The NFL is screwing the ref issue up big time (1 Viewer)

[jsargos]

I don't understand this position at all. Plane crahes happen, so there isn't a reason for Pilots to constantly study and be evaluated, right? I mean, they are human and humans make mistakes. Same thing goes with Surgeons. People die in surgery, so why bother to continually strive for better technology and quality controls?

Of course there will always be human error, and there will never be 100% quality in any human system. However, that should always be the goal and anything less than striving for that should not be accepted.

Good lord, over-dramatize some more, would you? This was not a plane crash, in refereeing terms. It was a bad day by the refs. It was on a big stage, so it was magnified. Was this worse than any other bad day--say in a Jets/Dolphins game this season (I'm just picking a random game here) that you and I never watched, or some other poorly-officiated game from any other season? No.Because one team lost, now we need to study how to make officiating better? Good grief, how many other teams could have whined this song and dance??

Feel free to keep making my point for me. Sure I used dramatic examples, but the analogy is dead on. The same thing would apply to teachers teaching our kids or janitors cleaning toilets. You either are willing to accept mediocrity or you aren't.

 

[pinequick]

Feel free to keep making my point for me.

Sure I used dramatic examples, but the analogy is dead on. The same thing would apply to teachers teaching our kids or janitors cleaning toilets. You either are willing to accept mediocrity or you aren't.

Hmmmm, I think you're the one making *my* point? Where were you after that Jets/Dolphins game? Show me all of your posts on this board that called for a need to "study the officiating" after the Pit/Indy game. Or the Denver/NE game? Any game?Or was it just *this* game? Sounds a little disingenuous to me. . . maybe some sour grapes? Be honest.

 

[SoFresh&SoClean]

The fact is, on ESPN the poll is just on the site.  People don't go out looking for polls to do, they are presented to them.  Most of the viewers of the poll agree that there was unfair officiating.  These are the same sort of polls where anything that Pittsburgh is involved in, they are the overwhelming majority due to their large fanbase.  I think that alone has something to say.

*sigh* No, no it doesn't. Because a poll is on a webpage, then that means I am obliged to click on it? No. So who would be those most motivated to click on it? Those most pissed off (or most joyously happy) with the officiating. In any case, that = BIAS.

I still disagree. What it is.

 

[pinequick]

I still disagree. What it is.

Don't disagree with me. Disagree with them.

 

[The Jerk]

Immediate means immediate, as in right away, as in no time elapses from the time the contact is made, and the pulling down occurs. If the NFL wanted the rule to be "in the same motion" I'm guessing they would have used the words "in the same motion" instead of "immediate" in the rule.

Immediate, as in 'instant'? What about the second or so it would take the runners knee to hit the ground? By your reading a horsecollar is impossible. Unless it was made on a runner already lying on the turf i suppose.

I find that Pittsburgh fans who claim that this was not a horse collar are lumped in to the same group as Seattle fans who claim that Daryll Jackson hitting the pylon should have counted as a TD. Both groups lose credibility in my eyes, and both groups cannot overcome the bias they have for their team to view these calls objectively.

Your opinon, Chaz. I don't think they are comparable. There is no judgment call on Jackson's catch, unless you're going to argue that his foot touched down in bounds. The pylon -- by rule -- means nothing.By contrast, the horsecollar tackle -- by rule -- includes the "immediate" clause, so the official must determine whether or not he considers it immediate. I hate the subjectivity, but it is there.

In all honesty, do you think that was a horse collar or not. Based on how you've seen this penalty called, do you think it should have been called.Please don't answer "it doesn't matter what I think".

Almost all rules have subjectivity. Look up the definition of holding and tell me that if it was called on every play the referee probably wouldn't be wrong.

The fact that you guys are defending the non-horsecollar call, the phantom holding penalty, etc., tells me that you're not being objective. Of course the referee could have made these calls or non-calls (they are subjective), it still doesn't stop them from being bad calls.

It doesn't matter what I think. (Just kidding)You know what I always say, Chaz. Why say 10 words when a 1000 will do!

I know you probably just want yes or no, but it's not that simple because I'm not certain Porter had the collar. He might have had jersey. I truly cannot tell. We all agree that if he grabbed jersey (not the collar) then it's not a penalty, right?

Assuming Porter grabbed the shoulder pad, then...

I'm afraid you're going to hate this answer nearly as much as "it doesn't matter".

