*** Complain about the officials thread *** (1 Viewer)

[steviey]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

 

[falconeyed]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

 

[boubucarow]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

Also important to note that there is no way the Ben would be able to tell whether or not he got in. It was extremely close. I really believe the edge of the ball touched the edge of the line. If not, it was so close that the call could go either way and nobody can say it was a bad call.

 

[Ghost Rider]

When Bettis had a TD run called back in the AFCC because Ward was 1/2 yard too close to the line of scrimmage, Ben didn't respond by throwing an INT. He threw a perfect TD pass to Ward on the next play. Seattle had plenty of opportunites to overcome what some perceive to be bad calls, and they failed many times. Most Seattle fans acknowledge that, but others don't, not a big deal.

That is weak. Just because Pittsburgh happened to overcome having a touchdown called back and score on the next play doesn't mean every team is going to do the same, especially considering Seattle and Pittsburgh's defenses both played pretty well on Sunday, which is more than can be said for Denver's defense in the AFC title game. :(

 

[CrossEyed]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

Ben's "admission" was that he didn't think he had scored at the time. Replay shows clearly that the ball broke the plane while he was in the air. There really is no controversy here.As to the PI and the holding calls, one of the local sports guys read the rules as the replays of the plays in question were shown. By the rules, both were the correct calls. Jackson pushed off, Locklear held. Are they always called? No. Were they penalties, according to the rules? Absolutely.

 

[3C's]

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."

Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

Say what? All Leavy said was "the call on the field stands." Have you heard something else from Leavy since?Ben didn't admit that he didn't score. He said that when he went to the sideline he told Cowher that he didn't think he got in. The way you put it, it sounds like Ben looked at the replay and said "I didn't get in."

 

[Loomba]

That photo looks phony to me.

 

[Thunderchicken]

That photo looks phony to me.

All of the excuses presented on this message board turned fest seem phony to me. Get over it! You lost! PITTSBURGH STEELERS SUPER BOWL XL CHAMPIONS!!! (like it or not)

 

[steviey]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

Also important to note that there is no way the Ben would be able to tell whether or not he got in. It was extremely close. I really believe the edge of the ball touched the edge of the line. If not, it was so close that the call could go either way and nobody can say it was a bad call.

Fair enough. As the rule stands now it's a touchdown due to the lack of incontrovertible proof. I question the rule rather than the call in this particular case. It's just frustrating when a major sport has such a difficult time determining if a player scores or doesn't score. I guess all sports can truly be a game of inches and judgment though (i.e. plays at the plate, goaltending in basketball, etc.). I probably wouldn't be asking for a rules change if this play occurred in a Week 16 game between Arizona and Detroit. Alright, I'm ok now.

 

[The Jerk]

I didn't say the officials caused the Steelers to win, I said they robbed Seattle on several plays that could've keep them in the game. It's more than just the 4 you pointed out; it's the delay of game they didn't call on the Steelers, Ward's push-off on Ben's long pass, the holding call on Warrick's return, etc.

And I wasn't trying to start a name-calling war, I just can't understand how any objective viewer could say the officials didn't cost Seattle several chances to get back in the game. I would bet 99% of fans with no rooting interest or money on that game would agree with me. Seriously, the Seahawks had more yardage, more time of possession, and fewer turnovers yet they lost by 11?

But anyway, you seriously should just enjoy your ring and not waste time in here. We all know this discussion doesn't matter.

valhallan,Just so you know, I'm not the only one who thinks these are the four calls that matter.

Seattle PI (Danny O'Neil)

My point is that if any other calls appeared to be unfair from the Seahawk perspective, then they logically would have made it in the article. If someone wants to go even further than the Seattle PI, then it seems reasonable to conclude that they're really digging deep.

 

[CrossEyed]

I didn't say the officials caused the Steelers to win, I said they robbed Seattle on several plays that could've keep them in the game. It's more than just the 4 you pointed out; it's the delay of game they didn't call on the Steelers, Ward's push-off on Ben's long pass, the holding call on Warrick's return, etc.

And I wasn't trying to start a name-calling war, I just can't understand how any objective viewer could say the officials didn't cost Seattle several chances to get back in the game. I would bet 99% of fans with no rooting interest or money on that game would agree with me. Seriously, the Seahawks had more yardage, more time of possession, and fewer turnovers yet they lost by 11?

But anyway, you seriously should just enjoy your ring and not waste time in here. We all know this discussion doesn't matter.

valhallan,Just so you know, I'm not the only one who thinks these are the four calls that matter.

Seattle PI (Danny O'Neil)

My point is that if any other calls appeared to be unfair from the Seahawk perspective, then they logically would have made it in the article. If someone wants to go even further than the Seattle PI, then it seems reasonable to conclude that they're really digging deep.

Sorry, but as long as DJax keeps saying, "I didn't even touch him." he has no credibility or objectivity at all.

