fewest penalties (94) in the regular season. But those calls against the Seahawks stuck out like the Space Needle on the Seattle skyline.

Consider: The Seahawks lost 161 yards to penalties when you combine the penalty yards (70) and the plays the flags wiped out (91). By halftime alone, when it trailed 7-3, Seattle had had 73 hard-earned yards and a touchdown eliminated.

Hasselbeck hit Darrell Jackson with an apparent 16-yard scoring pass in the first quarter, but the play came back when Jackson was called for offensive pass interference. It was a touch foul. Jackson extended his arm, yes, but both players were fighting for position, and he didn't create any separation by doing so. It was like a referee calling a hand-check in a key moment of Game 7 of the NBA Finals.

The Seahawks had to settle for three instead of seven.

Still, that was early, and that one didn't change the game as much as did a holding call against Sean Locklear early in the fourth quarter with Pittsburgh leading 14-10. That one wiped out an 18-yard catch by Stevens that would have taken the ball to the 1. Locklear supposedly held Clark Haggans, so instead of first-and-goal at the 1 and the chance to complete a 98-yard touchdown drive and take a three-point lead, Seattle faced first-and-20 at the 29.

Three plays later, Ike Taylor picked off a Hasselbeck pass, and Hasselbeck went low to make the tackle on Taylor's return and was called for a 15-yard personal foul for a low block. The Steelers set up shop at their 44. That one right there made no sense.

Pittsburgh likes to run its trick plays in the middle of the field. Boom! Four plays later, from Seattle's 43, Randle El took a reverse and threw a sweet strike on the run to Ward. It was 21-10, and that was all she wrote. Everyone knows how important it is to play Pittsburgh with a lead or with the score tied. The Steelers don't lose when they're up by 11.

Eleven just so happens to be the total points taken away by bogus calls. Some penalties meant points; others meant field position. A holding call in the second quarter negated Peter Warrick's 34-yard punt return that would have started Seattle in Pittsburgh territory.

By contrast, the Steelers might have gotten a break on Roethlisberger's 1-yard touchdown plunge on third-and-goal in the second quarter. Leavy reviewed the play under the booth's orders, since it occurred inside the two-minute mark, and while still photos of an airborne Roethlisberger showed that the ball might have broken the plane of the goal line, he landed short of it and reached the ball over. It was close. Head linesman Mark Hittner didn't seem so sure of it, hesitating before signaling touchdown.

"I don't think he scored," Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren said.

It was that kind of evening for the Seahawks, who represent a town where residents know all too well that when it rains, it pours. If having what seemed like 90 percent of the 68,200 in attendance waving Terrible Towels wasn't enough to make Seattle feel as though it was playing on the road, the officials called it as though the Seahawks actually were.

Pittsburgh capitalized on its opportunities. And guys like Bill Cowher, Ward, Dan Rooney and The Bus are all very deserving of a championship -- and it's nice to see them win one -- but it would have been better had it not happened like this. It's like the Seahawks said: Not taking anything away from the Steelers, but keep it real.

"We had a touchdown taken away from us, the first one we scored," said Hasselbeck, who was measured in his words but clear in his frustration, "and then we had the ball at the 1-yard line, they called a penalty on us. That was unfortunate."

"I thought they were offside [on the play Locklear was called for holding]," center Robbie Tobeck said. "I thought we had a free play on because they had two guys come across. You know, that's the game. In a game, there's situations you have to overcome, and all night long we didn't do a good job of overcoming those things, and that's something we've done all year."

In the offseason, 31 teams will be back at the drawing board, evaluating what they need to do to knock off the Steelers in the fall. After the postseason they just had, Mike Pereira and the NFL's crew of officials would be wise to take a long, hard look at themselves. It's a real shame when, on the game's biggest stage, the major players aren't players at all. We saw too much of the third team in Super Bowl XL and not enough Seahawks and Steelers.

Michael Smith is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

[Koryo]

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).
(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.
(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!
(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.
(5) The continual calls against the Hawks not beeing called on the Steelers (holding and the like).
(6) 7 for 70 and 3 for 20 in penalties is not even handed. The Hawks did not make mistakes that the Steelers also made. Both sides were seen holding just the Hawks got called and the Steelers didn't.
(7) East Coast Bias (tongue in cheek)...still lives...

I've probably forgotten a few others so I'll come back later when I recall them.

You may want to read up on your rules with regards to #3. You can hit the pylon and score a touchdown, but you have to establish 2 feet inbounds beforehand. The receiver only established 1 foot.

[WSUCougar]

Others have hit on my feelings already, so I won't beat the dead horse any further. However, I thought there could have been holding called on the Steelers' right tackle during the Randle-El reverse pass. It was out in space and it was crucial to the play's success. That was a microcosm of the way the game played out. Seattle got no breaks on their big plays (called back), and the Steelers got no-calls on theirs.

But congrats to the Steelers, anyway.

[Warhammer]

My problem with the officiating is this....

1) Call plays consistently, or don't call them at all. I agree that Jackson's OPI was a penalty according to the rulebook. However, the call is called so rarely that it appears to be an arbitrary call, unless it is a blatant tackle of the defender.

2) The whole concept of letting the players play is bogus. A play that is a penalty in the 1st quarter should be a penalty when the game is on the line. Don't give me this, "The refs don't want to determine the winner," garbage because that is what they are doing if they don't call the penalties the same way.

3) If they need to call penalties every down to root out some widespread penalties that occur every play, do it! For crying out loud, after the 3rd or 4th call, the players should get the idea. If it continues, keep calling it. After one or two weeks, the players should adjust. If you let some penalties slide, then the players will commit those fouls repeatedly (a la body fouls in the NBA, hand checking of old, clutching in the NHL, etc.).

4) Fans. Yes, fans bear some of the responsibility too. I have seen games where the fans bitched and moaned because tons of penalties were called. If there is a penalty on a play, let the refs do their job. Then if the players keep committing the same penalties, and the refs keep calling it, blame the players, not the refs.

[Blackadar]

I'll come out of hibernation for the Super Bowl. I shan't be staying long.

Anyone who's complaining about the refs this morning should stop watching football. Every game has calls like these.

1. It was pass interference. The WR stuck his hand in the DBs chest and extended the arm. It was a shove. It was right in front of the ref. Correct call.

2. Ben did cross the goal line. On my HD set, about 1/3rd of the football is across the goal line at the moment of impact. That's a TD. The rule isn't the whole football, it's not half the football. It could be 1cm of the football...that's a TD.

3. The holding call? Questionable. Seattle fans have a right to question that call. I didn't like the call.

4. The WR catching the ball for a TD at the end of the first half? He clearly doesn't get two feet inbounds.

5. Hasselbeck's weird "blocking" penalty? I've been told there's some weird, obscure rule that applied (kind of like the tuck rule) to that situation. I have no idea.

Waaah. Big deal. What it amounts to is that on virtually every "questionable" call, THE REFS WERE RIGHT. Football is a game of inches. Those inches didn't go Seattle's way. If Jackson doesn't extend his arm, that call's not made. If Ben is 6'3" instead of 6'5", he doesn't get in for the TD. So on and so forth.

The refs didn't create the worst clock mismanagement that I've ever seen in a football game - IN BOTH HALVES. Crimney, that was awful. Or Seattle missing 2 FGs, even if they were long ones. How much does the game change if he hits even 1 of those. Or how about TE Jeremey Stevens dropping about 5 very catchable balls. My 6 year old son has better hands than that.

But to me, Jeremey Stevens isn't even the biggest goat. Seattle's Tom Rouen is. Yes, he averaged 50 yards per punt. But he repeatedly had a chance to pin the Steelers deep. 6 kicks, 4 touchbacks. How many chances do you need before you try to coffin corner the punt? He could have easily buried the Steelers and given his team a short field. And he repeatedly failed to do so. Rouen kicked 6 punts for 301 yards. 4 touchbacks = 80 yards. Add another 32 in ARE returns. That's 112 yards back. So that's really 6 punts for 189 yards, or barely 31 yards per punt. That's pitiful.

(For comparison's sake, Chris Gardocki punted 6 times for 292 yards and 1 touchback. Seattle had 27 yards in punt returns. That's a true net of 245 yards, or about 41 yards per punt.)

Pittsburgh played a horrid game. Big Ben looked awful. The team as a whole looked flat. The running game was off. The play calling was uninspired for much of the 1st half. Yet Seattle couldn't take advantage. When the opposing team doesn't get a 1st down for the first 19 minutes of the game, you should have more than 3 points on the board. They could have, and should have, buried the Steelers - especially in the 1st half. They didn't and it cost 'em the Super Bowl.

Now I'm out again. See you next year.

[Bee]

On my HD set, about 1/3rd of the football is across the goal line at the moment of impact.

I think you need to have your set adjusted then. :D My 120" HD image sure as hell didn't show 1/3 of the ball across the goal line. It was inconclusive and could have been called either way.