Watching live, when I saw the play, I thought, "ooh, that might be a horsecollar penalty" and probably said it out loud. And I admit that hearing Michaels' comment made me more certain that it should have been a penalty. (Great post by whoever said we (i.e., FBGs) know as much if not more than the media, but it sure is hard to ignore what they say.)

However, after reading up on the rule and finding the passage I've been quoting from, I think the official is correct to not throw the flag if he deems it is not immediate. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can get away from the subjective here.

So (big finish here), make me the ref. And let's say Porter had the collar, otherwise it's obviously not a flag. Do I think it was "immediate" and therefore a penalty? No. I'm saying that I don't find it "immediate" compared to the other horsecollar tackles I've seen, although these occurred when the tackle was technically legal. Whatever. So if I'm the ref, I don't make the call.

So take from that what you will. I see that the call that was made in SB XL CAN be correct based on the phrasing of the rule. Ultimately, if a call CAN be correct, I'm not sure how you can complain about it too much.

 

[The Jerk]

The fact is, on ESPN the poll is just on the site.  People don't go out looking for polls to do, they are presented to them.  Most of the viewers of the poll agree that there was unfair officiating.  These are the same sort of polls where anything that Pittsburgh is involved in, they are the overwhelming majority due to their large fanbase.  I think that alone has something to say.

*sigh* No, no it doesn't. Because a poll is on a webpage, then that means I am obliged to click on it? No. So who would be those most motivated to click on it? Those most pissed off (or most joyously happy) with the officiating. In any case, that = BIAS.

Pinequick,In addition to what you said, the Seattle PI forums were full of links to this poll and that poll. Even if the intention was to show Seahawk fans that others shared their viewpoint, what do you suppose happened when a Seahawk fan clicked on the link and got to any of these polls? I'm sure they all thought "Boy, I'd hate to interfere with the scientific accuracy of these polls. I better not vote..." No, I'm going to guess they clicked and did the poll.

And that's just one part of it. Many other forum discussion pages logically had those links as well, including some on the other side of the issue, which leads to another question: If you thought the officiating was OK, why would you even bother to click on the link? Maybe becuase you're curious. That's perhaps the largest factor biasing the polls. Now, add to the forums the number of people who were e-mailing each other, etc. and you get more and more error in your sample.

 

[jsargos]

Feel free to keep making my point for me.

Sure I used dramatic examples, but the analogy is dead on. The same thing would apply to teachers teaching our kids or janitors cleaning toilets. You either are willing to accept mediocrity or you aren't.

Hmmmm, I think you're the one making *my* point? Where were you after that Jets/Dolphins game? Show me all of your posts on this board that called for a need to "study the officiating" after the Pit/Indy game. Or the Denver/NE game? Any game?Or was it just *this* game? Sounds a little disingenuous to me. . . maybe some sour grapes? Be honest.

Okay, I'm guilty of not starting a dozen NFL officiating sucks threads during the season, which is completely irrelevant. It's hardly a new discussion. Has this game brought the conversation to the forefront, absolutely.I keep trying to move the discussion past the Super Bowl, which I couldn't care less who won. In fact I'm a Redskins and Broncos fan so I was secretly hoping for the first scoreless tie in SB history.

It's really a simple question, can the officiating be improved and is the NFL doing everything they can to improve it? You've said, in effect, that you think the officiating is bad but that we should just live with it. I just can't see that.

 

[pinequick]

Okay, I'm guilty of not starting a dozen NFL officiating sucks threads during the season, which is completely irrelevant. It's hardly a new discussion. Has this game brought the conversation to the forefront, absolutely.

I keep trying to move the discussion past the Super Bowl, which I couldn't care less who won. In fact I'm a Redskins and Broncos fan so I was secretly hoping for the first scoreless tie in SB history.

It's really a simple question, can the officiating be improved and is the NFL doing everything they can to improve it? You've said, in effect, that you think the officiating is bad but that we should just live with it. I just can't see that.

I'm all for improvements, I just don't see this game as especially bad in the broader context (when it comes to games that were badly officiated). It just had more exposure, as far as I'm concerned.Frankly, I don't know that any *major* changes need to be made. Maybe full-time refs? I don't know if some would consider that a major change, but I wouldn't.

(In any case, it would seem that when it came to Super Bowl Sunday, you and I were both grasping for anything to get us motivated to cheer. Had a die-hard Steeler fan at our party, hence I had to become vocal for the Seahawks.)

