What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Super Bowl XL Ref Apologizes to Seahawks (1 Viewer)

My disappoinment is that it was a poorly played Super Bowl. I didn't think that I would live long enough to see the Seahawks playing for the NFL championship. I would have been thrilled, winning or losing, if the game would have been a Duke-Butler type classic.

The arguments in this thread is the same recycled drivel that left a dark cloud over the game four years ago. Wouldn't it be easier to bump one of those worthless threads than create new drama? Bottom line, officials didn't decide the game and the Steelers won. Most Steeler fans on these boards are much better that those posting about the "Seabags" and "whinners" who continue to show their ignorance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clarke Haggans was offside on the " Locklear holding penalty"

That ref and all Steelers fans can get f****d.

Someone needs to ask that ref what he spent his payoff money on.
Then it would have been offsetting penalites and replay the down. :shrug:
There was no hold on the play. It was a phantom /poor call, the ref admitted as much. Missing the offsides was just salt in the wound.I'm thinking free play for the offense.... first and goal Seattle.

Im guessing you're one of the Steeler fans who can get F****d
Thanks. Getting "f****d" is good times imo. :thumbup:
You're welcome
 
I could be wrong, but IMHO, many, if not most would consider that SB to easily be the worst officiated ever.
The entire playoffs that year were easily the worst officiated playoffs ever. "You have to play better than the referees officiate"

~Chuck Noll~ 1972

before having ever won a super bowl.
Or just pump your team up with steroids.
Whatever helps you sleep at night sweetcheeks. :wub:
Walking tall out of a House of Representatives hearing on the scourge of steroids in professional sports, former Steelers offensive lineman Steve Courson on Wednesday reiterated claims dating back to the early 1990s that the Pittsburgh dynasty was fueled by drugs and that both coach Chuck Noll and founder Art Rooney tolerated the free use of "juice" to hike performance.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_328813.htmlI sleep great. Steroids, Leavy, it looks like you are the one with sleep issues.

 
“I had a word with him and told him I really appreciated it,” said defensive tackle Craig Terrill(notes), a backup on that Super Bowl team. “I certainly don’t have any hard feelings against him. There were plenty of things we did in that game that kept us from winning. He can’t take responsibility for the mistakes we made, but I appreciated it.”

That's the right attitude. These were not some conspiracy, they were bad calls. Anyone who argues they were not bad calls is homer, anyone who argues the seahawks were robbed is an idiot or a homer. At the end of the day it is very nice this ref apologized, but he did his best and made mistakes. It is something the Seahwaks have to live with, along with living with the fact that they did not play well enough to win the game inspite of imperfect calls.

This thread should be a place both teams fans can commend the ref and, as the Seahawks WHO PLAYED IN THE FRICKEN GAME SAID, move on. Holding on to this is stupid, anyone doing it should be ashamed.

 
Walking tall out of a House of Representatives hearing on the scourge of steroids in professional sports, former Steelers offensive lineman Steve Courson on Wednesday reiterated claims dating back to the early 1990s that the Pittsburgh dynasty was fueled by drugs and that both coach Chuck Noll and founder Art Rooney tolerated the free use of "juice" to hike performance.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_328813.htmlI sleep great. Steroids, Leavy, it looks like you are the one with sleep issues.
There was not a steroids policy in the NFL during the 70s and a lot of players around the league were using them. The very article you quote talks about Lyle Alzado, who played for 3 different teams (none of which were the Steelers).I get that you hate the Steelers but bringing up stuff that was ocurring league-wide over 30 years ago is ridiculous.

 
On a related note I was at the hall of fame enshrinement, and there were tons of cowboys fans, a ton of 9ers fans, and lots of Skins and Steelers fans. Almost everyone there showed respect for each other and the players, even though those are some bitter rivalries. The idiot giants fan who heckled people and argued about how great the giants were for all the pre-superbowl championships was an embarrassing exception.

I'd wager that tool posts in the FFA.

Jerry Rice spoke of his respect for the cowboys, you hear players all the time say how they hate their rivals but respect them, yet this collection of fans is riddled with countless immature idiots who cannot say the same. Think about that for a few minutes and reflect on how you represent yourself and the team you like next time you are about to submit something toolish.