 

[AcousticNut]

This absolutely without a doubt was the worst SB I've seen that I can remember.... The Steelers, who, with all pun intended, STOLE the fuggin thing, period. They didn't deserve to be there in the first place, their last 3 games were questionable at best, they certainly didn't earn their way to the big dance. And with that said, they certai1nly didn't deserve to hail ANY trophy. What a complete mockery of the game!

Officiating? OMFG!!!!!!!! If the calls THAT CLEARLY altered the game weren't SO BLATANT, I'd have a different opinion. But FACT, they were bogus calls that should have never, EVER been called in a Superbowl! Push off? What, are you kidding me? Holding? Again, are you freakin kidding me?!?!? That's 14 points with 2 calls there you Steeler thieves, YOU LOSE!

Jerome Bettis? What a freakin waste of FAT! I'm SO GLAD he's done and gone.... keep yer fat ### in Disneyworld.... Golden Ears! They all belong in Disneyworld because this was an absolute joke!

And for you guys that don't think the refs had anything to do with the outcome of this game, put another rock in your pipe and get a freakin clue!

And for the record, I won on this game, I knew what was going to happen, simply by the 3 games leading up to SBXL.... There was no other outcome possible from the middle of January....

Think what you want, but take a look at the facts and the plays that made this game...

See ya all in the fall!

Tooth.................

Wow, I'm a few pages behind..... but, definitely dumber for reading this post.

 

[Bri]

26 pages long, that's sweet

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

It sucks for us. We'll get over it.

I'll never get over it.

 

[djkidd]

You're just a silly, blind homer if you don't agree that the officials robbed Seattle on several plays that could've kept them in the game. So stop arguing, just take your cheap ring and be happy.

I find it funny that a player breaks a rule (hence the penalty) and the fan blames the ref for calling it instead of blaming the player for doing it.

 

[djkidd]

]

Are they complaining about Ben's clear touchdown still?

'You don't feel like the game was called a little one-sided?

At all?

Did you watch it?

When calls seem one-sided, it's usually because one team has a player that can't handle another player or when circumstances make it hard for a lineman to hear. In the Baltimore-Indy game. Ogden was either getting called for holding (because of Freeney) or a false start (because of Freeney and the noise). Two of those holding calls was because the right tackle couldn't handle the speed rushers of Pittsburg. More penalties happen on passing plays then running plays and since Seattle decided to throw it 40+ times, you're going to increase your chances of getting a holding penalty.

 

[djkidd]

Maybe he knocks it out of bounds, but we were never given a chance to find out.  That is certainly more of a judgment call than the Jackson non-TD I am STILL seeing people gripe about, even though it was clearly out of bounds.

That call on Jackson was an easy one. He never came close to getting both feet down in bounds.

And maybe blocks in the back happen on every return, but they're still penalties.  What is bewildering me is that people seem to be conceding that half of these "awful" calls, were in fact penalties, but "shouldn't have been called." (Not saying this is YOUR contention, but it is the contention of some others.)

My argument would be that the tick-tacky stuff was called on Seattle, but not Pittsburgh:-Jackson being called for OPI on a touchdown, but Ward wasn't on the long pass to the 2 when his hand check was just as blatant.

-Seattle having a long play brought back on a questionable holding call and Pittsbrugh scoring minutes later on a long play when they had a hold just as blatant, if not moreso.

Well, I'm sorry, but hand checking is not the same as a push off.

 

[djkidd]

The Stevens catch/fumble may have benefitted the Seahawks more if it were called. They ended up punting the ball out of the endzone after that. Maybe the change of possession on the fumble could have pinned the Steelers deeper in their own territory. The calls that hurt the Seahawks directly influenced the outcome of the game. The so-called bad calls against the Steelers indirectly effected the game, at best.

I completely agree with this. I noticed the same thing - they would have recovered the ball deep in their own territory anyway; it wouldn't have affected the game at all. The calls that hurt the Seahawks DID directly influence the game much much more. People shouldn't be comparing the "calls that hurt the Steelers" with them.

The thing that you're not taking into consideration on that 'non-fumble' is that IF Pitt recovers it, they will be able to run it back because there was not a Seattle player close at all, not to mention the momentum swing that would have given Pitt at that time

 

[toxicbees]

Congratulations all around.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/somu...hehero/Refs.jpg

The fix was in!

 

[djkidd]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

He said he didn't THINK he scored...big difference. One is that he knows for a fact, the other is that he's not sure if the ball crossed or not.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I don't believe that for a minute.  No way a bunch of Seattle fans watched that game and never said a word.  NOT A CHANCE.

I was watching the game. I didn't ##### about the officiating until I saw replays of how bad some of the calls were - with the only exception being the Roeth "TD."

You are 1 person. He was at a bar where he said he was outnumbered 3/2 by Sewhawk fans. Sorry, but HUGE difference. And before I go on, think about that a minute. There was not a bar in the nation that had that many Seattle fans, and likely drinking, that sat quietly and watched that crap for three hours, NEVER saying a word.

NO F'ING WAY.

Umm. . .I was sitting 15 rows from the field in the Seahawks player seats. I wasn't the only Seahawks fan around. The general consensus was that we didn't know if they were bad calls or not except the Roeth "TD" and there wasn't a lot of #####ing going on, mostly just screaming every time Pitt had the ball.