[WSUCougar]

Suddenly, my monitor went blackie for just a moment. There and gone.

I think what really sticks out about the officiating is that almost all of the penalties called on the Seahawks just KILLED them. Yardage, points, momentum, play-calling, everything. They were very visible calls.

[Samdari]

The national media seems to agree that the officiating was awful, and hurt the Seahawks more, but that since the Seahawks still had chances, their own failures cost them more than the officiating. I agree with that sentiment.

One salient point is that the officiating was horrendous in the Steeler/Colt game, and hurt the Steelers more. The Steelers overcame that and won. The Seahawks did not.

[Bee]

The national media seems to agree that the officiating was awful, and hurt the Seahawks more, but that since the Seahawks still had chances, their own failures cost them more than the officiating. I agree with that sentiment.

One salient point is that the officiating was horrendous in the Steeler/Colt game, and hurt the Steelers more. The Steelers overcame that and won. The Seahawks did not.

That's pretty much the way I feel as well.

[VPI97]

The national media seems to agree that the officiating was awful, and hurt the Seahawks more, but that since the Seahawks still had chances, their own failures cost them more than the officiating. I agree with that sentiment.

One salient point is that the officiating was horrendous in the Steeler/Colt game, and hurt the Steelers more. The Steelers overcame that and won. The Seahawks did not.Spot on.

[SFL Cat]

Okay, my take.

Re Officiating: Yes, Seattle got some bum calls. The offensive pass interference penalty that cost the Hawks a TD was VERY iffy IMO, especially since the defender was reaching out and grabbing too. It looked pretty plain to me that Roethlisberger didn't break the plane of the goal with the ball on the TD call that put the Steelers up 7-3. The holding call that cost Seattle a first-and-goal was also bogus. The "blocking" call on Hasselbeck was also ludricrous, although the impact of that call was negligible compared to some of the others.

Yes, for the most part I think the Seahawks outplayed the Steelers, especially in the first half. I thought Hasselbeck looked much sharper than Roethlisberger for most of the game. Take away the two gadget plays and the long run by Parker to start the second half, the stats are pretty lopsided in Seattle's favor.

However, in the final analysis, the Steelers made plays when they needed to make them and the Seahawks didn't. Simple as that. I think Holmgren's genius status should be in question in light of the play calling late in the first half and at the end of the game.

[ice4277]

I think Holmgren's genius status should be in question in light of the play calling late in the first half and at the end of the game.
The two-minute drills looked like something a piss-poor high school team would be executing. Pathetic.

[rkmsuf]

The two-minute drills looked like something a piss-poor high school team would be executing. Pathetic.

Like a monkey humping a football?

[theclassic]

The job of the officials is to make the game as fair as possible. If they were going to call little things on the Seahawks, than maybe they should have called them on the Steelers as well to even things out. Anybody see Max Starks holding on Willie Parker's 75 yard TD run? Maybe it wasn't as obvious as most holding calls should be, but it was certainly more obvious, than the holding penalty that brought back the Seahawks from the 1. With 1st down at the 1, no question Shaun Alexander get's a TD. Seahawks go up 17-14, instead of throwing an interception out of frustration, and than called on illegal block, oh I mean legal tackle.

Clark Haggans on that same drive could have been called offsides. It was easy for anyone to see that he was just a few seconds early in crossing the line. What really irked me is that Pittsburgh was playing just a little dirty. A few times I thought they could have been called for late hits. I think a few times I saw DL hang onto Hasselback a little to long after the play. Yet when the Seahawks knocked Ben Roethlisberger into the sidelines legally, the Steelers sidelines went crazy, including knocking around the Seahawk tackler on the sideline.

Without question the officials decided the game in my oppinion. Although Seattle shot themselves in the foot, and they had some bad time management in the end, you can't blame them for making such mistakes in frustration. When your mindset is that the officials are out to get you, your only bound to change a few things about the way you play. I'm sure the lineman were forced to worry more about holding, than their blocking. While the Steelers lineman could get away with a few things here and there without having to give much thought to it. The same goes for late hits, and celebrations.

Colin Cowherd made a good point this morning. He said when can you remember a team lose, when they had the most yards, better turnover margin, better QB performance, and better time of possession, lose a game by 11 points? He said you can't, it hasn't happended. Now tell me you don't think the officials determined who won or loss?

[Butter]

Colin Cowherd made a good point this morning.
That has never happened and thus refutes your whole argument.

[AlexB]

It was easy for anyone to see that he was just a few seconds early in crossing the line.

A few seconds? A few is obviously more than two, so at a minimum you're syaing he was 3 seconds early? LB's can run the 40 yd dash in 4.5 - 5 seconds, so according to you he was 30 yards into the backfield before the snap? :rolleyes:

[Mr. Wednesday]

My initial impression of the first Steelers TD was that in or not, there would not be conclusive evidence to overturn it on review.

My second impression, on seeing the replays, was that the ball was barely across the line before Roethlisberger got pushed back, so the initial call was correct.

[Butter]

My second impression, on seeing the replays, was that the ball was barely across the line before Roethlisberger got pushed back, so the initial call was correct.
It looked to me on my tiny TV that the nose of the football did break the plane as he lunged... the problem I had with the play is that the linesman looked like he was going to call him down... then Roethlissomething, after being downed, reaches the ball over and the linesman gives him the TD! I don't like those delayed TD calls... either you call it a TD immediately as you see it, or it's not a TD. Rare exception can be given to a big pile in the middle of the line on a less than 1 yard for a TD type play, but it just seemed like that should've been called as it happened.

[theclassic]

A few seconds? A few is obviously more than two, so at a minimum you're syaing he was 3 seconds early? LB's can run the 40 yd dash in 4.5 - 5 seconds, so according to you he was 30 yards into the backfield before the snap? :rolleyes:

Alright a few miliseconds early. Wise guy. :rolleyes:

[Hurst2112]

The two-minute drills looked like something a piss-poor high school team would be executing. Pathetic.

The west coast offense is indeed dead.

[BrianD]

It looked to me on my tiny TV that the nose of the football did break the plane as he lunged... the problem I had with the play is that the linesman looked like he was going to call him down... then Roethlissomething, after being downed, reaches the ball over and the linesman gives him the TD! I don't like those delayed TD calls... either you call it a TD immediately as you see it, or it's not a TD. Rare exception can be given to a big pile in the middle of the line on a less than 1 yard for a TD type play, but it just seemed like that should've been called as it happened.

I would be curious to know why the LJ changed his mind on that play. Based on all of the disagreements between people here about the results of a slow-motion replay, I feel pretty safe in saying that there is no way a person could be absolutely sure of the call at live speed, let along be able to think back and change your mind. If the guy's initial reaction was to call him short (with the initial dead-ball call), what did make him change his mind? Was it because of Ben moving the ball...which the ref had to see? Could he have seen something different as he was running in? It just seems odd that anything could make him change his mind the way this played out.

[SFL Cat]

I would be curious to know why the LJ changed his mind on that play. Based on all of the disagreements between people here about the results of a slow-motion replay, I feel pretty safe in saying that there is no way a person could be absolutely sure of the call at live speed, let along be able to think back and change your mind. If the guy's initial reaction was to call him short (with the initial dead-ball call), what did make him change his mind? Was it because of Ben moving the ball...which the ref had to see? Could he have seen something different as he was running in? It just seems odd that anything could make him change his mind the way this played out.

My thoughts...

It looks short, I think it's short, is it short?....aw hell with it. TD

[Dreslough]

Seattle shot themselves in the foot (managing the last drive of both halves, for instance, and Stevens dropping most balls that came his way)

Madden and Michaels were complaining that they screwed up the clock management of the 1st half, but I disagree. Clock management is irrelevant if you run of out of downs. They didn't run out of time. They ran out of downs and had to punt. As it turned out, it was a GOOD thing that they ran the running play and ate up time with a pass over the middle, because it meant the Steelers didn't have time to mount a drive.

Clay

[Bee]

I would be curious to know why the LJ changed his mind on that play. Based on all of the disagreements between people here about the results of a slow-motion replay, I feel pretty safe in saying that there is no way a person could be absolutely sure of the call at live speed, let along be able to think back and change your mind. If the guy's initial reaction was to call him short (with the initial dead-ball call), what did make him change his mind? Was it because of Ben moving the ball...which the ref had to see? Could he have seen something different as he was running in? It just seems odd that anything could make him change his mind the way this played out.

My guess was that it was so close, he decided to give the benefit of the doubt. And FTR, I think he'd have made the same call if it had been the Seahawks in that situation. I think there's a tendency with a lot of refs to give close calls to the offensive player.

[Dreslough]

Plus the bad "low block" call on Hasselbeck when he was making a tackle after the INT.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brady got called on the same penalty after an INT (and Brady was LIVID). It turns out there's actually a rule against offensive players making certain kinds of tackles on INT returns. It's a DUMB RULE, IMHO, and should be changed (as it's a rule that penalizes QBs that make good plays). But it seems like the officials are getting the call right given the way the rule is written. (Sorry but I don't have the rulebook in front of me).