 

[jsargos]

Okay, I'm guilty of not starting a dozen NFL officiating sucks threads during the season, which is completely irrelevant. It's hardly a new discussion. Has this game brought the conversation to the forefront, absolutely.

I keep trying to move the discussion past the Super Bowl, which I couldn't care less who won. In fact I'm a Redskins and Broncos fan so I was secretly hoping for the first scoreless tie in SB history.

It's really a simple question, can the officiating be improved and is the NFL doing everything they can to improve it? You've said, in effect, that you think the officiating is bad but that we should just live with it. I just can't see that.

I'm all for improvements, I just don't see this game as especially bad in the broader context (when it comes to games that were badly officiated). It just had more exposure, as far as I'm concerned.Frankly, I don't know that any *major* changes need to be made. Maybe full-time refs? I don't know if some would consider that a major change, but I wouldn't.

(In any case, it would seem that when it came to Super Bowl Sunday, you and I were both grasping for anything to get us motivated to cheer. Had a die-hard Steeler fan at our party, hence I had to become vocal for the Seahawks.)

I think full-time refs is by far the biggest thing, and it's a big deal because the NFL just doesn't want to pay for them (or at least hasn't to this point). Thrown in an independent replay official with some amped up technology, and a better system on the goal line and I think things would be on the right track.Anyway, nice discussion. It's good to see that we can talk about these things without it breaking down to calling each other stupid.

 

[The Jerk]

I think full-time refs is by far the biggest thing, and it's a big deal because the NFL just doesn't want to pay for them (or at least hasn't to this point).  Thrown in an independent replay official with some amped up technology, and a better system on the goal line and I think things would be on the right track.

What do you think about having a replay system similar to the NHL? (Remember hockey?) First, I should qualify this by saying I heard this on a talk show, so who knows if it actually exists the way I believe it does? Regardless, the NFL could still set their replay/review system up this way.Supposedly, all game replays occur at the league headquarters in Toronto. So, when there is a question whether the puck made it over the goal line or not, the video is relayed to Toronto where the review is actually done, then the decision is relayed to the on-ice official.

The advantage I see in this system is that there should be greater consistency in the process. The same group of people review all replays throughout the league. Theoretically, they apply the same standards when making decisions on replay.

The potential downside I see is that conspiracy freaks will argue that the NFL is making decisions based on the popularity of the teams involved or the marquee players on those teams. That will never end, however (as we see in the FBG forums). At least this system has the potential to be consistent: the same people make decisions based on the same methodology, etc.

One other thing that would benefit replay is consistently placed cameras at certain locations. Depending on the camerawork and whether it's a standard Sunday game or MNF, there are disparities in the number of angles available to make a decision.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Thank God this board wasn't around when I tipped the Immaculate Reception or when Mike Renfro got both feet in-bounds in the 78 playoffs.

 

[CalBear]

I really don't see how full-time refs are supposed to help anything. Baseball has full-time umps and they didn't start calling the strike zone at all reasonably until confronted with electronic evidence and threatened with losing games.

But you know what? Fans love to complain about calls. That's why baseball still has a home plate ump, when it would be quicker and more effective to have the machines make the calls. It's one of the perks of being a fan; players and coaches aren't allowed to complain about the officials.

So, keep on whining, but don't pretend like there's some massive fundamental flaw that Must Definitely Be Corrected. It's just fans being fans. Get used to it.

 

[The Jerk]

Thank God this board wasn't around when I tipped the Immaculate Reception or when Mike Renfro got both feet in-bounds in the 78 playoffs.

Or When Bennie Barnes got called for PI on Lynn Swann in SB XIII. Then, on the next play the ref helped "block" Charlie Waters for a Franco Harris TD. Talk about conspiracy! It's been going on for 35 years. I guess all the Steelers Lombardi Trophies are tainted. In fact, they've never won even a single game honestly in the franchise's history.Edited to add: To this day, John Madden says that the Immaculate Reception was a bad call. That's 33 years ago, and he STILL doesn't like to talk about it. And people on these forums are complaining because discussions about SB XL are occuring more than FOUR DAYS after it ended!!

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Let me chime in here as an avid Seahawk fan.

I can fully understand that it was not a Jackson catch by the pylon and that anyone can see that there was a slight push off from Jackson or that Locklear did technically hold, but to say this game was reffed fine and dandy is not true at all.