I was talking about Evilgrin73, at the BAR.

 

[Kai's Hero]

First, let me say that I am a Seattle Seahawk fan but, more importantly, I am a fan of the game. I want to share some of my insight about Super Bowl 40. We need to give credit to the Pittsburgh Steelers for their incredible run through the playoffs, winning on the road against the #1, #2 and #3 seeds from the tough AFC. Their win against the Indianapolis Colts on the road was a testament to the greatness of their football team and their franchise. They won despite two very poor calls by the referee's that seemed to turn the momentum to the Colts. These two calls wreaked of favoritism towards the home team and if it wasn't for a great shoe string tackle by Mr. Roethlisberger we could have been a part of one of the most unfair outcomes of a big game in NFL history.

Now to the Super Bowl. Let's be clear about one thing the Seahawks did not have 1, 2 or 3 bad calls go against them, they had as I counted them, 8 bad calls go against them. While not all these calls determined the outcome of the game, almost all of them changed the momentum and at times took points off the board as well as gave points or added yards to Pittsburgh.

#1- The D-Jax PI. This call should not have been made and was made only because the referee was influenced by Chris Hope's reaction to what he thought was a push off. While the replayed showed that D-Jax extended his arm towards Mr. Hopes chest he did not gain leverage or seperation because of the extension of his arm. For there to be interference the receiver has to gain seperation due to his actions. Clearly, that didn't happen. Mr. Hope reacted towards the official because he got beat, clear and simple. The official took at least 1.5-2.0 seconds before he reached for the flag.

#2- The Roethlisberger TD. While this was a close play I never saw the nose of the ball touch or get to the goal line. This was 3rd down so we don't know if Pittsburgh would have scored on 4th down? To be honest I'm not as upset at this call as most are around the country.

#3- Sean Locklear holding penalty on the pass to Jerramy Stevens to the Pittsburgh 1- yard line. This holding call was questionable, at best. All the analysts agreed that it was a poor call. Seattle would have had the ball at the 1-yard line with the #1 touchdown back in the backfield and the Seattle offensive line dominating Pittsburghs line all day. TD Seahawks.

#4- Nobody's talking about the Joey Porter horse collar tackle on Shaun Alexanders 15 yard run in the 3rd quarter. This was an obvious penalty and one that the officials were suppose to be looking for because of the recent injuries caused by this type of tackle. Porter clearly pulled SA down by grabbing on to the back of Alexanders shoulder pads. 15 additional yards and added momentum, lost.

#5- Hasselbecks penalty for "blocking"? below the waist as he made the tackle on Ike Taylor after his interception. How do you get a penalty for blocking when your opponent has the ball? Watch the play .... Hasselbeck makes a great tackle and that's all. I still can't figure out why the referee made the call that he did? Horrible call. Added yards for Pittsburgh and added momentum.

#6- On the next series when Randle El throws the beautiful pass to Hines Ward for the TD Roethlisberger, behind the line of scrimmage, blocks a Seahawk clearly below the waist to assist Randle El in having more time to throw the TD pass. Watch the replay .... this was clearly, by definition, a block below the waist and should have been called to negate the TD. For this to happen 3 plays after the Hasselbeck call and to not call it on Roethlisberger?

#7- I believe it was on the play that Hasselbeck through the PI, the Pittsburgh linebacker on the left side was offsides by at least 1 yard before the snap was made. You could see it clear as day live and especially on the replay. This offsides would have taken away the PI and gave Seattle the ball back in scoring position.

#8- In the 4th Quarter when Pittsburgh had the ball I was watching the time clock run down as Roethlisberger was ready to take the snap from center the clock reached ZERO then Roethlisberger looked back to the referee behind him and called timeout. The time clock was at 0 at least 1 second before the time out was asked for by Big Ben and the ref gave it to him? The analysts on ABC only explanation was that the referee can't watch the clock and the QB at the same time? WTF? If that's the case then go to the replay and get the call right.

These were all BAD calls. Did they change the outcome of the game? Maybe, maybe not. Did these calls change the momentum away from Seattle? Definately.

I believe these calls changed not only the momentum and possibly the outcome of the game but more importantly it ruined the game for the sports fan. The Pittsburgh fans want to call us Seahawk fans whiny little babies but if these calls would have been called on their team do we really think they would have been quiet on these message boards and proclaimed the Seahawks as the better team? I think not. The stats don't lie. From the opening series the Seahawks dictated the tempo and moved the ball pretty much the entire ball game against what was suppose to be a great defense. The Seattle defense, in my opinion was the better defense on the field also. They gave up two big plays. A gadget play that they should have been prepared for and a 75 yard run that was caused by a 3rd string Safety taking an improper angle on Willie Parker (And yes, he is fast!). Other than those two plays and letting Ben run for a couple of clock-moving runs on 3rd down the Seahawk defense asserted themselves as the better defense. Matt Hasselbeck, in my opinion was the best player on the field and deserved more credit than he got for the game that he played and how he moved the ball on the Pittsburgh defense. What would his stats had looked like had Stevens not dropped the 3 balls he did and D-Jax TD would have been allowed? Wow!