Clay

[WSUCougar]

Personally, that call didn't bother me much either way.

But what is curious to me - Like BrianD mentioned - is the conduct of the line judge. He ran in with his hand up (indicating no TD), and looked like he was going to spot the ball a foot or so short. That means his initial, gut reaction was that Big Ben came up short. A second or two later, he changes the call to TD...but based on what? Roethlisberger obviously moved the ball in the time the LJ was running in toward him. How could he miss that fact?

[Dreslough]

I think you need to have your set adjusted then. :D My 120" HD image sure as hell didn't show 1/3 of the ball across the goal line. It was inconclusive and could have been called either way.

I saw a bit of the ball cross the plane. But it sure wasn't 1/3. It was inconclusive and the replay judge made the right call. As for the Line Judge, it's tough making that call in real-time, but I do wonder why he appeared to change his made AFTER the play was dead.

Clay

[AlexB]

Alright a few miliseconds early. Wise guy. :rolleyes:

I realised as such, but my aim was to try and point out that exaggeration and over-emphasis of the officiating is hiding the fact that the Seahawks blew their game far more than the officials did.

My opinion (and I'm a Miami fan, so have no allegiances: actually wanted Seattle to win as I have seen them live in the only 2 NFL games I have seen live at a stadium as opposed to TV, and Hasselbeck comes across as a genuinley decent bloke), and the consensus opinion, is that the DJack PI and OB catch calls were right, the Ben TD was right. I tend to agree the Locklear hold was harsh, but again it is not uncommon to see this kind of flag thrown.

The Hasselbeck block/tackle looked dumb, but it has been said that there is a rule that covers this (in which case it's a dumb rule, but that's not the officials' fault).

There was a hold on a punt return that was minimal at best which may well have gone against Seattle.

But overall the flags and decisions were right: the calls against the Steelers in the IND were way worse, but they won. Seattle lost, get over it.

[BrianD]

Personally, that call didn't bother me much either way.

But what is curious to me - Like BrianD mentioned - is the conduct of the line judge. He ran in with his hand up (indicating no TD), and looked like he was going to spot the ball a foot or so short. That means his initial, gut reaction was that Big Ben came up short. A second or two later, he changes the call to TD...but based on what? Roethlisberger obviously moved the ball in the time the LJ was running in toward him. How could he miss that fact?

I suppose it is also possible that he caught himself screwing up and corrected himself. Either he used the wrong hand signal, or he noticed the fumble and forgot that the play was dead once the ball crossed the goal line.

Although thinking about it...the signal for a TD is standing still with both arms raised. The signal for a ball down short of the goal is one arm raised while running to the spot. He probably wouldn't screw up the signal that much.

Very odd since most officials won't ever admit to being wrong and change a call, yet this one corrected himself. Lack of decisiveness will make the guy look bad even if he got the call right.

[Dreslough]

1. It was pass interference. The WR stuck his hand in the DBs chest and extended the arm. It was a shove. It was right in front of the ref. Correct call.

I'm watching it on TiVo and it looks like a shove. It might be a "questionable" call, but I don't see how it's a bad call (like the holding call later in the game). I play a lot of Ultimate Frisbee -- where the rules are similar to the NFL. That is, you need to change direction on your own power, not by pushing off. If I shoved off someone like that, I'd get called for a foul 80% of the time.

It's POSSIBLE that his arm came up and touched the defender by accident, since in making the cut you usually need to raise your outside arm to transfer momentum. But if so, it's the receiver's job to make it not LOOK like a shove. Namely, keep the palm of your hand down like you are running, not up like you are shoving.

And I haven't yet seen anyone mention the horrible call that cost PITTSBURGH a turnover. With 12:26 left in the 2nd, Stevens catches a pass from Hasselbeck, turns to run downfield and is DRILLED. The ball pops out and is whistled dead ("incomplete") before the Steelers can pick it up and run it downfield.

Again, I don't have the rules in front of me. But Stevens made a "football move" (turning downfield to run with the ball). This is proven by the fact that if he wanted to, he could have instead pulled the ball into his stomach and dropped to the ground. But he didn't. He turned downfield and it led to a fumble.

(Also note my previous rant (http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin2/showthread.php?p=491082) about how instant replay keeps turning good plays into "incompletions")

Clay

[Bee]

The fumble of Stevens could go either way. The whole "football move" thing is another one of those rules that can be interpreted differently by different refs and doesn't seem to be very consistent across the league. I didn't think a Steeler would be able to get to it before it went out of bounds from what I remember, but I'm going on just memory of how it bounced down the field.

[bhlloy]

That holding call was just complete and utter bullshit - maybe holding by the letter of the law but the number of times you see that play not called, and to call it in that situation in the most important game of the year - that's why I would be pissed if I was a Seattle fan because that three play sequence certainly turned the game. I don't have TIVO and didn't realise Haggans was offside also, but that makes it twice as bad.

TroyF brings up a good point about the Bettis hold (if we are thinking about the same play). One of the most blatant holds I've seen in a while and right in the LOS of the back judge and it goes unpunished. Didn't see holding by the right tackle on the Randle El TD.

The Hasselbeck play was also bullshit as he grazed the lead blocker and it was clearly an attempt to tackle the ball carrier. Not the same as the one earlier in the year when he went straight through the knees of the lead blocker to get to the ballcarrier. But really that play isn't going to change anything as Ward is just going to score anyway.

Roethlisberger TD call was the right call on replay - no indisputable evidence to overturn. But I would love to know a) what the line judge was thinking changing his mind and b) why the benefit of doubt always seems to go to the offense on those calls? To me it makes more sense to call it no TD and then if you can see the ball break the plane on replay then call it a touchdown. Rather than having a guy who is 20 yards away who may not actually be able to see the ball (or even the play if his view is obscured) make a guess, and then see if that guess is correct?

[bhlloy]

DOLA - I also agree with Dreslough. If Stevens' didn't make a football move then I don't know what is. That is a big play that the Seahawks crowd are missing that went in their favour.

[Bee]

DOLA - I also agree with Dreslough. If Stevens' didn't make a football move then I don't know what is. That is a big play that the Seahawks crowd are missing that went in their favour.

If Pittsburgh could have recovered. It was discussed earlier on the radio here in DC and they were calling it another bad call against Seattle because they also thought it went out of bounds before a Steeler could recover it.

[Bee]

Dola -

BTW, I still think Seattle lost it and the bad calls really didn't change that. Every team gets games where you have bad calls against you and you have to overcome that. Pittsburgh did it in their playoff game and Seattle couldn't.

[theclassic]

I realised as such, but my aim was to try and point out that exaggeration and over-emphasis of the officiating is hiding the fact that the Seahawks blew their game far more than the officials did.

But overall the flags and decisions were right: the calls against the Steelers in the IND were way worse, but they won. Seattle lost, get over it.

The Seahawks did blow the game, only because the officials blew it for them first. The Seahawks know or felt that they didn't have the officials on their side. That changes the way you play the game. Granted the coaching staff should have told them to just calm down, but how could the coaches say such things when they weren't calm themselves, and for right reasons.

It wouldn't have been so bad if the Steelers were called on so-so penalties once in awhile, but the Steelers got away with breaking a few rules, while the Seahawks weren't given the same benefit. It's most interesting too, that the biggest blown calls happended on the Seahawks biggest plays of the game. Blown and bogus calls are made all the time in football, but they ussually aren't made in such frequency on such game changing moments. That's where the refs screwed up.

[Samdari]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brady got called on the same penalty after an INT (and Brady was LIVID). It turns out there's actually a rule against offensive players making certain kinds of tackles on INT returns. It's a DUMB RULE, IMHO, and should be changed (as it's a rule that penalizes QBs that make good plays). But it seems like the officials are getting the call right given the way the rule is written. (Sorry but I don't have the rulebook in front of me).

The rule is not against making certain kinds of tackles. After turnovers and on kick returns, you are not allowed to take out blockers by going low on them. Hasselbeck went through a potential blocker to make the tackle. It was a poor interpretation/application of the rule.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

The Seahawks did blow the game, only because the officials blew it for them first. The Seahawks know or felt that they didn't have the officials on their side. That changes the way you play the game. Granted the coaching staff should have told them to just calm down, but how could the coaches say such things when they weren't calm themselves, and for right reasons.

If this is the case then Seattle deserved to lose. The officials are making bad calls against you? Suck it up and keep playing. Show me one game that has ever been played where there wasn't a bad call somewhere. This is nothing new. If the officials are throwing you off your game, then you never had a chance to win because you're obviously not mentally prepared.

All of this is quite funny to me. You make it sound like every time Seattle ran a play or stopped Pittsburgh there was a flag thrown. Let's face it: the Steelers beat them. Seattle won in the stats department, but Pittsburgh won on the scoreboard.