ALSO - the guy just happened to be a giants fan, in no way should that story be taken to imply all giant fans are like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All this was said because Leavy was "On tour" in Seattle...explaining new rules, flapping his gums.

How much you wanna bet it's not Leavy that comes "On tour" to Pitt?

 
I'm not a Steeler or Seahawk fan and watched the game wothout rooting for either team.

I can honestly say that it was the worst refereed Super Bowl I've ever seen and it ruined the game for all.

The Seahawks were victims of too many one sided calls which ranged from marginal to poor.

The Steelers never got the full respect they deserved for winning a game they likely would have won without the refs help.

The fans were cheated from watching an exciting Super Bowl.

I hope we never see a Super Bowl like it again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree it was a horrible SB to watch for fans of other teams, I'd feel the same way. Sloppy, choppy play and penalties galore...

The last thing I'll say to the conspiracy theorists...invest 9 minutes and watch this -

Although I know you won't...it goes play by play to show some of the following...

NO OFFSIDES, ABSOLUTE HOLDING and ABSOLUTE OFFENSIVE PI. Try and refute what you see...if you understand football and the rules, you can't.

But ignorance is bliss...and ignorance is what I get from a lot of the posts I see.

 
The Future Champs said:
Steeler fans would still piss blood everytime this game is mentioned if the roles were reversed.
Not really... we'd still have 5 Lombardis to help us deal with it.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

I heard the TE from Seattle still hasnt apologized for dropping so many passes that day.

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHHHHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHH :mellow: :lmao: :lmao:

 
Lots of classy steelers fans taking the high road in here. :stalker: Nice counterpoint to the crybaby seahawks fans.
Talking about SB XL seems to bring out the worst in both. To me this is a non-story as we're talking about a game that was played almost 5 years ago. So Leavy says he "kicked two calls in the 4th quarter" which are likely the call on Locklear for holding -and- the low block on Hasselbeck during the interception return. The NFL long ago said the Haseselbeck call was incorrect and even the most diehard Steelers fan agrees but that was 15 yards tacked onto the end of the play. The interception is what hurt the Seahawks on that play.Looking at the replays of the holding call it is tough to tell. Leavy obviously saw something that made him throw the flag and now in retrospect thinks he shouldn't have. Okay but I doubt this is only case of an official second-guessing a call he made after a game. What I really don't understand is why he would be bringing up now. The Steelers once got three letters in three weeks from the NFL admitting to officiating mistakes and it didn't change anything. The game is over and done with, you can't go back and change anything so what is the point in rehashing this again?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lots of classy steelers fans taking the high road in here. :wub: Nice counterpoint to the crybaby seahawks fans.
Talking about SB XL seems to bring out the worst in both. To me this is a non-story as we're talking about a game that was played almost 5 years ago. So Leavy says he "kicked two calls in the 4th quarter" which are likely the call on Locklear for holding -and- the low block on Hasselbeck during the interception return. The NFL long ago said the Haseselbeck call was incorrect and even the most diehard Steelers fan agrees but that was 15 yards tacked onto the end of the play. The interception is what hurt the Seahawks on that play.Looking at the replays of the holding call it is tough to tell. Leavy obviously saw something that made him throw the flag and now in retrospect thinks he shouldn't have. Okay but I doubt this is only case of an official second-guessing a call he made after a game. What I really don't understand is why he would be bringing up now. The Steelers once got three letters in three weeks from the NFL admitting to officiating mistakes and it didn't change anything. The game is over and done with, you can't go back and change anything so what is the point in rehashing this again?
He brought it up now because he was at Seahawks camp, he had made errors he thought impacted the game, so he thought the correct thing to do would be say "sorry". I think he was right, and the players who are still with the team seem to appreciate it. It does not invalidate the game, and as that one player said, the team cannot blame him for their mistakes that day.It should be a nice story if some Hawks fans could move on and if some steelers fans were not so overly defensive
 
The game is over and done with, you can't go back and change anything so what is the point in rehashing this again?
So then, I guess Jim Joyce shouldn't have admitted that he blew that call that prevented Armando Galarraga from getting that perfect game two months ago, right? Sure, the circumstances were different, but the game was over and done with, and MLB wasn't gonna go back and change anything, so why bother talking about it, right?
 