Did Seattle deserve to win? Tough question .... probably not. Their clock management was terrible at the end of each half. I still don't understand why Holmgren didn't attempt a field goal with 53 seconds left and take a chance with a onside kick for a possible game tying TD? D-Jax should have done a better job of catching the ball off his correct shoulder which would have allowed him to keep both feet in bounds at the end zone. And Jerremy Stevens? Talk with your performance. Your performance was terrible. With that said, I thought "the mouth" Joey Porter was a non-factor also and only made one play all day and that was the illegal tackle on SA.

I think every NFL fan should be outraged at the way this game and the Indy-Ptt game was officiated. It smells of boxing and someone needs to be held accountable. I feel sorry for Seahawk fans, players and coaches who have waited 30 years to get this opportunity, only to have it compromised by one horrible call after another. I feel sorry for the Steeler players, fans and coaches. The Steelers had an incredible post-season run to the Title, probably the best in the history of the NFL and they have to listen to all this crap about the officiating. Wake up Mr. Tagliabue ...... there is a foul smell in the air. You manage the greatest team sport in the world and if you don't bring some change, fast, to the way it's officiated you are not going to like the end result.

Congratulations to The Pittsburgh Steelers. I hope that one day our Seahawk Franchise can match your tradition and your consistency.

'The Professor"

 

[diesel7982]

Great posting.

Can't wait to see Crosseyed come in here and cry about it.

 

[Irish]

This absolutely without a doubt was the worst SB I've seen that I can remember.... The Steelers, who, with all pun intended, STOLE the fuggin thing, period. They didn't deserve to be there in the first place, their last 3 games were questionable at best, they certainly didn't earn their way to the big dance. And with that said, they certai1nly didn't deserve to hail ANY trophy. What a complete mockery of the game!

Officiating? OMFG!!!!!!!! If the calls THAT CLEARLY altered the game weren't SO BLATANT, I'd have a different opinion. But FACT, they were bogus calls that should have never, EVER been called in a Superbowl! Push off? What, are you kidding me? Holding? Again, are you freakin kidding me?!?!? That's 14 points with 2 calls there you Steeler thieves, YOU LOSE!

Jerome Bettis? What a freakin waste of FAT! I'm SO GLAD he's done and gone.... keep yer fat ### in Disneyworld.... Golden Ears! They all belong in Disneyworld because this was an absolute joke!

And for you guys that don't think the refs had anything to do with the outcome of this game, put another rock in your pipe and get a freakin clue!

And for the record, I won on this game, I knew what was going to happen, simply by the 3 games leading up to SBXL.... There was no other outcome possible from the middle of January....

Think what you want, but take a look at the facts and the plays that made this game...

See ya all in the fall!

Tooth.................

Wow, I'm a few pages behind..... but, definitely dumber for reading this post.

I'm disappointed that we have to wait until the fall to read some more fallacy that Tooth spews out. Enjoy your Spring and Summer Tooth, I know we all will.

 

[Irish]

DJax pushed off and it is called about half the time, but it is usually called when right in front of the official in plain view. I thought Haggans did jump offsides the one play, but Locklear was also holding him on most pass plays and for the most part it was not called. Seattle fans probably do have a legitimate complaint about the TO/Delay of game call. Porter's tackle on SA was not a horse collar tackle according to NFL rules. Ben's TD I still have not seen evidence that he did not score, so how can the refs overturn that call. One Stevens drop was ruled an incompletion when he really fumbled the ball. Hasselbeck's penalty on his tackle is the correct call for a very bad rule IMO. These are the type of penalties or non-calls that go on in every football game, but it is just magnified because this was the Superbowl and because of the terrible officiating in some playoffs games leading up to the Superbowl. To any football fan to cry that the officials cost the Seahawks the game, you must have missed all the dropped passes, critical Int by Hasselbeck, poor run def on Parker's TD, no discipline by Seattle defenders on Randle El to Ward TD, Seattle's defense letting Steelers convert on a 3 and 28, Seattle's defense couldn't stop Pitt offense on 3rd downs as the Steelers converted about half the time, 2 missed FGs, and the very very bad clock mgmt by Hasselbeck and Holmgren at the end of both halves. The only thing about the Superbowl that disappointed me was that both teams played very sloppy. I would have hated to be a non-Seahawks/Steelers fan and have to watch this mediocre played game. I'm gonna end on this note.............

 

[Franknbeans]

Link

Two days after the Steelers beat the Seahawks 21-10 in the NFL title game, the NFL said Tuesday that no mistakes were made by the game officials, although Seattle coach Mike Holmgren might disagree.

"The game was properly officiated, including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement.

The officiating, though, has been a the major topic of discussion since Sunday night. Right after the game, Holmgren suggested that the first-quarter offensive interference call on the Seahawks' Darrell Jackson, negating what would have been the game's first touchdown, probably should have been "a no call."