How come no one is bringing up the Randle El play? How was Seattle not prepared for that? Everyone and their dog knew it was coming, but the Seahawks didn't? Or was that the refs' fault as well?

[Butter]

And I haven't yet seen anyone mention the horrible call that cost PITTSBURGH a turnover. With 12:26 left in the 2nd, Stevens catches a pass from Hasselbeck, turns to run downfield and is DRILLED. The ball pops out and is whistled dead ("incomplete") before the Steelers can pick it up and run it downfield.
Maybe no one talks about it because on the next play Seattle punted and PIT got the ball on the 20... on the Stevens fumble, they would've been able to return the ball to... maybe the 30 or so, maybe less or more. That 10 yard swing would've been HUGE!!!!!

[Desnudo]

DOLA - I also agree with Dreslough. If Stevens' didn't make a football move then I don't know what is. That is a big play that the Seahawks crowd are missing that went in their favour.

Actually it didn't go in their favor. The fumble ended up around the Steeler's 10, while the ensuing punt went for a touchback.

[bhlloy]

Actually it didn't go in their favor. The fumble ended up around the Steeler's 10, while the ensuing punt went for a touchback.

I guess, but I doubt that went through the player or the referees minds at the time. 90% of the time that non-call is in Seattle's favour if it's elsewhere on the pitch. If Rouen had pinned them at the one with the punt, and they had then got a safety it certainly would have been in Seattle's favour.

As a coach, I'd rather guarantee possession of the ball on my 10 yard line rather than wait for a 4th down where there is a small chance something will go wrong and I won't get the ball at all, and a decent chance I will be in the same or worse field position anyway.

[SFL Cat]

I guess, but I doubt that went through the player or the referees minds at the time. 90% of the time that non-call is in Seattle's favour if it's elsewhere on the pitch. If Rouen had pinned them at the one with the punt, and they had then got a safety it certainly would have been in Seattle's favour.

As a coach, I'd rather guarantee possession of the ball on my 10 yard line rather than wait for a 4th down where there is a small chance something will go wrong and I won't get the ball at all, and a decent chance I will be in the same or worse field position anyway.

If I'm remembering the play correctly, I'm thinking no Steeler gets to that ball before it goes out of bounds, so then it's Seattle's ball at the Pittsburgh 10.

[Desnudo]

But it didn't happen that way. Just pointing out that the call ended up favoring no one at best.

[John Galt]

I think the worst call against the Steelers ended up not mattering. No one seemed to notice that on the Steeler's last first down, they got a ridiculously bad spot. Ben ran the little bootleg and dove well past the first down marker. The spot was so bad, that they had to bring out the chains and only made it by the length of the football. As I said, it didn't matter, but it was a horrible spot against them, IMO.

The big holding call (with Stevens going to the 1) was pretty clear holding, IMO. You couldn't see it at all on the replay angle they showed, but I saw it in real time from the normal camera angle. I went back with TIVO and watched it and I thought it was clearly holding, but the replay angle sure didn't make it look that way.

I wonder if the block below the waist on the return was a "point of emphasis" this year. I remember seeing it a few times throughout the season and it always seemed to be a weak-ass call.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I can't be sure what would have happened on the fumble-that-wasn't, because the Steelers stopped chasing the ball when the play was blown dead. I'm not sure they wouldn't have gotten to it if they hadn't pulled up.

[BrianD]

The fumble that was blown dead and the spot on Ben's dive were both also bad calls. All of this goes into the original point that this was a very poorly officiated football game.

[SFL Cat]

I think the worst call against the Steelers ended up not mattering. No one seemed to notice that on the Steeler's last first down, they got a ridiculously bad spot. Ben ran the little bootleg and dove well past the first down marker. The spot was so bad, that they had to bring out the chains and only made it by the length of the football. As I said, it didn't matter, but it was a horrible spot against them, IMO.

The big holding call (with Stevens going to the 1) was pretty clear holding, IMO. You couldn't see it at all on the replay angle they showed, but I saw it in real time from the normal camera angle. I went back with TIVO and watched it and I thought it was clearly holding, but the replay angle sure didn't make it look that way.

I wonder if the block below the waist on the return was a "point of emphasis" this year. I remember seeing it a few times throughout the season and it always seemed to be a weak-ass call.

I'll agree he got a bad spot, but he also didn't score a TD earlier so I guess it balances out. :)

[John Galt]

I'll agree he got a bad spot, but he also didn't score a TD earlier so I guess it balances out. :)

I think it is pretty hard to argue that on replay review that call should have gone the other way. While I don't have Bee's 120" HDTV setup, mine is 100" and it looks convincing to me that the nose of the ball crossed the line (before Ben got pushed back). It may have been hard to reverse the call the other way, but there was no way it should have been overturned as it was called.

[kingfc22]

Chris Hope after the game, "I felt the push on my back. He had to make the call. It was a great call.


Ummm, Jackson touched you in the chest. Obviously there was no PI if you can't even remember where he "pushed" you.

[Hurst2112]

Obviously there was no PI if you can't even remember where he "pushed" you.

I think you are trying to be funny. Even if he thought he got pushed on his package, the push was still there.

[Samdari]

And I haven't yet seen anyone mention the horrible call that cost PITTSBURGH a turnover. With 12:26 left in the 2nd, Stevens catches a pass from Hasselbeck, turns to run downfield and is DRILLED. The ball pops out and is whistled dead ("incomplete") before the Steelers can pick it up and run it downfield.

Have you watched football in the last two years? Possession of the ball and two feet down no longer constitute a catch, you must make a "football move" with possession of the ball before you have caught it. Stevens did not do this and that call was the proper one by today's rules.

[rkmsuf]

I think you are trying to be funny. Even if he thought he got pushed on his package, the push was still there.


Now that's a penalty.

[Desnudo]

Now that's a penalty.

What's missing from this conversation is that even if he kicked him in the gonads, the defender was not going to prevent the TD catch.

[illinifan999]

Have you watched football in the last two years? Possession of the ball and two feet down no longer constitute a catch, you must make a "football move" with possession of the ball before you have caught it. Stevens did not do this and that call was the proper one by today's rules.
I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.

[rkmsuf]

I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.


We all know Stevens can't catch so this is impossible.

[BrianD]

What's missing from this conversation is that even if he kicked him in the gonads, the defender was not going to prevent the TD catch.

It is probably missing because there is no way to know that.

[bhlloy]

I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.

Me too. He even brought it into his body before turning.

I'd love to know what else now constitutes a "football move". A pirouette? Maybe those dumbass spin animations in Madden? :p

[Desnudo]

It is probably missing because there is no way to know that.

I know it. I guess if you chose not to look at the play, you might not know it. Unless you're talking about the gonads part, which is hypothetical.

[illinifan999]

<table class="tablehead" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">
</td><td>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/sea.gif</td><td>http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nfl/sml/trans/pit.gif</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">1st Downs</td><td>2</td><td>14</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">3rd down efficiency
</td><td>0-17</td><td>8-15</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">4th down efficiency
</td><td>0-2</td><td>0-0</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Total Yards</td><td>6</td><td>221
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Passing</td><td>3
</td><td>115</td></tr><tr class="oddrow" align="right"><td align="left">Comp-Att
</td><td>1-290</td><td>10-21</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Yards per pass
</td><td>-</td><td>5.4
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Rushing</td><td>3</td><td>106</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Rushing Attempts
</td><td>1</td><td>32</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Yards per rush
</td><td>3</td><td>3.3
</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Penalties</td><td>7-70</td><td>3-20</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Turnovers</td><td>9
</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Fumbles lost
</td><td>8
</td><td>0</td></tr><tr class="evenrow" align="right"><td align="left">Interceptions thrown
</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr class="colhead" align="right"><td class="bi" align="left">Possession</td><td>33:02</td><td>26:58</td></tr></tbody></table>


This is a stat chart minus all the seahawks dime and nickel plays, and well i decided to take away mots of their yards, and give them some more turnovers. Looking at it, the Steelers just totally dominated them.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

What's missing from this conversation is that even if he kicked him in the gonads, the defender was not going to prevent the TD catch.

So if the defender can't prevent the catch it doesn't matter what the receiver does to him? You push a guy away so you can make a catch, that's offensive interference. Did the receiver need to push-off? No, but he did it so you have to throw the flag. Next time keep your hands to yourself.

[Desnudo]

So if the defender can't prevent the catch it doesn't matter what the receiver does to him? You push a guy away so you can make a catch, that's offensive interference. Did the receiver need to push-off? No, but he did it so you have to throw the flag. Next time keep your hands to yourself.

No, just pointing out that the movement really didn't matter. He had the cut, had the steps anyway, etc.. For the overall play, I'm on the side of: if you don't call it all year, don't start calling it now.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Comp-Att 1-290 10-21

The Seahawks attempted 290 passes? That's gotta be a record. :D

[G-Man]

The big holding call (with Stevens going to the 1) was pretty clear holding, IMO. You couldn't see it at all on the replay angle they showed, but I saw it in real time from the normal camera angle. I went back with TIVO and watched it and I thought it was clearly holding, but the replay angle sure didn't make it look that way.