Stillers Jr. said:
I agree it was a horrible SB to watch for fans of other teams, I'd feel the same way. Sloppy, choppy play and penalties galore...

The last thing I'll say to the conspiracy theorists...invest 9 minutes and watch this -

John Madden on Locklear hold: "Oooh I didn't see holding!" Mr. Madden, you are correct!
 
I might feel a little bit bad if the hawks played a great (even good) game and lost because of the ref, but they did not. The players did not make plays and the coaches did not call a good game.

Next subject.

 
I might feel a little bit bad if the hawks played a great (even good) game and lost because of the ref, but they did not. The players did not make plays and the coaches did not call a good game.Next subject.
The Steelers didn't play well, either. IIRC, the Seahawks outgained them in total yards and won the turnover battle. If you do that in the playoffs, you win most of the time. So, yeah, the Seahawks didn't play that great, but neither did the Steelers. Combine that with the bad officiating and it is no wonder that it is probably the most forgettable competitive Super Bowl ever.
 
I might feel a little bit bad if the hawks played a great (even good) game and lost because of the ref, but they did not. The players did not make plays and the coaches did not call a good game.

Next subject.
The Steelers didn't play well, either. IIRC, the Seahawks outgained them in total yards and won the turnover battle. If you do that in the playoffs, you win most of the time. So, yeah, the Seahawks didn't play that great, but neither did the Steelers. Combine that with the bad officiating and it is no wonder that it is probably the most forgettable competitive Super Bowl ever.
That is a good point. Roethlisberger finished the game having completed just 9 of 21 passes for 123 yards and having also thrown two interceptions; his 22.6 quarterback rating was the lowest ever of any by a Super Bowl winning quarterback.

 
I might feel a little bit bad if the hawks played a great (even good) game and lost because of the ref, but they did not. The players did not make plays and the coaches did not call a good game.

Next subject.
The Steelers didn't play well, either. IIRC, the Seahawks outgained them in total yards and won the turnover battle. If you do that in the playoffs, you win most of the time. So, yeah, the Seahawks didn't play that great, but neither did the Steelers. Combine that with the bad officiating and it is no wonder that it is probably the most forgettable competitive Super Bowl ever.
That is a good point. Roethlisberger finished the game having completed just 9 of 21 passes for 123 yards and having also thrown two interceptions; his 22.6 quarterback rating was the lowest ever of any by a Super Bowl winning quarterback.
Also, this goes to show how bad the Seahawks played, that they lost to the Steelers lead by Rothlisberger with probably his worst game in his career.

What no one seems to note is that the 'Hawks had lost their starting safety Ken Hamlin a few weeks before the game due to a head injury received in a Seattle bar fight. His replacement for the Super Bowl was Marquez Manuel. He was the guy that blew the tackle on FWP's 75 yard TD run and he is the one that blew the coverage on that trick play that Randle El through for a TD. Ken Hamlin would have made the difference. But in the end, the Hawks played awful and so did the Steelers.

 
Stillers Jr. said:
I agree it was a horrible SB to watch for fans of other teams, I'd feel the same way. Sloppy, choppy play and penalties galore...

The last thing I'll say to the conspiracy theorists...invest 9 minutes and watch this -

the ben td is interesting to watch...the ref running in is going to spot the ball, until ben (laying on the ground) puts the ball over the goal line, he then signals td. if you watch closely to the zoomed in angle from the sideline, you can see the refs left arm swing up to signal td when ben reaches the ball over the goal line. this is just bad luck for the hawks...if he spots it, there is not enough to overturn it. but since he signaled td (at the time ben was on the ground) there is not suffeciant evidence to overturn it. the replay should have been about why did he signal td at that moment and not when he was diving and in the air without his knee on the ground. horrible call!

 
I think you might be right, Ken Hamlin would have made those plays, as he had made those plays all year long. An interesting fact on the side: the guy that sucker punched Hamlin in a Seattle bar was found shot to death just a couple hours after he assaulted Hamlin.

I might feel a little bit bad if the hawks played a great (even good) game and lost because of the ref, but they did not. The players did not make plays and the coaches did not call a good game.