Holmgren, a former chairman of the NFL's rule-making competition committee, fueled the debate Monday during a rally for the Seahawks at Qwest Field when he said, "We knew it was going to be tough going up against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I didn't know we were going to have to play the guys in the striped shirts as well."

The questionable calls:

Replays on the offensive interference call showed that Jackson's arms made contact with Pittsburgh's Chris Hope and that they separated afterward. Under the rules, pass interference took place but sometimes the call isn't made.

The first TD of the game scored on a third-down rollout by Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger late in the first half. Roethlisberger appeared to come down short of the goal line, but it was unclear on replay whether he had gotten the ball to the line before going down. Referee Bill Leavy upheld the call because there was not enough incontrovertible evidence to overturn it.

Holding call on Sean Locklear in the fourth: Locklear's penalty erased an 18-yard completion from Matt Hasselbeck to Jerramy Stevens to the Pittsburgh 1 that would have put the Seahawks in position to go ahead 17-14 with around 12 minutes left. It was a close call that was difficult to see on replay.

One call that clearly appeared erroneous came after that penalty, when Hasselbeck threw an interception to Pittsburgh's Ike Taylor, then made the tackle but was called for a block below the waist, giving the Steelers an extra 15 yards. They scored soon afterward on a pass from Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward. Replays showed Hasselbeck never made contact with the player he was supposed to have hit illegally, instead going straight to Taylor to make the tackle.

The Super Bowl crew headed by Leavy was comprised of officials who graded out best at each position during the regular season.

 

[PsychoMan]

The Pittsburgh fans want to call us Seahawk fans whiny little babies but if these calls would have been called on their team do we really think they would have been quiet on these message boards and proclaimed the Seahawks as the better team? I think not.

Good posting. I agree wholeheartedly with this comment and I don't think a single Pitt fan could refute it.

 

[apalmer]

Imagine! A thread complaining about the officiating! What a novelty! For the umpteenth time:

1. The official DID NOT wait for Hope to complain. Watch the replay again--the official tried to throw his flag even before the pass was caught, but whiffed and had to reach back to his pocket a second time to get it. He didn't get seperation because of the contact? The safety gets pushed toward the sideline, DJax turns the other way, takes a step or two and immediately catches the ball and the push off wasn't a factor? Give me a break. Is it the kind of violation that officials often miss? Yeah, it is. Does that make it less of a violation? Only if you're desperate to think so.

2. You don't think it was a TD, the ref did. It's called a "judgment call" for a reason. As you indicated, though, it's not a big deal because the chances are high that they get the TD on 4th and inches anyhow.

3. "Questionable" does not equal "wrong". Madden couldn't see the hold because Haggans was between the camera and Locklear so you couldn't see what Locklear was doing. Of course, you could see that Haggans mysteriously had his momentum changed after he got past Locklear, but maybe he just hit the force field around Hasselback?

4. It sure looked to me like Porter grabbed jersey, not pads. I also didn't see Alexander (or anyone else at the time) jump up and complain. Maybe he thought the tackle was legal? Maybe "nobody's talking about it" because it's a non-issue? It's pretty easy to go back and pick apart a game for "maybes" and "questionables".

5. I agree the call on Hasselback is dumb. However, the same call was made on Randle El a few weeks ago when he dove through blockers to make a tackle on an INT return. Of course, again, it's not an important call...the INT would stand anyhow, so all that's left is speculation that the Steelers "may not" have used the gadget play to score if they were 15 yards further away. Pretty slim speculation IMO.

6. The "low block" rule Hasselback was called for only applies on change of possession plays. Obviously it is not a factor in the Pittsburgh TD play: Ben's block was perfectly legal. By comparison, Ben got hit by a blocker after his INT--does that constitute roughing the passer? No, because once the INT is made, you have different rules. Don't complain aobut rules you don't understand.

7. You thought you saw an offsides that didn't get called? That only happens about 5 times a game. Get over it.

8. Again, if you've watched any football, you see this at least once a week. if the QB calls for the TO before the ref whilstles the delay of game, the call is never made. Are refs human? Last time I checked. Do they have reaction times that sometimes get beat by the QB? Yeah. Do you want the game stopped after every single play so they can go check the replay and see if "maybe" something should have been called? Get real.

9. I counted at least 5 "questionable" holds on Seattle that didn't get called. At the end of the first half, there was a Seattle player tackled in bounds, but the clock was stopped until the next snap, giving them a few extra seconds to mismanage. Anyone can go through a game and find things to question. If your team overcomes them, they are inconsequential. If your team loses, they become instant

BTW, note to Shick!: Anymore posts about how it's not Seattle fans crying?

 

[Godsbrother]

The NFL has a history of issuing apology letters after a game when they determine that mistakes had been made. The Steelers got one after the Colts playoff game this year and a few years ago they got letters for THREE different game where calls were blown by the officials.