When there is this much of an outcry, it is not just the media stirring it up or uneducated people overreacting, they have good reason to say it was poor officiating and that it may have changed the outcome of the game.

For all those that are saying everything was hunky dorey and that it was not a terribly reffed game are just as bad as those who are crying about how it should have been a Jackson TD. It lies somehwere in the middle and the Steeler fans who are denying all the calls are no better than the Seahawk fans who are crying about every call.

But if Hasselbeck was even quoted as saying to give it a rest and that they didn't do enough as a team to win the game, then the fans need to move on and give it a rest as well.

 

[The Jerk]

Let me chime in here as an avid Seahawk fan.

I can fully understand that it was not a Jackson catch by the pylon and that anyone can see that there was a slight push off from Jackson or that Locklear did technically hold, but to say this game was reffed fine and dandy is not true at all. 

When there is this much of an outcry, it is not just the media stirring it up or uneducated people overreacting, they have good reason to say it was poor officiating and that it may have changed the outcome of the game.

For all those that are saying everything was hunky dorey and that it was not a terribly reffed game are just as bad as those who are crying about how it should have been a Jackson TD.  It lies somehwere in the middle and the Steeler fans who are denying all the calls are no better than the Seahawk fans who are crying about every call.

But if Hasselbeck was even quoted as saying to give it a rest and that they didn't do enough as a team to win the game, then the fans need to move on and give it a rest as well.

FF,I have been one of the more active posters in the area of the officiating. Let me be very clear that I don't think everything was "hunky dorey" (boy that's strange to type) with the officiating. I think there was at least one flat out missed call that went the Steelers way (the Hasselbeck "chop block" -- bad rule or not, it's still a bad call to me). Furthermore, I think there were another half dozen close calls, probably four of which also went the Steelers way. Without question, the impact of these calls (especially because of negating the results of the plays due to flags being called) benefitted the Steelers.

Where I feel compelled to respond, however, is when people proclaim that there were EIGHT (or so) OBVIOUS bad calls against the Seahawks. Usually, this is followed by one or more of the following:

The Seahawks would have won the game except for these OBVIOUS bad calls.

The majority of people all think the officiating was horribly one-sided.

If you defend the officiating, you are biased and/or a Steeler fan.

I disagree with all of these notions. I believe that most of the close calls were just that: close calls. To me, close calls are part of every football game in the NFL. BY THAT STANDARD, I saw little or nothing exceptionally noteworthy about the officiating. What I see is overemphasizing the impact of the calls due to the magnitude of the game. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Non-Steeler fans in this forum and plenty of national media have stated similar thoughts to my own.

Random sportswriter column here (Tony Moss, Sports Network)

It wouldn't have shocked me to see one or more of them go the other way. That's how close they were. However, I don't think it's reasonable at all to say the calls were OBVIOUSLY wrong, and that's why I've brought the context of the actual rules, among other things, into the conversation.

I have no illusion that I'm going to change even one person's mind, but I don't see why I should be quiet for that reason alone. It's my time I'm spending. If others don't wish to read my posts, that's their prerogative. And I don't think I'm necessarily right, but I do think I have just as much right to speak my mind as any other poster on these forums.

Specifically, I hope I have not offended you. I don't know all of the rules. I've just spent a lot of time looking at them, not just now but since I first was a fan as a little boy. And I think there is value in pointing out what is stated in the rules, since that was -- and is -- the actual basis for determining what is a correct call vs. an incorrect call.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Let me chime in here as an avid Seahawk fan.

I can fully understand that it was not a Jackson catch by the pylon and that anyone can see that there was a slight push off from Jackson or that Locklear did technically hold, but to say this game was reffed fine and dandy is not true at all. 

When there is this much of an outcry, it is not just the media stirring it up or uneducated people overreacting, they have good reason to say it was poor officiating and that it may have changed the outcome of the game.

For all those that are saying everything was hunky dorey and that it was not a terribly reffed game are just as bad as those who are crying about how it should have been a Jackson TD.  It lies somehwere in the middle and the Steeler fans who are denying all the calls are no better than the Seahawk fans who are crying about every call.

But if Hasselbeck was even quoted as saying to give it a rest and that they didn't do enough as a team to win the game, then the fans need to move on and give it a rest as well.