Next subject.
The Steelers didn't play well, either. IIRC, the Seahawks outgained them in total yards and won the turnover battle. If you do that in the playoffs, you win most of the time. So, yeah, the Seahawks didn't play that great, but neither did the Steelers. Combine that with the bad officiating and it is no wonder that it is probably the most forgettable competitive Super Bowl ever.
That is a good point. Roethlisberger finished the game having completed just 9 of 21 passes for 123 yards and having also thrown two interceptions; his 22.6 quarterback rating was the lowest ever of any by a Super Bowl winning quarterback.
Also, this goes to show how bad the Seahawks played, that they lost to the Steelers lead by Rothlisberger with probably his worst game in his career.

What no one seems to note is that the 'Hawks had lost their starting safety Ken Hamlin a few weeks before the game due to a head injury received in a Seattle bar fight. His replacement for the Super Bowl was Marquez Manuel. He was the guy that blew the tackle on FWP's 75 yard TD run and he is the one that blew the coverage on that trick play that Randle El through for a TD. Ken Hamlin would have made the difference. But in the end, the Hawks played awful and so did the Steelers.
Actually, I think Manuel got hurt after a Hines Ward catch and he tried to tackle Ward next to the sideline... and Ward didnt let up and delivered the blow.In came Etric Pruitt. Off to the races went Willie Parker.
 
100% plagiarized from another site and 100% accurate

20 reasons Seattle should blame themselves Not the Refs

********************************************************************************

1. The Refs didn’t give up The longest TD run in Superbowl history ..................................... Seattle did.

2. The Refs didn't bite on a 43 yard trick play for a Touchdown............................................. Seattle did.

3. The Refs didn’t miss TWO Field goals...........................................................................

.... Seattle did.

4. The Refs didn’t drop 4 very catchable balls in KEY SITUATIONS....................the TE from Seattle did.

5. When he finally caught a pass, he took 3 steps, was hit & clearly fumbled. But the refs ruled it

incomplete. Who got a huge break from the refs there?........................................................ Seattle did.

6. The Refs didn't carelessly let the 1st half clock go from 48 seconds to 13 before finally

running their next play............................................................................

............................... Seattle did.

7. Now, 13 seconds left, 3rd down, who foolishly heaved it deep to the End Zone incomplete, rather than

a shorter play & timeout to set up a closer than 54 yd FG try which then missed by 2 feet?.......Seattle did.

8. Who bone headedly did it AGAIN in the 2nd half, this time 3rd down, 50 yds from a FG,

bombing to the End Zone incomplete, forcing a 50 yd FG try which again barely missed?.........Seattle did

9. Who kept failing to pin Pitt deep by repeatedly punting it deep into the End Zone, giving Pitt

the ball at the 20, thus losing the game of field position & 1 drive that ended in a Pitt TD?...........Seattle did.

10. 3rd & 28, Pitt's QB MAKES a play, scrambling & completing a 37 yard pass to Seattle 's 2 yd line.

11. 3rd & 18, Seahawks QB misreads Pitt's zone defense, in FG range & throws an INT at Pitt's 5 yd line.

12. On 3rd downs, Pitt made plays, like the one above, QB runs, a nifty shovel pass, a fingertip catch, etc.

13. On 3rd downs, Sea. was only 5 for 17 with dropped passes, going deep on 3rd & short, and an INT, etc.

Seattle, You're lucky it wasn't a blowout. Pittsburgh helped keep you in the game.

14. With a Pitt WR wide open in the endzone for a TD that would've put Pitt up 21-3, yep 21-3 in

the 3rd qtr, who caught a break on a gift-wrapped INT from Pitt QB Big Ben?............................. Seattle did.

15. On the above play, who got another break from the refs when Seattle's #94 blatantly blocked

Pitt QB Ben Roethlisberger from behind and no flag was thrown?........................................Seattle did.

16. Who caught a break when Pitt WR Ward dropped an easy TD in the endzone?.................... Seattle did.

17. Who caught a break when Pitt CB Taylor dropped an easy INT early in the game?................ Seattle did.

18. Late in the game, needing a TD & FG in no particular order, and currently in easy FG range on

4th down, who foolishly ignored the FG & went deep, losing the ball & game on downs?.. Seattle did.