What you have obviously missed is that the end he was holding was clearly offsides on this play as well as the next two! So lets say they get that right and it's offsetting penalties. Still first and 10. Big difference. Then it becomes 1st and 5 on the incomplete pass and 1st and 10 on the next offsides and no interception. The score was 14-10 at that point. With the obviously correct calls had they been made the Seahawks have the ball inside the 15!! That was the biggest effect that the zebras had on the game.

Were I an impartial viewer I would have ranked this as one of the all time stinkers of superbowls that was not a blow out....

[Samdari]

I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.

He started to turn, but had hardly completed doing so. The ball came out before he got his foot back down. I think this is what they use as criterion. I think the way this has been called, it was the right call. I have seen guys hold onto the ball lots longer before dropping it and have it be called incomplete.

[WSUCougar]

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

[John Galt]

What you have obviously missed is that the end he was holding was clearly offsides on this play as well as the next two! So lets say they get that right and it's offsetting penalties. Still first and 10. Big difference. Then it becomes 1st and 5 on the incomplete pass and 1st and 10 on the next offsides and no interception. The score was 14-10 at that point. With the obviously correct calls had they been made the Seahawks have the ball inside the 15!! That was the biggest effect that the zebras had on the game.

Were I an impartial viewer I would have ranked this as one of the all time stinkers of superbowls that was not a blow out....

I didn't look at the offsides carefully (I had to get back to live action), but it looked to me to be pretty close. It looked like he started a couple steps back and was accelerated when the ball was snapped. It wasn't clear that he was over the line when the center moved the ball. But as I said, I didn't look at the TIVO replay carefully on that issue.

[Hurst2112]

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

thank you. neeext!

[Jonathan Ezarik]

No, just pointing out that the movement really didn't matter. He had the cut, had the steps anyway, etc.. For the overall play, I'm on the side of: if you don't call it all year, don't start calling it now.

I don't think it's that clear, though. Jackson was in a better position to catch the ball, but when he pushed Hope (and you can see Hope's weight getting shifted to his back foot because of it), he prevented Hope from making any kind of play at all. Jackson didn't need to push-off, but he did. You have to throw the flag there especially when the play happens right in front of you.

[Desnudo]

Except they never call the push off. It happens constantly in games, right in front of officials. If you don't call it, don't call it.

[BrianD]

Except they never call the push off. It happens constantly in games, right in front of officials. If you don't call it, don't call it.

Hyperbole much? Of course they call the push off. I've seen a number of OPI calls this season. They may not see it all the time, and they may not see it most of the time, but if you are right in front of the ref where he can see both players and the offensive arm very clearly, you have to expect the penalty.

[sabotai]

Except they never call the push off. It happens constantly in games, right in front of officials. If you don't call it, don't call it.I have never seen it happen right in front of the official and not have it called interference. Certainly seen it not called when it's away from the official. But right in front of the official? Always called (at least in every game I've seen)

If Pittsburgh could have recovered. It was discussed earlier on the radio here in DC and they were calling it another bad call against Seattle because they also thought it went out of bounds before a Steeler could recover it.What the ball did is kind of irrelevent, though, isn't it? The ref blew it dead right away, not after seeing it skip down the field. So, for all the ref knew, that ball drops dead, a Pitt player picks it up and takes it 50 yards. Or, even if he did think it would skip forward, that still could have happened since know one knows how a football is going to skip down the field. If the refs were working in Pitt's favor, don't you think he would have let that go for a few seconds before deciding to call it incomplete?

(Not saying you are saying that the refs were, just more a general question)

[dawgfan]

...but when he pushed Hope (and you can see Hope's weight getting shifted to his back foot because of it)...
Anyone have a link to video of this play and of the holding/no offsides called plays?

While I think it's correct to say that the Seahawks hurt themselves as much as they didn't get the benefit of the doubt on a lot of key penalties called or not called, anyone that thinks those decisions didn't affect the outcome of the game are kidding themselves.

If that OPI isn't called on Jackson, the Seahawks have an early 7-0 lead and the momentum is clearly on their side.

On the completion to Stevens down to the 1 yard line when Locklear was called for holding, if the Steelers are called for offsides instead or if the ref lets that "block" go, the Seahawks are on the 1 yard-line with a great chance to go up 17-14 and continue the momentum shift that happened after the Herndon interception and the subsequent Stevens TD catch.

Whether or not you think those were the correct calls, you can't argue that if they'd been called differently the game wouldn't have been impacted in a major way. Maybe the Steelers still win the game, but the way things played out would've been different and would've improved the Seahawk's chances of overcoming their own mistakes.

The Seahawks had clear control in the first half of the game, but as is so often the case, the fact they couldn't convert that control to the scoreboard was a bad omen. Add to that the horrible clock management/play calling at the end of the 1st half by the Seahawks and there was a definite case of the Seahawks not taking advantage of the opportunities they'd given themselves.

Give credit to the Steelers - despite a poor game by Roethlisberger, despite the Seahawks stuffing the Steelers running game, they made two critical plays - the long TD run by Parker at the start of the 2nd half (perfectly executed by Pittsburgh, and perhaps they benefited from a hold that wasn't called) and the well-designed WR reverse and pass by Randle El that was again perfectly executed (and perhaps they benefited from a hold that wasn't called). They did what they had to do to win the game and the Seahawks couldn't overcome their mistakes and the calls that went against them.

But, as a Seattle fan, it was tough to watch the Seahawks lose a tight game when so many critical plays were affected by calls or non-calls by the officials that were questionable.

As others have pointed out, by the letter of the rulebook you could say they were guilty of the calls made against them - the offensive pass interference, the holding call, the call against Hasselbeck's low tackle attempt. But the OPI and holding calls were ones that are frequently not called (and there's some question that the Steelers may have been offsides on that play and the following one that resulted in a sack), so there's a consistency issue and the Hasselbeck call was just a bizzare rule that should be thrown out.

Congrats to the Steelers. The Seahawks just have to do a better job to rise above adversity next time.

[Desnudo]

I have never seen it happen right in front of the official and not have it called interference. Certainly seen it not called when it's away from the official. But right in front of the official? Always called (at least in every game I've seen)

What the ball did is kind of irrelevent, though, isn't it? The ref blew it dead right away, not after seeing it skip down the field. So, for all the ref knew, that ball drops dead, a Pitt player picks it up and takes it 50 yards. Or, even if he did think it would skip forward, that still could have happened since know one knows how a football is going to skip down the field. If the refs were working in Pitt's favor, don't you think he would have let that go for a few seconds before deciding to call it incomplete?

(Not saying you are saying that the refs were, just more a general question)

It almost always happens right in front of the official, usually on the sidelines. How many times does a guy catch the ball and there isn't at least one official within 10-15 yards? It's a call that rule book lawyers can defend, but is rinky dink in reality.

[Hurst2112]

alright G-man. How much will it cost to get you to delete this thread?!

jeepers!

:D ;)

[Kozure]

Sorry, just thought I'd point out that a Denver fan thinking the officiating sucked in a game that Pittsburgh won is hardly anything worth even mentioning.

And...

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).

He pushed off, textbook offensive pass interference. Get over it,

(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.

All the ball has to do is BREAK the line, which it did, TD.

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

A foot hitting a pylon does not cound as a foot being in bounds.

(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.

He had is arm across the defender's chest. Holding.

I agree. All the call made were the correct calls. Darrell Jackson used the defender to HELP make the cut back to the ball. That's illegal. If the call wasn't made, I believe people would be saying that officiating was bad because they missed the call. It's the superbowl, I would rather have the officials calling a tight game. Let fair play decide the game.

Both of the holding calls that negated some nice gains for Seattle were correctly called. The lineman had his arm, in both instances, draped across the neck and chest of the linebacker. You do not have to have your fingers grabbing jersey for a holding penalty to be called.

Rothlesberger's TD run, tn replay, you couldn't tell if it touched or passed the goalline because the angle of the camera was in the endzone, not on the goalline. But the official right at the goalline could see it perfectly, and I bet to him, it looked like a good inch over.

But when it gets down to it, any team that gives up a third and 28 deserves to lose the game.

The Steelers played terrible, and they still looked better than the Seahawks. Great teams still win when they play poorly, and that showed today.

[G-Man]

alright G-man. How much will it cost to get you to delete this thread?!

jeepers!

:D ;)

apologizes to Seattle and all football fans for the horrendous exhibition of officiating yesterday.

[MikeVic]

I don't want to read this whole thread or any other whine-fest, but I just wanted to know if the majority of people think the Seahawks lost because of the refs? Or is all of this talk just general complaining that the officiating sucked this year in the NFL?