FF,I have been one of the more active posters in the area of the officiating. Let me be very clear that I don't think everything was "hunky dorey" (boy that's strange to type) with the officiating. I think there was at least one flat out missed call that went the Steelers way (the Hasselbeck "chop block" -- bad rule or not, it's still a bad call to me). Furthermore, I think there were another half dozen close calls, probably four of which also went the Steelers way. Without question, the impact of these calls (especially because of negating the results of the plays due to flags being called) benefitted the Steelers.

Where I feel compelled to respond, however, is when people proclaim that there were EIGHT (or so) OBVIOUS bad calls against the Seahawks. Usually, this is followed by one or more of the following:

The Seahawks would have won the game except for these OBVIOUS bad calls.

The majority of people all think the officiating was horribly one-sided.

If you defend the officiating, you are biased and/or a Steeler fan.

I disagree with all of these notions. I believe that most of the close calls were just that: close calls. To me, close calls are part of every football game in the NFL. BY THAT STANDARD, I saw little or nothing exceptionally noteworthy about the officiating. What I see is overemphasizing the impact of the calls due to the magnitude of the game. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Non-Steeler fans in this forum and plenty of national media have stated similar thoughts to my own.

Random sportswriter column here (Tony Moss, Sports Network)

It wouldn't have shocked me to see one or more of them go the other way. That's how close they were. However, I don't think it's reasonable at all to say the calls were OBVIOUSLY wrong, and that's why I've brought the context of the actual rules, among other things, into the conversation.

I have no illusion that I'm going to change even one person's mind, but I don't see why I should be quiet for that reason alone. It's my time I'm spending. If others don't wish to read my posts, that's their prerogative. And I don't think I'm necessarily right, but I do think I have just as much right to speak my mind as any other poster on these forums.

Specifically, I hope I have not offended you. I don't know all of the rules. I've just spent a lot of time looking at them, not just now but since I first was a fan as a little boy. And I think there is value in pointing out what is stated in the rules, since that was -- and is -- the actual basis for determining what is a correct call vs. an incorrect call.

Honestly I don't know why you keep defending the officiating. Your statements about the one bad call (Hasselbeck chop block) and the fact that some people in this forum are with you really don't matter. The fact is that a majority of the national media, and a majority of the fans (ESPN poll with 208k votes) believed the officiating was bad. You can't control public opinion or the opinion of the media. The NFL is also not going to admit the officials made the wrong decisions on "judgment calls." Why would they? I've heard that the NFL apologized to the Steelers on the Polamalu INT in the Indy game but that wasn't a judgment call. It was a missed call and there is a big difference. A holding call can be called on every single play and the degree of the infraction usually decides whether a flag is thrown or not. The Locklear holding call (to me the one and only call that really killed the Hawks) was a judgment call and a weak call at best. But the flag was thrown and the Seahawks could have run a six yard slant and kicked a FG to make it 14-13 to stay in the game. But Hasselbeck threw a terrible pass into heavy coverage on 3rd and 18 and then got called for a chop that gave the Steelers great field position to drop that last bomb on the Seahawks. ( Marquan Manuel left the game in the first quarter which really hurt the Seahawks. They played the rest of the game with a third string safety [Pruit] who made the last big mistake of the game during the Randell El to Ward pass. This injury really hurt Seattle although it can also be blamed on the officials since Manuel was hurt by taking a baseball bat to the knee from the side judge!)

The officiating sucked in the Super Bowl and it is getting to the point where that isn't opinion, its fact. I have already stated my position that the Seahawks should have won anyway and the calls were less significant than the Seahawks not managing the clock, Holmgren and his suspect playcalling, and the fact the Steelers took advantage of every situation and executed their plays. True Seahawk fans know this and recognize that the game was lost because they didn’t take the opportunities they had to win it.

Another thing that bothers me is Steelers fans with their comments about Seahawks fans being whiners and blaming us for this discourse. The Seahawks have one of the smallest fan bases in the NFL and most of the discussion is outside of our line of control. All the comments about the green towels and Holmgren’s comments are ridiculous, unnecessary, and unwarranted. If I were Holmgren I would have been pissed too (I think anyone in his spot). I’d be mad about a game that just slipped away, a chance to prove how good this team really is. All the factors, including the decisions he made on the field came to a boiling point and they are understandable under the circumstances. So what do the Seahawk fans get? All the blame for everything that everyone else is saying. The officiating certainly didn’t help the Seahawks and prevented them from gaining momentum at several points of the game. But Championship teams overcome these things and the Seahawks didn’t.