The NFL has just reviewed the officiating of the Super Bowl and said that no mistakes were made. Here is a link for you:

Super Bowl properly officiated

You say that stats don't lie. Well how about these stats:

3rd down conversions: Pittsburgh 8/15 (53%), Seattle 5/17 (29%)

Avg gain/play: Pittsburgh 6.1, Seattle 5.1

Net Yards Rushing: Pittsburgh 181, Seattle 137

Yards per pass: Pittsburgh 6.9, Seattle 5.0

Sacks: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Touchdowns: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Missed Field Goals: Pittsburgh 0, Seattle 2

Score: Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10

It is time to stop blaming the refs.

 

[Sideline Merc]

STOP, STOP, AND STOP.

This is pointless discussion. There is nothing the NFL can do. They could make the Officials a full time position, with training during the week. Which would still not change the fact that human beings are making calls on a plays that take place in a blink of an eye. The ref's are going to miss something, their not going to see things that are later picked up by instant replay. Do we want every play reviewed?

I've watched alot of football and every game has it's good and bad calls. It's part of the game.

 

[3C's]

Here's a video clip of the OPI.

Link

Answer this. If OPI had not been called, would Steeler fans have a legitimate gripe?

 

[faulkfan]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

Ben's "admission" was that he didn't think he had scored at the time. Replay shows clearly that the ball broke the plane while he was in the air. There really is no controversy here.As to the PI and the holding calls, one of the local sports guys read the rules as the replays of the plays in question were shown. By the rules, both were the correct calls. Jackson pushed off, Locklear held. Are they always called? No. Were they penalties, according to the rules? Absolutely.

C'mon now. If the replay "clearly showed the ball broke the plane" the review would have lasted 2 seconds, the ref wouldn't have started with a raised 4th down fist to mark the ball, and no one would be talking about it right now.

 

[greenroom]

The NFL has a history of issuing apology letters after a game when they determine that mistakes had been made.  The Steelers got one after the Colts playoff game this year and a few years ago they got letters for THREE different game where calls were blown by the officials.

The NFL has just reviewed the officiating of the Super Bowl and said that no mistakes were made.  Here is a link for you:

Super Bowl properly officiated

You say that stats don't lie.  Well how about these stats:

3rd down conversions:  Pittsburgh 8/15 (53%),  Seattle 5/17 (29%)

Avg gain/play: Pittsburgh 6.1, Seattle 5.1

Net Yards Rushing: Pittsburgh 181, Seattle 137

Yards per pass: Pittsburgh 6.9, Seattle 5.0

Sacks: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Touchdowns: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Missed Field Goals: Pittsburgh 0, Seattle 2

Score: Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10

It is time to stop blaming the refs.

You also forgot this statPenalties-Yards

Pittsburgh 3-20

Seattle 7-70

Also no Defence penaltys on the Steelers. And two of the Steeler's penaltys were on the first drive.

So this also goes back to how the calls were not called even IMO

Plus I am not a Seattle fan, just a fan that can see that the Calls went all to the Steelers.

But come 6 mo from this point no one will care how the Steelers won, just that they were the defending champs.

 

[BGP]

No-one cares about the Broncos cut-blocking.

No-one cares about Siragusa cheap shotting Gannon out of the 2000 AFC title game for the win.

No-one cares about the tuck rule.

No-one cares about how many cheap shots the Patriots took at the Rams in the super bowl.

And no-one is gonna care if Cowher pressed an unfair advantage in ref calls.

All anyone cares about is who won.

What are you gonna do? Stop watching? No. The NFL will issue some small apology or maybe tweak a rule and that will satisfy you. You'll be there kickoff weekend next september for more.

 

[Godsbrother]

The NFL has a history of issuing apology letters after a game when they determine that mistakes had been made.  The Steelers got one after the Colts playoff game this year and a few years ago they got letters for THREE different game where calls were blown by the officials.

The NFL has just reviewed the officiating of the Super Bowl and said that no mistakes were made.  Here is a link for you:

Super Bowl properly officiated

You say that stats don't lie.  Well how about these stats:

3rd down conversions:  Pittsburgh 8/15 (53%),  Seattle 5/17 (29%)

Avg gain/play: Pittsburgh 6.1, Seattle 5.1

Net Yards Rushing: Pittsburgh 181, Seattle 137

Yards per pass: Pittsburgh 6.9, Seattle 5.0

Sacks: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Touchdowns: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Missed Field Goals: Pittsburgh 0, Seattle 2

Score: Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10

It is time to stop blaming the refs.

You also forgot this statPenalties-Yards

Pittsburgh 3-20

Seattle 7-70

Also no Defence penaltys on the Steelers. And two of the Steeler's penaltys were on the first drive.

So this also goes back to how the calls were not called even IMO

Plus I am not a Seattle fan, just a fan that can see that the Calls went all to the Steelers.

But come 6 mo from this point no one will care how the Steelers won, just that they were the defending champs.

You are right. Seattle did commit more penalties which cost them.

 

[raidergil]

The NFL has a history of issuing apology letters after a game when they determine that mistakes had been made. The Steelers got one after the Colts playoff game this year and a few years ago they got letters for THREE different game where calls were blown by the officials.