19. Who outrushed Seattle & contained their star RB enough to force several 3rd downs?......Pittsburgh

20. Seattle...the sum total of all the above = . . . . . . NO EXCUSES !!!

The refs clearly missed some obvious calls on both sides of the ball but to blame them for the outcome is simply foolish. There were many plays that had much greater impact than the ones singled out to defer blame to the refs rather than the Seahawks performance. Here is another far more rational take on the game:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/ref-tak...stakes-too-hard

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I might feel a little bit bad if the hawks played a great (even good) game and lost because of the ref, but they did not. The players did not make plays and the coaches did not call a good game.Next subject.
The Steelers didn't play well, either. IIRC, the Seahawks outgained them in total yards and won the turnover battle. If you do that in the playoffs, you win most of the time. So, yeah, the Seahawks didn't play that great, but neither did the Steelers. Combine that with the bad officiating and it is no wonder that it is probably the most forgettable competitive Super Bowl ever.
Going into the final drive of the game, the Steelers had a 1 yard edge in total yards. Seattle did gain 57 yards in teh final drive but by that time they were down 11 points and the game was pretty much over. The turnover battle was 2-1 in favor of the Seahawks which is not a huge margin.While neither team played particularly well the Steelers offense made three huge plays, two of which resulted in TDs. This is often the difference in big games and was the case in Super Bowl XL.
 
The game is over and done with, you can't go back and change anything so what is the point in rehashing this again?
So then, I guess Jim Joyce shouldn't have admitted that he blew that call that prevented Armando Galarraga from getting that perfect game two months ago, right? Sure, the circumstances were different, but the game was over and done with, and MLB wasn't gonna go back and change anything, so why bother talking about it, right?
Jim Joyce came out and admitted he blew the call the very next day and I think most people respected that (although considering the runner was clearly out to anyone watching the replay he had very little choice). If Leavy came out the day after SB XL or even a week later then it would make sense to me. Instead Leavy waited 4 1/2 years. Doesn;t make a whole lot of sense to me to rehash it now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother said:
Ghost Rider said:
gagull said:
I might feel a little bit bad if the hawks played a great (even good) game and lost because of the ref, but they did not. The players did not make plays and the coaches did not call a good game.Next subject.
The Steelers didn't play well, either. IIRC, the Seahawks outgained them in total yards and won the turnover battle. If you do that in the playoffs, you win most of the time. So, yeah, the Seahawks didn't play that great, but neither did the Steelers. Combine that with the bad officiating and it is no wonder that it is probably the most forgettable competitive Super Bowl ever.
Going into the final drive of the game, the Steelers had a 1 yard edge in total yards. Seattle did gain 57 yards in teh final drive but by that time they were down 11 points and the game was pretty much over. The turnover battle was 2-1 in favor of the Seahawks which is not a huge margin.While neither team played particularly well the Steelers offense made three huge plays, two of which resulted in TDs. This is often the difference in big games and was the case in Super Bowl XL.
The Seahawks made several huge plays as well, two of which resulted in the"kicked" calls Leavy mentioned a few days ago. And this was the difference in SB XL!
 
This is just as reputable as some opinions I've read here...

LINK

Seahawks apologize for not making any plays in Super Bowl XL

The Seattle Seahawks apologized today for doing absolutely nothing that would have helped them win Super Bowl XL four and a half years ago. "I've had a lot of sleepless night since then," said quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, who completed just 53-percent of his passes in the game. "You want to perform your best on that stage and we didn't. At all." The champion Steelers scored on a touchdown run of 75 yards and a passing play of 43 yards, while Seattle's longest play was a 35-yard completion in desperation time. Bill Leavy, the official who called the game, says he appreciated the Seahawks speaking out. "There were a few debatable calls in the game," he said. "But I hope people now understand how hard it was for me to watch that game and officiate it, because the Seahawks really blew."