I’d tell Steeler fans to just move on and enjoy the win. I'd drive myself crazy if I were you just defending something that doesn't need to be defended. Although the officiating sucked, the Steelers won and no one is taking the trophy away. Who cares what people say. It certainly does this Seahawks fan no good to complain because my team didn't win and that is the bottom line.

 

[Challenge Everything]

FF, blah blah blah

Now it is the fans job to control the game? Or, should the game dummy down itself for the "average" fan now? How about people watch a game and understand the rules and then make an objective opinion about it all. The refing was fine. The public Joe Schmoo needs to get over it. Besides, if this is the biggest worry that some people have, may I please change lives with you?

 

[SoFresh&SoClean]

FF,  blah blah blah

Now it is the fans job to control the game? Or, should the game dummy down itself for the "average" fan now? How about people watch a game and understand the rules and then make an objective opinion about it all. The refing was fine. The public Joe Schmoo needs to get over it. Besides, if this is the biggest worry that some people have, may I please change lives with you?

Perhaps you need to get over the fact that many people disagree with you.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Let me chime in here as an avid Seahawk fan.

I can fully understand that it was not a Jackson catch by the pylon and that anyone can see that there was a slight push off from Jackson or that Locklear did technically hold, but to say this game was reffed fine and dandy is not true at all.

NO, the game wasn't reffed well. That fact is acknowledged even by most Steelers fans.

But at least YOU can see that there was at least a basis for each call to be made. They were judgement calls and whether or not they were ticky tack is debatable, but those who are saying Jackson didn't push off or Locklear didn't hold at all obviously haven't watched the replays or don't want to acknowledge what they saw. I don't take issue with anyone saying the calls were questionable, and I don't have a problem with anyone saying that the game was influenced by the refs. What I have a problem with is the opinion that they were BAD calls, because according to the rules, they weren't.

However, to expect the NFL to come out and say the refs were incorrect on judgement calls is expecting too much. I'm sure they can understand the outcry from the public because the penalties came on such important plays, but unless the calls are flat out missed calls or mis-interpretations of the rules, the NFL really has no reason to apologize.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

FF,  blah blah blah

Now it is the fans job to control the game? Or, should the game dummy down itself for the "average" fan now? How about people watch a game and understand the rules and then make an objective opinion about it all. The refing was fine. The public Joe Schmoo needs to get over it. Besides, if this is the biggest worry that some people have, may I please change lives with you?

Were you addressing me with this? I don't think so but you quoted me with words I never penned.

 

[jsargos]

I think full-time refs is by far the biggest thing, and it's a big deal because the NFL just doesn't want to pay for them (or at least hasn't to this point). Thrown in an independent replay official with some amped up technology, and a better system on the goal line and I think things would be on the right track.

What do you think about having a replay system similar to the NHL? (Remember hockey?) First, I should qualify this by saying I heard this on a talk show, so who knows if it actually exists the way I believe it does? Regardless, the NFL could still set their replay/review system up this way.Supposedly, all game replays occur at the league headquarters in Toronto. So, when there is a question whether the puck made it over the goal line or not, the video is relayed to Toronto where the review is actually done, then the decision is relayed to the on-ice official.

The advantage I see in this system is that there should be greater consistency in the process. The same group of people review all replays throughout the league. Theoretically, they apply the same standards when making decisions on replay.

The potential downside I see is that conspiracy freaks will argue that the NFL is making decisions based on the popularity of the teams involved or the marquee players on those teams. That will never end, however (as we see in the FBG forums). At least this system has the potential to be consistent: the same people make decisions based on the same methodology, etc.

One other thing that would benefit replay is consistently placed cameras at certain locations. Depending on the camerawork and whether it's a standard Sunday game or MNF, there are disparities in the number of angles available to make a decision.

Interesting idea, although it seems like you could acheive the same thing by having 16 well calibrated replay officials who travel to the stadium. I totally agree there should be consistency in the number of cameras used. I don't think the same positioning can always be used, because it would vary from stadium to stadium. If they are consistent within each stadium, however, I'd think someone could quickly develop software that could be used for spotting based on the angles.

 

[CrossEyed]

The fact is, on ESPN the poll is just on the site. People don't go out looking for polls to do, they are presented to them. Most of the viewers of the poll agree that there was unfair officiating. These are the same sort of polls where anything that Pittsburgh is involved in, they are the overwhelming majority due to their large fanbase. I think that alone has something to say.