The NFL has just reviewed the officiating of the Super Bowl and said that no mistakes were made. Here is a link for you:

Super Bowl properly officiated

You say that stats don't lie. Well how about these stats:

3rd down conversions: Pittsburgh 8/15 (53%), Seattle 5/17 (29%)

Avg gain/play: Pittsburgh 6.1, Seattle 5.1

Net Yards Rushing: Pittsburgh 181, Seattle 137

Yards per pass: Pittsburgh 6.9, Seattle 5.0

Sacks: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Touchdowns: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Missed Field Goals: Pittsburgh 0, Seattle 2

Score: Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10

It is time to stop blaming the refs.

Yes, the Steelers got an apology letter after the Colts game. But do you think they'd have gotten one had the calls cost them the game? Issuing apology letters after a reg season loss is one thing, but after a playoff loss - I doubt it. And does anyone think the image concious NFL would issue an apology letter after the SB? They may make policy changes in the offseason, but there is no way they are admitting officiating mistakes days after the SB.

 

[Godsbrother]

The NFL has a history of issuing apology letters after a game when they determine that mistakes had been made.  The Steelers got one after the Colts playoff game this year and a few years ago they got letters for THREE different game where calls were blown by the officials.

The NFL has just reviewed the officiating of the Super Bowl and said that no mistakes were made.  Here is a link for you:

Super Bowl properly officiated

You say that stats don't lie.  Well how about these stats:

3rd down conversions:  Pittsburgh 8/15 (53%),  Seattle 5/17 (29%)

Avg gain/play: Pittsburgh 6.1, Seattle 5.1

Net Yards Rushing: Pittsburgh 181, Seattle 137

Yards per pass: Pittsburgh 6.9, Seattle 5.0

Sacks: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Touchdowns: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Missed Field Goals: Pittsburgh 0, Seattle 2

Score: Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10

It is time to stop blaming the refs.

Yes, the Steelers got an apology letter after the Colts game. But do you think they'd have gotten one had the calls cost them the game? Issuing apology letters after a reg season loss is one thing, but after a playoff loss - I doubt it. And does anyone think the image concious NFL would issue an apology letter after the SB? They may make policy changes in the offseason, but there is no way they are admitting officiating mistakes days after the SB.

Historically, the NFL has sent the apology letters whether the team won or loss. Would they do so for a Super Bowl? I don't see why not. All I can say is the NFL knows their rules a lot better than anyone here.Most of the complaints I have heard haven't even disputed that the infractions didn't take place, only that the calls should not have been made. So it does not come as a surprise that the NFL looked at the tape and said "according to the rules the calls were correct".

 

[3C's]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

Ben's "admission" was that he didn't think he had scored at the time. Replay shows clearly that the ball broke the plane while he was in the air. There really is no controversy here.As to the PI and the holding calls, one of the local sports guys read the rules as the replays of the plays in question were shown. By the rules, both were the correct calls. Jackson pushed off, Locklear held. Are they always called? No. Were they penalties, according to the rules? Absolutely.

C'mon now. If the replay "clearly showed the ball broke the plane" the review would have lasted 2 seconds, the ref wouldn't have started with a raised 4th down fist to mark the ball, and no one would be talking about it right now.

Looks in to me, but I might be a little biased on this one. Remember, the camera angle isn't right down the goalline. The camera is past the goalline.Link to video

 

[CrossEyed]

Great posting.

Can't wait to see Crosseyed come in here and cry about it.

Only ones crying are the losers.

 

[3C's]

For EG72, vidcaps of the block in the back on Ben.

Pic1

Pic2

 

[BigRed]

This has probably already been posted but FYI, esp. for the whiners

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...gene&id=2322300

The only blatantly bad call was the one on Hass' tackle. The rest is a lot of boo hoo mommy sour grapes. Both teams sucked but SEA sucked worse, get over it

 

[Banger]

The NFL has a history of issuing apology letters after a game when they determine that mistakes had been made.  The Steelers got one after the Colts playoff game this year and a few years ago they got letters for THREE different game where calls were blown by the officials.

The NFL has just reviewed the officiating of the Super Bowl and said that no mistakes were made.  Here is a link for you:

Super Bowl properly officiated

You say that stats don't lie.  Well how about these stats:

3rd down conversions:  Pittsburgh 8/15 (53%),  Seattle 5/17 (29%)

Avg gain/play: Pittsburgh 6.1, Seattle 5.1

Net Yards Rushing: Pittsburgh 181, Seattle 137

Yards per pass: Pittsburgh 6.9, Seattle 5.0

Sacks: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Touchdowns: Pittsburgh 3, Seattle 1

Missed Field Goals: Pittsburgh 0, Seattle 2

Score: Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10

It is time to stop blaming the refs.

You also forgot this statPenalties-Yards

Pittsburgh 3-20

Seattle 7-70

Also no Defence penaltys on the Steelers. And two of the Steeler's penaltys were on the first drive.

So this also goes back to how the calls were not called even IMO

Plus I am not a Seattle fan, just a fan that can see that the Calls went all to the Steelers.