:lol: :towelwave:

 
The Seahawks made several huge plays as well, two of which resulted in the"kicked" calls Leavy mentioned a few days ago. And this was the difference in SB XL!
If you want to blame the Seahawk loss on these two calls, one of which was called on Hasselbeck AFTER he threw the pick, then I am just going to move along to the next thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/ref-tak...stakes-too-hard

Ref taking Super mistakes too hard

Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

The recent remarks by referee Bill Leavy admitting to the Seattle Seahawks that he made two bad calls during their Super Bowl XL loss have rekindled the strong emotions of so many: those who are Seattle Seahawks fans, those who don't like the Pittsburgh Steelers, and even many Steelers fans and Steelers players who are insulted that Leavy's calls may have tainted their Super Bowl victory.

I have to admit that I was bit surprised when I read that Leavy addressed the calls with the media. Surprised, but not shocked.

Bill is one of the best referees we have in the NFL. He is a great communicator with players and coaches and has always been very accurate in his decision making. Ask most all of the coaches in the league and they will tell you they respect him. Even Mike Holmgren liked him before Super Bowl XL.

Like the other referees in the NFL, Leavy hates it when he makes a mistake and to make one in the Super Bowl makes it worse. It has been eating at him for four years. He wasn't kidding when he said he lost sleep and was miserable. We had many conversations about this. You live with that negative feeling as an official and it is hard to shake. Last week in Seattle, he found an opportunity to get it off his chest and admit that he had made mistakes. In my opinion, he was too hard on himself.

First, he didn't "kick" two calls in the fourth quarter. He was clearly incorrect when he called Matt Hasselbeck for a low block after the interception when Hasselbeck attempted to go low through a blocker in an attempt to make the tackle. It would only have been a foul if Matt would have made contact with the blocker, but he didn't, so it should not have been called.

Leavy piled on himself by saying that his holding call on Sean Locklear was incorrect. That is not true. It was a hold and should have been called. If anything, you could have made a case that the Steelers were offside and, if the play had been officiated correctly, the penalties would have offset and the down replayed. In any case, the reception would not have been allowed to stand.

Did Leavy's calls and the officiating, in general, have an impact in that game? Sure they did. Officiating has an impact in every game that is played, whether calls are made or not made, whether they are correct or incorrect.

Did Leavy's calls determine the winner of Super Bowl XL? Absolutely not! In truth, there were missed calls that went against both teams. Let's all put aside our allegiances and go back four years and look at the game objectively. If we do, we will see that the Seahawks did not play well and neither, actually, did the Steelers.

The officials also did not have a great game. In the end, however, the team that deserved to win won. That, in my opinion, is the bottom line.

 
Dude, anytime you bring up irrefutable video evidence of that hold, showing Locklear completely BEHIND Haggans, yet still "blocking" him...No Seahawk fan will ever respond to you. It's easier to say..."Waaa, we got robbed".

:thumbup:
that's the way it's been for the last 4.5 years"the refs robbed us!!!!"

"ok, so here's the plays, show me how they robbed you" *posts video*

*crickets*

 
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/ref-tak...stakes-too-hard

Ref taking Super mistakes too hard

Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).

The recent remarks by referee Bill Leavy admitting to the Seattle Seahawks that he made two bad calls during their Super Bowl XL loss have rekindled the strong emotions of so many: those who are Seattle Seahawks fans, those who don't like the Pittsburgh Steelers, and even many Steelers fans and Steelers players who are insulted that Leavy's calls may have tainted their Super Bowl victory.

I have to admit that I was bit surprised when I read that Leavy addressed the calls with the media. Surprised, but not shocked.

Bill is one of the best referees we have in the NFL. He is a great communicator with players and coaches and has always been very accurate in his decision making. Ask most all of the coaches in the league and they will tell you they respect him. Even Mike Holmgren liked him before Super Bowl XL.

Like the other referees in the NFL, Leavy hates it when he makes a mistake and to make one in the Super Bowl makes it worse. It has been eating at him for four years. He wasn't kidding when he said he lost sleep and was miserable. We had many conversations about this. You live with that negative feeling as an official and it is hard to shake. Last week in Seattle, he found an opportunity to get it off his chest and admit that he had made mistakes. In my opinion, he was too hard on himself.

First, he didn't "kick" two calls in the fourth quarter. He was clearly incorrect when he called Matt Hasselbeck for a low block after the interception when Hasselbeck attempted to go low through a blocker in an attempt to make the tackle. It would only have been a foul if Matt would have made contact with the blocker, but he didn't, so it should not have been called.