[Hurst2112]

I don't want to read this whole thread or any other whine-fest, but I just wanted to know if the majority of people think the Seahawks lost because of the refs? Or is all of this talk just general complaining that the officiating sucked this year in the NFL?

Refs didn't allow Stevens to come up limp. Refs didn't keep Holmgren from stinkin up the joint.

[terpkristin]

I think the Seahawks lost because they stunk up the joint.
They didn't capitalize on any "key plays" they made (such as key interceptions), showed poor clock management, and frankly, have nobody but themselves to blame for the loss.

I mean, ok, MAYBE the Ben R. TD wasn't a TD. I think it was, I do believe that the ball crossed the plane of the endzone, but I'm human thus imperfect. Even without that, the final would have been 14-10. The other calls I think were dead-on, even the so called "phantom tackle/cut" by Hasslebeck. It's one thing if you lead with your arms and head like you're going to tackle. IMO, Hasslebeck didn't look like he was trying to tackle, based on his arms/body position. Maybe I'm biased in that I've been a high level soccer ref in the past, and have seen similar types of things there.

In the end, any coach will tell you that you should be able to win despite the refs. Seattle didn't do that. End of story.

/tk

[miami_fan]

I don't want to read this whole thread or any other whine-fest, but I just wanted to know if the majority of people think the Seahawks lost because of the refs? Or is all of this talk just general complaining that the officiating sucked this year in the NFL?

The officiating in the NFL postseason sucked this year. These are supposed to be the best officials during the regular season who are being rewarded. The officials yesterday were supposed to be the best of the best for 2005. I for one am not blaming the refs for the Seahawks losing. Listen to this carefully....THE SEAHAWKS LOST THE GAME ON THEIR OWN!. The Steelers won based on what they were able to do on the field. But the playoffs from the wild card weekend all the way through the Super Bowl were marred by questionable to outright bad calls. How many times did we hear the announcers talk about how they hoped the game was not turned on this call or that call? When was the last time during the postseason did the NFL come out and say that the officials screwed up? Yes, as a coach you expect to overcome bad officiating but that does not mean there was not bad officiating. I repeat SEATTLE DID NOT DO WHAT IT HAD TO DO TO WIN THE GAME! But the playoffs were marred by bad officiating.

[gstelmack]

I don't want to read this whole thread or any other whine-fest, but I just wanted to know if the majority of people think the Seahawks lost because of the refs? Or is all of this talk just general complaining that the officiating sucked this year in the NFL?
If you don't want to read the thread, how are you going to see the replies?

The answer is all through this thread. No one is blaming the refs. Much like the DEN / NED game (which was also poorly officiated), Seattle (like New England) still had plenty of chances to win despite the bad calls, but could not capitalize.

However, the officiating this offseason has been horrendous, and this game was no exception. And once again it was mostly one-sided.

On the holding call: everyone is right, it WAS holding. But you're also wrong: Hagans was across the line before the ball moved on that play AND the sack that cam after. I watched closely on the replay because I yelled out that he was offsides during the full-speed play, and watched his position and the Center during the slow-mo. He is across the line before the ball moves, and that's why he got the jump that led to the hold.

I've got another one for you: how about the defender cutting off Jurevicius and making him slow up to miss a deep gain? Based on the DEN / NED game, apparently he made the mistake of not plowing the defender over so he'd get the pass interference call, 'cause after all the defender is not allowed to cut off the receiver's route...

[Desnudo]

I don't want to read this whole thread or any other whine-fest, but I just wanted to know if the majority of people think the Seahawks lost because of the refs? Or is all of this talk just general complaining that the officiating sucked this year in the NFL?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2320683

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=2011

1) What grade would you give referee Bill Leavy's officiating crew for Super Bowl XL?


49.0% F

25.2% D

14.6% C

9.3% B

1.8% A

4) Which played the biggest role in determining the outcome of the game?


56.4% Officials missing calls

29.4% Seahawks not making plays

14.2% Steelers making plays

Total Votes: 83,458


Unscientific, but don't try and claim it's all Steelers' haters.

[Mr. Wednesday]

There are some really crazy results there. I simply don't understand how a majority of respondents think the ball didn't break the plane on the Roethlisberger TD -- I'm about 90% sure that the call on the field was correct. And I'm pretty sure that most of the nearly 2/3 of respondents who claim to know what a "football move" is are fooling themselves.

[KWhit]

I agree with the guys who think the officiating was horrible. The Seahawks were jobbed. This guy agrees with me, FWIW (however, I do think Ben made it in on that run - it looked like he barely broke the plane).


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192

[Hurst2112]

There are some really crazy results there. I simply don't understand how a majority of respondents think the ball didn't break the plane on the Roethlisberger TD -- I'm about 90% sure that the call on the field was correct. And I'm pretty sure that most of the nearly 2/3 of respondents who claim to know what a "football move" is are fooling themselves.

Well, while most of the Steeler fans where watching everything Steelers on TV, the Seahawks fans were bitterly scewing the results.

[sabotai]

I think all of this officiating talk is overshadowing one very importan tthing. Matt Hasselback's finger licking addiction. He's got it bad. He needs help.

[dawgfan]

I agree with the guys who think the officiating was horrible. The Seahawks were jobbed. This guy agrees with me, FWIW (however, I do think Ben made it in on that run - it looked like he barely broke the plane).


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192
I would agree that Ben scored on that play - on the replay, it looked like the ball barely broke the plane of the goal while Ben was airborne. He was clearly short when he landed, but at that point it didn't matter - the ball had already crossed the plane of the goal line while in Roethlisberger's possession. Still, it was very odd that the line judge waited so long to call it a TD, since he clearly hadn't punched it over after he landed.

Other than that, I agree with everything else this guy wrote.

[dawgfan]

I think all of this officiating talk is overshadowing one very importan tthing. Matt Hasselback's finger licking addiction. He's got it bad. He needs help.
He's not nearly as compulsive about this as Jake Delhomme.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I agree with the guys who think the officiating was horrible. The Seahawks were jobbed. This guy agrees with me, FWIW (however, I do think Ben made it in on that run - it looked like he barely broke the plane).


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192


I love how the guy defends his arguments by citing other analysts. Yeah, Irvin didn't think that push-off was offensive interference. Could it be because Irvin was a receiver who was well known to push-off himself? Is he really going to sit there and say, "Yeah, that was clearly interference." Whatever. And the bit about the back judge looking uncertain before throwing the flag, watch the replay. He's going for his flag right away, but it looks like he has trouble getting a hand on it. It looks like he grabs his bean bag (or whatever they throw on turnovers) on accident before he can throw the flag.

This quote is great too:

Then came a huge call on the first play of the second quarter. Peter Warrick ripped off a 33-yard punt return to give Seattle the ball at the Steelers 46. But Etric Pruitt was called for holding. How clear was it? Well, Madden thought the call was for Pruitt holding the gunner at the beginning of the play. It wasn't. The flag came in during the runback and it looked pretty minor.

What? The "newly minted Hall of Famer" (as this guy so dubbed him) missed a play? Shocking, I tell you. Shocking. :rolleyes:

[BrianD]

The officiating in the NFL postseason sucked this year. These are supposed to be the best officials during the regular season who are being rewarded. The officials yesterday were supposed to be the best of the best for 2005.

The best crew at least. The NFL no longer uses "all-star" crews for the playoffs.

[ISiddiqui]

Maybe we need to go back to all-star crews.

[EagleFan]

Sorry, just thought I'd point out that a Denver fan thinking the officiating sucked in a game that Pittsburgh won is hardly anything worth even mentioning.

And...

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).

He pushed off, textbook offensive pass interference. Get over it,

(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.

All the ball has to do is BREAK the line, which it did, TD.

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

A foot hitting a pylon does not cound as a foot being in bounds.

(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.

He had is arm across the defender's chest. Holding.


Are you serious?

The pass interference call was a major stretch. Both players pushed, which is a no call.

The touchdown by Ben was notg a touchdown. The ball was in his gut the whole time, he was hit and went straight down. Pulled the ball out from uunder himself and had to stretch it across after he was down. That was an easy call to make and the refs blew it. What the hell did the ref running in fromthat side wee on his way in to make him decide it was a touchdown late? All he would have seen is Ben not breaking the plain and reaching out after being down.

The holding call should have been a non-call based on the same stuff they let the lines fget away with the rest of the game.

As for the play at the end of the half, I agree with that one, he was not in and that was the receiver's fault as he should have better awareness of where he was.


Seattle bleew their own chances at the end of the halfs but they shouldn't have even needed to be in that situation. Bad calls by the refs cost the Seahawks 11 points directly and gave the Steelers 4 points, 11 points if you factor that the Ward score might not have happened if that bogus hold isn't called as field position would have been different after a kickoff.


Add in the bogus penalty on the tackle and you can't help but see that ever single questionable and/or bad call went in Pittsburgh's favor. Pittsburgh did not win that game, it was handed to them by Seattle and the refs.