But come 6 mo from this point no one will care how the Steelers won, just that they were the defending champs.

I was curious to see if the # of penalties called against Seattle was out of the ordinary and while this is no scientific test I averaged the penalty calls for all week 17 games and it was 7.25-58 yards/game. So the # of calls certainly does not seem out of the norm of any average game. For the most part all the calls were judgement calls and IMO this game was called just like any other game on any Sunday but every play is magnified X1000 due to the fact that it was the Superbowl. By the way the Steelers happened to have to lowest number of calls against them on week 17 as well as the fewest yards (2-15). Maybe the fix was in prior to the playoffs even beginning.

 

[brettdj]

For EG72, vidcaps of the block in the back on Ben.

Pic1

Pic2

Pic 1 shows initial contact is in the shoulder, not the back.

 

[3C's]

For EG72, vidcaps of the block in the back on Ben.

Pic1

Pic2

Pic 1 shows initial contact is in the shoulder, not the back.

Block in the back is not in respect to the bodypart, but the angle. In order to be a legal block, contact has to be made from the side or front of the body. So being blocked in the back of the shoulder is a block in the back.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

The Pittsburgh fans want to call us Seahawk fans whiny little babies but if these calls would have been called on their team do we really think they would have been quiet on these message boards and proclaimed the Seahawks as the better team? I think not.

Good posting. I agree wholeheartedly with this comment and I don't think a single Pitt fan could refute it.

I totally agree with this...but you have to add in all Seattle / Steeler-haters would be saying "Stop Whining". It's a vicious cycle darling.... LOL.

 

[apalmer]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

He said he didn't THINK he scored...big difference. One is that he knows for a fact, the other is that he's not sure if the ball crossed or not.

Heard an interview with Ben yesterday (part of the Steeler Parade): He indicated he hadn't watched the replay before doing Letterman. After watching the replay, he does believe the ball broke the plane. (sorry, no link).

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

BTW, note to Shick!: Anymore posts about how it's not Seattle fans crying?

Did you read the entire post? He congratulated Pittsburgh fans and he was very nice about it. He had more class in his post than most Steeler fans have shown on this board.

 

[kupcho1]

dkeato is working overtime this week

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Wow I just got to a computer after my trip and was shocked to see 26 damn pages of stuff. I'm coming into this late so what I have to add is only in regard to my postings before this Super Bowl as my two cents. All the things I say are probably covered in triplicate in the 26 previous pages...

The one thing about being at the game is that I missed a lot of this stuff (they never even replayed the Randy-El to WARD TD!!!!). The Jackson push off was weak, and that was from Steelers radio which I listened to on and off during the game. All the other stuff I had to wait to see later but it just took the momentum right out of the Seahawks when they get these big plays and they are called back over and over. They still should have won the damn game and Pittsburgh took advantage of the shifts and calls and made three big plays.

I still have to watch the game on TV so that's all I'm saying for now. After the game I was disappointed because that was a golden opportunity to win a Super Bowl lost due to quite a few strange events which are rarely seen in one game of football. The officials sucked and the NFL needs to re-evaluate things after a majority of media, fans, and even third party non-sports people called the officiating into question. I think the NFL really lost a lot of gameplay credibility in this Super Bowl as the officials changed the momentum and field position enough for it to be called into play as a determining factor.

Pittsburgh still made the plays to win the game but the Seahawks, the fans, and the game of football was cheated out of what could have been a memorable Super Bowl because the officiating was horrible. It's been this way all year and the bottom line is no coach, player, or fan of any team wants to be in a situation where the officiating takes away things from the game.

 

[Sheriff66]

Does anyone know if the ref is actually saying that the ball crossed the goal line or was the ruling simply that there was a lack of incontrovertible evidence to overturn the call on the field?

If it is the latter, perhaps the league should look at the replay rules when a potential touchdown is involved. Regardless of whether or not it was called a TD on the field, perhaps the rule should require definitive evidence that the ball did cross the goal line if the play is challenged. In other words if an extremely close play is called a touchdown on the field then a video replay challenge that doesn't provide definitive evidence one way or the other should result in no touchdown. If many different slow motion replays from several different angles don't show the ball crossing the line why should the touchdown stand just because the ref guessed it crossed the line under extremely difficult real-time circumstances.

Call was "incontrovertible proof to overrule the ruling on the field."Also, important to note that Roth's own admission was that he didn't score (which he admitted on Letterman last night).

Ben's "admission" was that he didn't think he had scored at the time. Replay shows clearly that the ball broke the plane while he was in the air. There really is no controversy here.As to the PI and the holding calls, one of the local sports guys read the rules as the replays of the plays in question were shown. By the rules, both were the correct calls. Jackson pushed off, Locklear held. Are they always called? No. Were they penalties, according to the rules? Absolutely.

That is what everyone is mad about, not that they were not penalties, but that they were called....a penalties is a penalty, and when you do it RIGHT IN FRONT OF A REF, it is going to get called.

SCOREBOARD