Leavy piled on himself by saying that his holding call on Sean Locklear was incorrect. That is not true. It was a hold and should have been called. If anything, you could have made a case that the Steelers were offside and, if the play had been officiated correctly, the penalties would have offset and the down replayed. In any case, the reception would not have been allowed to stand.

Did Leavy's calls and the officiating, in general, have an impact in that game? Sure they did. Officiating has an impact in every game that is played, whether calls are made or not made, whether they are correct or incorrect.

Did Leavy's calls determine the winner of Super Bowl XL? Absolutely not! In truth, there were missed calls that went against both teams. Let's all put aside our allegiances and go back four years and look at the game objectively. If we do, we will see that the Seahawks did not play well and neither, actually, did the Steelers.

The officials also did not have a great game. In the end, however, the team that deserved to win won. That, in my opinion, is the bottom line.
This guy is covering his ####. He claimed the game was perfectly called right after the SB.
 
I don't think it was "rigged" as much as it was a team that was heavily favored in the game
I don't recall what the line was for that SB but the Steelers definately were not heavily favored. I'm not positive but I think Seattle was favored slightly.

I'm not a fan of either team but like others I felt the poor officiated tainted the game. The bad calls definately changed the outcome, but not necessarily the winner. The outcome would have been a closer and more enjoyable game for all (except steeler fans).

my 2 cents

 
Dude, anytime you bring up irrefutable video evidence of that hold, showing Locklear completely BEHIND Haggans, yet still "blocking" him...No Seahawk fan will ever respond to you. It's easier to say..."Waaa, we got robbed".

:lmao:
that's the way it's been for the last 4.5 years"the refs robbed us!!!!"

"ok, so here's the plays, show me how they robbed you" *posts video*

*crickets*
So the ref who made the call claims he screwed up, but you know he made the right call. Umm ok :fishing: Whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
the guy was talking to a Seattle audience.

Talk is cheap, right?

the videos have been posted. Watch the videos and judge for yourself.

SlsPTvoLGgg

lcTm9PPdT3I

 
I don't care about either team, but I'm amazed anyone still thinks that game was anything other than poorly-officiated in a way that hurt the Seahawks. I mean, really. If you watched the game there's really no other conclusion you can draw.

Now, I also think it's silly for Seattle fans to think it cost them the game. What it cost was football fans everywhere a more entertaining game. The game would have been much closer. In my opinion, the Steelers have shown they can win very close, important games in crunch time (ask Arizona). Personally, I think the Steelers would have won anyway. We'll never know for sure, but I think Seattle fans just found a different way to deal with a Super Bowl loss. I don't feel like it's one of those things that changed the outcome of the game, but it would have been much closer and anything could have happened.

I think the vast majority of objective fans felt like the game was called in a way that definitely helped Pittsburgh and hurt Seattle. Now that the ref himself said it, I think we can file this under "Seattle had to deal with both a tough Pittsburgh team and bad officiating that affected their ability to respond." Whether it affected the outcome is up for debate (I understand not everyone thinks the Steelers would have won anyway) but it's hard to see the perspective that the ref is wrong NOW but was right THEN. But "fan" is short for "fanatic," I suppose.