Yeah but Steeler fans have mostly been too busy celebrating and going to parades.

 

[jurb26]

Another thing that bothers me is Steelers fans with their comments about Seahawks fans being whiners and blaming us for this discourse. The Seahawks have one of the smallest fan bases in the NFL and most of the discussion is outside of our line of control. All the comments about the green towels and Holmgren’s comments are ridiculous, unnecessary, and unwarranted. If I were Holmgren I would have been pissed too (I think anyone in his spot). I’d be mad about a game that just slipped away, a chance to prove how good this team really is. All the factors, including the decisions he made on the field came to a boiling point and they are understandable under the circumstances. So what do the Seahawk fans get? All the blame for everything that everyone else is saying. The officiating certainly didn’t help the Seahawks and prevented them from gaining momentum at several points of the game. But Championship teams overcome these things and the Seahawks didn’t.

You know what I find most disturbing about the whole thing? It's that people within the Sea organization and fan base, as well as just national media and casual fans are constantly telling us how they think that the officials should be "accountable" for mistakes and they mistakes the perceive happened. Yet, most of these same people are not saying that the Sea players who got CAUGHT committing penalties should be accountable for theirs. You want to talk about bias. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. This has instantly diminished the credibility of a lot of people IMO.

 

[jsargos]

I really don't see how full-time refs are supposed to help anything. Baseball has full-time umps and they didn't start calling the strike zone at all reasonably until confronted with electronic evidence and threatened with losing games.

But you know what? Fans love to complain about calls. That's why baseball still has a home plate ump, when it would be quicker and more effective to have the machines make the calls. It's one of the perks of being a fan; players and coaches aren't allowed to complain about the officials.

So, keep on whining, but don't pretend like there's some massive fundamental flaw that Must Definitely Be Corrected. It's just fans being fans. Get used to it.

The NFL shouldn't do anything because they want or expect the fans to stop questioning calls. Sure that is always going to happen. They should do something because they can improve the quality of their product. Even if the improvements are to go from good to great, rather than bad to good.

 

[AB in DC]

4. Require fans to get rigorous NFL official training before being allowed to watch NFL games.

2. The NFL has continued to add layer after layer of nuance to its rulebook (down by contact, football move, tuck rule, ground cannot cause a fumble) that are occasionally confusing for avid fans. How inconsistent must the rulings appear to a casual fan? It wasn't always this way. It's getting to be like the federal tax code.While it's impossible to "educate" the fans concerning the rules to any large extent, it is possible to simplify many of these recently added rules. The more nuance that is placed in the rulebook, the greater opportunity for claims of selective enforcement by officials.

This is far from the only action the NFL could or should take to improve its officiating, but it would help both the perception and more importantly the reality of its officiating.

Hey, I love rules debates as much as anyone, but enough is enough. NFL needs to seriously clean up and simplify the rulebook wherever possible.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Another thing that bothers me is Steelers fans with their comments about Seahawks fans being whiners and blaming us for this discourse.  The Seahawks have one of the smallest fan bases in the NFL and most of the discussion is outside of our line of control.  All the comments about the green towels and Holmgren’s comments are ridiculous, unnecessary, and unwarranted.  If I were Holmgren I would have been pissed too (I think anyone in his spot).  I’d be mad about a game that just slipped away, a chance to prove how good this team really is.  All the factors, including the decisions he made on the field came to a boiling point and they are understandable under the circumstances.  So what do the Seahawk fans get?  All the blame for everything that everyone else is saying.  The officiating certainly didn’t help the Seahawks and prevented them from gaining momentum at several points of the game.  But Championship teams overcome these things and the Seahawks didn’t. 

You know what I find most disturbing about the whole thing? It's that people within the Sea organization and fan base, as well as just national media and casual fans are constantly telling us how they think that the officials should be "accountable" for mistakes and they mistakes the perceive happened. Yet, most of these same people are not saying that the Sea players who got CAUGHT committing penalties should be accountable for theirs. You want to talk about bias. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. This has instantly diminished the credibility of a lot of people IMO.

Maybe it's because people may believe since the calls were bad, the players weren't accountable. I know they held Stevens accountable for his 4 drops and Holmgren responsible for his questionable playcalling and time management. For Seahawks fans those are two big issues and I'll add Boulware missing his assignment on the Parker run and letting Ward get away on that 3rd and 28. I guess the fact we have talked SO MUCH about the calls that getting these inputs from Seahawks fans in particular have been tough. I have my finger pointed in the direction of several if it makes you feel any better.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

I really don't see how full-time refs are supposed to help anything.  Baseball has full-time umps and they didn't start calling the strike zone at all reasonably until confronted with electronic evidence and threatened with losing games.