[dawgfan]

I love how the guy defends his arguments by citing other analysts. Yeah, Irvin didn't think that push-off was offensive interference. Could it be because Irvin was a receiver who was well known to push-off himself? Is he really going to sit there and say, "Yeah, that was clearly interference."
And Steve Young thought it was B.S., and John Madden and Al Michaels thought it was B.S., and multiple writers across the country thought it was B.S. All these people are biased towards offensive players?

What? The "newly minted Hall of Famer" (as this guy so dubbed him) missed a play? Shocking, I tell you. Shocking. :rolleyes:
Well, if there was holding on that play, it sure would've been nice if ABC could've found a replay that showed it, because there sure wasn't any holding on the replays they did show.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think the Seahawks lost because they stunk up the joint.
The problem is that Pittsburgh stunk up the joint too. And if both teams are sucking and you give one of them an extra 140 yards I don't care what anyone says, it WILL have an effect on the game.

I think the number of people on each side of the issue show that there were a number of 50/50 calls, and that the Steelers got the benefit of the coin flip on nearly every one of them.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

The best crew at least. The NFL no longer uses "all-star" crews for the playoffs.

I think you are only partially right. They use entire crews for the playoff games, but I am pretty sure I heard on the NFL network from Mike Perreira (the NFL officiating guy that discusses the contoversial calls from the weekend before) that they used an all-star crew for the SB (based on experience and a grading system throughout the year).

So, it seems both ways of picking the officials don't work.

[Bee]

What the ball did is kind of irrelevent, though, isn't it? The ref blew it dead right away, not after seeing it skip down the field. So, for all the ref knew, that ball drops dead, a Pitt player picks it up and takes it 50 yards. Or, even if he did think it would skip forward, that still could have happened since know one knows how a football is going to skip down the field. If the refs were working in Pitt's favor, don't you think he would have let that go for a few seconds before deciding to call it incomplete?



The issue being discussed was IF it was a catch and fumble...then yes what happened to the ball is relevent. The play was brought up as an example of a close call that went against Pittsburgh. I was pointing out that it was more likely to have been a close call that went against Seattle because if it had been called the other way (I won't say correctly because I thought it was incomplete, but close)...then IF it looked like a Steeler could have recovered or IF the ball would have gone out of bounds is critical.

I absolutely do not think the refs were working in Pittsburgh's favor, I think they were incompetent like they've been all season. Like I've said before, it's something most teams have had to deal with in one game or another.

[jonesz]

...
Are you serious?

The pass interference call was a major stretch. Both players pushed, which is a no call.
It was a ticky-tack foul..agreed. BUT he did push off and it was about 3 feet from the ref. Not a good place to do this. Was it minor, yes. Did he have to do it..no. But he did and it was called.

The touchdown by Ben was notg a touchdown. The ball was in his gut the whole time, he was hit and went straight down. Pulled the ball out from uunder himself and had to stretch it across after he was down. That was an easy call to make and the refs blew it. What the hell did the ref running in fromthat side wee on his way in to make him decide it was a touchdown late? All he would have seen is Ben not breaking the plain and reaching out after being down.

Wow...you must have been watching a different game then me. He extended the ball past his head for cripes sakes. I honestly couldn't tell with 100% certainty either way, so whatever was called on the field (TD in this case) should not have been overturned (which it wasn't). I would have felt the same if it was ruled no TD on the field.. You couldn't overturn it either way. I think the refs handled this one well.

The holding call should have been a non-call based on the same stuff they let the lines fget away with the rest of the game.

I agree with you somewhat on this. Holds happen and are not called. Non-holds are called. People keep acting like the refs watched to see what the result of the play was before they called this. It was called, at game speed mind you, and the ref thought he saw something. Was it holding? I honestly don't know, but, like you say calls like this happen a lot.

As for the play at the end of the half, I agree with that one, he was not in and that was the receiver's fault as he should have better awareness of where he was.


Seattle bleew their own chances at the end of the halfs but they shouldn't have even needed to be in that situation. Bad calls by the refs cost the Seahawks 11 points directly and gave the Steelers 4 points, 11 points if you factor that the Ward score might not have happened if that bogus hold isn't called as field position would have been different after a kickoff.

You forgot to mention that the Seahawks kicker cost the Seahawks 6 points and their bloddy terrible punter cost them who knows how many because he couldn't seem to land a punt outside of the endzone. Also giving the Steelers 4 points is a stretch, even if they would have made the wrong call and overturned Ben's TD, they would have 4th and about a millimeter and 99% of the time they would have gotten in on the next play anyways.

Add in the bogus penalty on the tackle and you can't help but see that ever single questionable and/or bad call went in Pittsburgh's favor.

That call seemed bogus, but not because of the call itself. There is a rule that you cannot go through a blockers legs to tackle a player. The Steelers had the exact same thing called on them (against Indy during the regular season if I remember right) wher Ben threw an INT and Faneca went through a blockers legs and made a tackle. Penalty Steelers. I feel that was what the ref thought he saw. Looking at the replay it wasn't obvious that Hasselback did this, so the application of the rule was definitely questionanble at best in this case. I do agree with you that there were a number of close/questionable calls and all seemed to favor the Steelers and that's very unfortunate.


Pittsburgh did not win that game, it was handed to them by Seattle and the refs.

Nope. Pittsburgh won the game. Seattle didn't play well enough to win. Period. If they would have the scoreboard would have read differently. They dropped passes, they couldn't keep their feet in bounds, they horribly mismanaged the clock, they allowed three big plays (2 for TD's), their special teams where attrocious, they had two key injuries on defense..should I go on? Did they have some questionable calls go against them? Absolutely. But the Steelers won the game. In three years, when they are showing all the highlights of the Super Bowls, no one is going to remember the questionable calls. Remember the "phantom" pass interference call against Dallas vs. Pittsburgh in Super Bowl Xwhatever? Probably not, but at the time it was in an extremely close game, and set Pittsburgh up for what turned out to be a pivotal TD. Now it's only remembered as a blurb. Same as all of this. It will be a footnote in history.,

[sabotai]

Are you serious?
Of course not. All a joke...

The pass interference call was a major stretch. Both players pushed, which is a no call.Only the offensive player pushed off.

The touchdown by Ben was notg a touchdown. The ball was in his gut the whole time, he was hit and went straight down. Pulled the ball out from uunder himself and had to stretch it across after he was down. That was an easy call to make and the refs blew it. What the hell did the ref running in fromthat side wee on his way in to make him decide it was a touchdown late? All he would have seen is Ben not breaking the plain and reaching out after being down.He had the ball cradled at shoulder level and extended it as he got ot the goal line. When he was hit, his arm and the ball went to his gut.

The issue being discussed was IF it was a catch and fumble...then yes what happened to the ball is relevent.I was talking more to the point on the refs working in Pitt's favor. As it turned out, the ball might have just (probably would have) gone out of bounds. But if you are trying to show the refs were working in Piit's favor, then what the ball did is irrelevent since the ref had no idea what the ball would have done. He called it dead right away. Right when he called it dead, no one knew what the ball was going to do. A Pitt player could have picked it up and took it for a huge return. But he wasn't given that chance since the ref blew it dead right away. The vast majority of the time, that kind of call goes in the favor of the offense.

I look at that play as perhaps one that went against Seattle in the end, but also shows the refs (at least that one) was not intentionally or unintentionally calling it in favor of the Steelers.

(I'm not directing that AT you, just responding to the point)

[MrBigglesworth]

Seattle didn't play well enough to win. Period.
I hear this a lot, but haven't gotten a single person to tell me that Pittsburgh played well. The Steelers, even though they played like crap most of the game, get a free pass. The question being debated is whether the refs influenced the game so that the team that was playing better football lost because of it.

[Hurst2112]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2322300

I can't believe I am liking something Gene wrote.

[SFL Cat]

On Letterman, Rothlisberger himself said he didn't think he got in. He said he went to the sideline and told Cowher "I don't think I got in, coach," while they were reviewing the call.

[Ben E Lou]

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/ref.jpg

[Hurst2112]

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/ref.jpg

funny how holmgren and andy ried are transforming into twins both in looks and performance as a coach.

[dawgfan]

http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/ref.jpg
I <3 Photoshop...

[Desnudo]

Now, where's my giant foam cowboy hat and airhorn?

Here it is (http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060207/ids_photos_sp/r3863501993.jpg)

[EagleFan]

He had the ball cradled at shoulder level and extended it as he got ot the goal line. When he was hit, his arm and the ball went to his gut.



I guess you're right. You easily had a better view of the play than Roethlisberger who doesn't even think it was a touchdown. ;)



Either way, my point it just this. The Steelers did no "win" as much as it was the Seahawks blowing opportunities, mismanaging the clock and the officiating giving every judgement call to the Steelers. This is more of a response to someone else, but I never said that the officials were THE reason that the Seahawks lost. They were just one of the reasons and none of the reasons were actually the Steelers.