 
I don't care about either team, but I'm amazed anyone still thinks that game was anything other than poorly-officiated in a way that hurt the Seahawks. I mean, really. If you watched the game there's really no other conclusion you can draw.Now, I also think it's silly for Seattle fans to think it cost them the game. What it cost was football fans everywhere a more entertaining game. The game would have been much closer. In my opinion, the Steelers have shown they can win very close, important games in crunch time (ask Arizona). Personally, I think the Steelers would have won anyway. We'll never know for sure, but I think Seattle fans just found a different way to deal with a Super Bowl loss. I don't feel like it's one of those things that changed the outcome of the game, but it would have been much closer and anything could have happened.I think the vast majority of objective fans felt like the game was called in a way that definitely helped Pittsburgh and hurt Seattle. Now that the ref himself said it, I think we can file this under "Seattle had to deal with both a tough Pittsburgh team and bad officiating that affected their ability to respond." Whether it affected the outcome is up for debate (I understand not everyone thinks the Steelers would have won anyway) but it's hard to see the perspective that the ref is wrong NOW but was right THEN. But "fan" is short for "fanatic," I suppose.
This is a very fair and reasonable post that pretty much echoes my feelings on it. I may have said from time to time that the refs robbed the Hawks of a win or "cost them the game" but in reality, all they did was make it exceedingly difficult to defeat an already powerful team. The Steelers were a great team that year and it would have been very hard for Seattle to beat them, yet they held their own for most of the game but things fell apart with the officiating and they were in essence being handicapped the entire 60 minutes because of it. I'm not saying that had those calls not gone against the Hawks that it would have been a foregone conclusion that we would have won, but things would have been a helluva lot closer and would have given Seattle a much better chance to win. As somebody who has followed Seattle for over 20 years, they may never be that close to a championship again, so for that opportunity to be tainted in such a fashion was upsetting and infuriating to say the least. Seattle may never win a Super Bowl and if that ends up happening, the loss in Super Bowl XL and the manner in which that loss came about will only continue to eat away at longtime Seahawk fans in a way that will be very hard to get over. Hell, it pains me now to just talk about it knowing that Seattle was so close only to have so many things go against them that day. :shark:
 
I don't care about either team, but I'm amazed anyone still thinks that game was anything other than poorly-officiated in a way that hurt the Seahawks. I mean, really. If you watched the game there's really no other conclusion you can draw.

Now, I also think it's silly for Seattle fans to think it cost them the game. What it cost was football fans everywhere a more entertaining game. The game would have been much closer. In my opinion, the Steelers have shown they can win very close, important games in crunch time (ask Arizona). Personally, I think the Steelers would have won anyway. We'll never know for sure, but I think Seattle fans just found a different way to deal with a Super Bowl loss. I don't feel like it's one of those things that changed the outcome of the game, but it would have been much closer and anything could have happened.

I think the vast majority of objective fans felt like the game was called in a way that definitely helped Pittsburgh and hurt Seattle. Now that the ref himself said it, I think we can file this under "Seattle had to deal with both a tough Pittsburgh team and bad officiating that affected their ability to respond." Whether it affected the outcome is up for debate (I understand not everyone thinks the Steelers would have won anyway) but it's hard to see the perspective that the ref is wrong NOW but was right THEN. But "fan" is short for "fanatic," I suppose.
This is a very fair and reasonable post that pretty much echoes my feelings on it. I may have said from time to time that the refs robbed the Hawks of a win or "cost them the game" but in reality, all they did was make it exceedingly difficult to defeat an already powerful team. The Steelers were a great team that year and it would have been very hard for Seattle to beat them, yet they held their own for most of the game but things fell apart with the officiating and they were in essence being handicapped the entire 60 minutes because of it. I'm not saying that had those calls not gone against the Hawks that it would have been a foregone conclusion that we would have won, but things would have been a helluva lot closer and would have given Seattle a much better chance to win. As somebody who has followed Seattle for over 20 years, they may never be that close to a championship again, so for that opportunity to be tainted in such a fashion was upsetting and infuriating to say the least. Seattle may never win a Super Bowl and if that ends up happening, the loss in Super Bowl XL and the manner in which that loss came about will only continue to eat away at longtime Seahawk fans in a way that will be very hard to get over. Hell, it pains me now to just talk about it knowing that Seattle was so close only to have so many things go against them that day. :mellow:
Steelers were a wildcard 6th seed vs 1st seed Seahawks team.
 
Dude, anytime you bring up irrefutable video evidence of that hold, showing Locklear completely BEHIND Haggans, yet still "blocking" him...No Seahawk fan will ever respond to you. It's easier to say..."Waaa, we got robbed".

;)
that's the way it's been for the last 4.5 years"the refs robbed us!!!!"

"ok, so here's the plays, show me how they robbed you" *posts video*

*crickets*
So the ref who made the call claims he screwed up, but you know he made the right call. Umm ok :mellow: Whatever helps you sleep at night.
So the head of officiating claims the ref only screwed up the low block call, but you disregard his statement?
 
I remember seeing bad calls on both sides. The Jackson push off may have been ticky-tacky, but it was a push off, so I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. The Locklear hold, was a hold as evidenced by the video above.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top