My food just arrived down in the lobby (in lovely Peoria, IL for work this week) so I'll cut out the rambling for a while.

[sabotai]

I guess you're right. You easily had a better view of the play than Roethlisberger who doesn't even think it was a touchdown. ;)If you think about it....yeah, I did. As did everyone else. :)

[rafini]

What you have obviously missed is that the end he was holding was clearly offsides on this play

I think this will clearly eliminate the offsides debate:

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~dmstein/steelers/Holding.mov

[WSUCougar]

I think this will clearly eliminate the offsides debate:
You're right. Neutral zone infraction. 5 yard penalty against the defense.

[CraigSca]

I heard an interesting call on sports radio the other day. The premise of the person calling in was the NFL has created an environment that leaves too much to interpretation with its rule set. Therefore, they make it impossible for the referees to call a good game. One of the rules the caller mentioned is the fact that a fumble can't be caused by the ground. The guy's contention was, "why not?" Eliminate that, and you eliminate a lot of the garbage surrounding - was his knee down, was he touched, was the ball coming out of his hands already, etc.

This wouldn't solve all the problems, but I found the caller's perspective to be refreshing.

[BrianD]

I heard an interesting call on sports radio the other day. The premise of the person calling in was the NFL has created an environment that leaves too much to interpretation with its rule set. Therefore, they make it impossible for the referees to call a good game. One of the rules the caller mentioned is the fact that a fumble can't be caused by the ground. The guy's contention was, "why not?" Eliminate that, and you eliminate a lot of the garbage surrounding - was his knee down, was he touched, was the ball coming out of his hands already, etc.

This wouldn't solve all the problems, but I found the caller's perspective to be refreshing.

Then when would a guy be down? The reason the ground can't cause a fumble is that you are down when you hit the ground. Changing this rule would lead to the interpretation of "was the guy down long enough before the ball came out to be down". You really wouldn't gain anything by this.

[John Galt]

I think this will clearly eliminate the offsides debate:

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~dmstein/steelers/Holding.mov

Porter definitely isn't offsides in the way people have argued. It's funny - the DT looks to be more across the neutral zone than Porter does at the time the ball moves. Either way, on this play, I think it was a good no-call. Neutral zone infractions are tough calls generally and this one is really borderline. Porter really had the snap count down.

Since it is relatively low-res, it doesn't help on the holding call at all, IMO.

[larrymcg421]

I heard an interesting call on sports radio the other day. The premise of the person calling in was the NFL has created an environment that leaves too much to interpretation with its rule set. Therefore, they make it impossible for the referees to call a good game. One of the rules the caller mentioned is the fact that a fumble can't be caused by the ground. The guy's contention was, "why not?" Eliminate that, and you eliminate a lot of the garbage surrounding - was his knee down, was he touched, was the ball coming out of his hands already, etc.

This wouldn't solve all the problems, but I found the caller's perspective to be refreshing.

The thing I think people don't get about these calls is whether or not it's a fumble by the rules, it's still a fumble. If the ball never comes loose on the play, then there's no way the red could call it a fumble. The better players won't let the ground cause a fumble, and thus minimize the opportunities for bad calls to go against them.

[rafini]

You're right. Neutral zone infraction. 5 yard penalty against the defense.

You have to take into account how much every center in the league moves the ball up when the first come to the line - 6 inches or more. I'm not sure what the actual LOS was - the play-by-play has it 1st and 10 from the 19, and the ball is completely past the 19. Whether that's the center moving it that far or not, I don't know.

[G-Man]

I think this will clearly eliminate the offsides debate:

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~dmstein/steelers/Holding.mov

Pittsburgh clearly was offsides on three straight plays and there was no holding on the play it was called. This has been confirmed by experts already mentioned once before on this thread.

Bottom line is the Zebras "stunk"! Did they cost the Seahawks the game? No the Seahawks did that. However had the Zebras called an even game then the outcome could have been different. Doesn't matter now as the game is behind us and now it is wait until next year.

What irritates me, hundreds of thousands of fans (Seahawks and others) and many of the NFL players (including Matt Hasselbeck) is the League's denial of how bad the officiating has gotten in the NFL! It is a disgrace to the NFL and totally un-professional. It needs to be fixed if this great game is to continue at the high level it claims to aspire too...

I have a final summation as it were that I will present later today that hopefully will end (my part) at least in this thread that I started on Sunday.

[John Galt]

Pittsburgh clearly was offsides on three straight plays and there was no holding on the play it was called. This has been confirmed by experts already mentioned once before on this thread.


"Confirmed by experts?" I mean really. Skip Bayless is on your side and we all know what that means. I guess I find it strange when clear video evidence shows you are wrong (although I think WSUCougar's position that there was a neutral zone infraction is defensible), you appeal to 2nd hand interpretations of the video. That seems strange to me.

[G-Man]

I agree with the guys who think the officiating was horrible. The Seahawks were jobbed. This guy agrees with me, FWIW (however, I do think Ben made it in on that run - it looked like he barely broke the plane).


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192

Apparetnly Big Ben even knew that he did not score.....yeah but obviously he was wrong cause anyone could see that better than the guy holding the frakking football!! :rolleyes:

[KWhit]

Apparetnly Big Ben even knew that he did not score.....yeah but obviously he was wrong cause anyone could see that better than the guy holding the frakking football!! :rolleyes:
Wow. You certainly are annoying and abrasive, aren't you? I stated that I thought Seattle was jobbed and still you post that condescending crap?

But to counter your point: Yes, actually seeing it in slow-motion over and over again must definitely gives me a better view of it than the split-second view by the player who was tumbling forward getting smacked in the head by the defense at the time. There is no way he could no for sure whether he was in or not.

Oh, and I can't wait to hear your final summary. :rolleyes: <---- Rolleyes right back at ya.

[robbgmaier]

Apparetnly Big Ben even knew that he did not score.....yeah but obviously he was wrong cause anyone could see that better than the guy holding the frakking football!! :rolleyes:
I know you are probably getting annoyed at this point but you really have to stop spouting horseshit when you are trying to make your point. Big Ben had just about the worst angle on the field at the time, given the proximity of his eyes the ball and the goal line. His eyes and head are in front of the football, but only a few inches above. There is no way he could have made a determination on his own as to whether or not the leading edge of the ball crossed the air space of the front of the goal line. Don't be a moron. Sure, he's on letterman saying he told the coach he didn't think he got in. That wasn't based on a frame by frame review of the replay, but just his own internal sense of the play. To suggest that because he told Cowher he didn't get in is evidence that he didn't get in is just stupid.

[Subby]

I am fairly disappointed this thread hasnt resulted in a lifetime suspension for G-Man. If you look at his post history here, he has always been trollish...

[G-Man]

I am fairly disappointed this thread hasnt resulted in a lifetime suspension for G-Man. If you look at his post history here, he has always been trollish...

Playing World of Warcraft, I think the Troll Priest is awesome. Maybe he could heal me of the pain caused by this Super Bowl loss. Or perhaps he could "smite" judging-condescending-know-it-alls" like you. Just a thought ;)

[rkmsuf]

I am fairly disappointed this thread hasnt resulted in a lifetime suspension for G-Man. If you look at his post history here, he has always been trollish...

What are you...FOFC beat cop today?

[G-Man]

I know you are probably getting annoyed at this point but you really have to stop spouting horseshit when you are trying to make your point. Big Ben had just about the worst angle on the field at the time, given the proximity of his eyes the ball and the goal line. His eyes and head are in front of the football, but only a few inches above. There is no way he could have made a determination on his own as to whether or not the leading edge of the ball crossed the air space of the front of the goal line. Don't be a moron. Sure, he's on letterman saying he told the coach he didn't think he got in. That wasn't based on a frame by frame review of the replay, but just his own internal sense of the play. To suggest that because he told Cowher he didn't get in is evidence that he didn't get in is just stupid.

Look, I am not even bothered (much) by the touchdown that wasn't. It is just people that insist they know it was a touchdown becuase they could see the tiny point of the football break the plane of the endzone, when that is just not possible. They can have the opinion that he may have scored, but it is not possible for anyone to know if he was in or not. What makes others mad about this play was that the ref was going to single down (watch the replay) and then after seeing Ben move the ball over the goalline, he changed his mind. At least that is how it looks on TV. Now top this off with many so called experts thinking that he did not get in and the player hisself and I would say that is enough proof that he did not score.... Not "stupid" at all when you look at the preponderance of proof vs mere uninformed guess and opinion.....

[Subby]

What are you...FOFC beat cop today? Shut up troll.

[rkmsuf]

Shut up troll.


go have another donut

[Subby]

Like that's a putdown.

[rkmsuf]

Like that's a putdown.

take it as you will officer

[stevew]

http://www.camcojb.com/sbXVtd.jpg

[rkmsuf]

Back and to the left...back and to the left.

looks like he's in.