But you know what?  Fans love to complain about calls.  That's why baseball still has a home plate ump, when it would be quicker and more effective to have the machines make the calls.  It's one of the perks of being a fan; players and coaches aren't allowed to complain about the officials.

So, keep on whining, but don't pretend like there's some massive fundamental flaw that Must Definitely Be Corrected.  It's just fans being fans.  Get used to it.

The NFL shouldn't do anything because they want or expect the fans to stop questioning calls. Sure that is always going to happen. They should do something because they can improve the quality of their product. Even if the improvements are to go from good to great, rather than bad to good.

I agree with this assessment. I think the NFL has to be concerned with credibility since MLB, the NBA, and the NHL have had to deal with PR nightmares for different incidents over the past few years. Then add in the whole BCS thing and bad officiating in college football to the mix and fans feel slighted. The NFL is such a money machine they think they can do no wrong but I think that is a dangerous position for them to take. This officiating problem is a trend watching games throughout the year, not just a one time event that gets so much talk because it's the Super Bowl.

 

[jurb26]

Another thing that bothers me is Steelers fans with their comments about Seahawks fans being whiners and blaming us for this discourse. The Seahawks have one of the smallest fan bases in the NFL and most of the discussion is outside of our line of control. All the comments about the green towels and Holmgren’s comments are ridiculous, unnecessary, and unwarranted. If I were Holmgren I would have been pissed too (I think anyone in his spot). I’d be mad about a game that just slipped away, a chance to prove how good this team really is. All the factors, including the decisions he made on the field came to a boiling point and they are understandable under the circumstances. So what do the Seahawk fans get? All the blame for everything that everyone else is saying. The officiating certainly didn’t help the Seahawks and prevented them from gaining momentum at several points of the game. But Championship teams overcome these things and the Seahawks didn’t.

You know what I find most disturbing about the whole thing? It's that people within the Sea organization and fan base, as well as just national media and casual fans are constantly telling us how they think that the officials should be "accountable" for mistakes and they mistakes the perceive happened. Yet, most of these same people are not saying that the Sea players who got CAUGHT committing penalties should be accountable for theirs. You want to talk about bias. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. This has instantly diminished the credibility of a lot of people IMO.

Maybe it's because people may believe since the calls were bad, the players weren't accontable. I know they held Stevens accountable for his 4 drops and Holmgren responsible for his questionable playcalling and time management. For Seahawks fans those are two big issues and I'll add Boulware missing his assignment on the Parker run and letting Ward get away on that 3rd and 28. I guess the fact we have talked SO MUCH about the calls that getting these inputs from Seahawks fans in particular have been tough. I have my finger pointed in the direction of several if it makes you feel any better.

This is not the arguement we have been hearing for the last 4 days. It's been along the lines of people saying they are ticky tacky or that they have seen other players get away with worse. So, most of these calls were made right. Watch Inside the NFL if you need better explaination from what this board has already provided. They break down every single call and do it with replays to make things easy. Their verdict was that 1 of 5 calls was bad. I'm sorry, I'm to the point now that if you believe that all 5 or 6 of those calls are "bad," then you are so bias that there is simply no changing you're mind. Watch the replays.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Why do Steeler fans feel the need to defend the officiating?

Answer: because of statements like these:

Just accept, like the other 80% of the population, that this was just a really poorly officiated game. 

I'm not going to say anything more because I am a Steeler fan, as you know, Chaz. I'll just refer you to what pinequick, a self-described Cowboy fan who also stated he dislikes the Steelers, said a few posts before yours.

I did quantify this with my second sentence."Why do Steeler fans feel the need to defend the officiating? I realize that there may be a few other fans defending the referees, but the majority are Steeler fans.

The majority of neutral fans thought the game was poorly officiated. Turn on any sports radio program,outside of Pittsburgh and Seattle, and listen to the average fans that call in.

Also recognize that a lot of average fans that call in are influenced heavily by the commentators. If Madden told most football fans (and I know this from watching games at bars every week) that Joey Porter was a shapeshifter who morphed into a goat for 3-4 plays each game, the average football fan would be screaming "Doppelganger!" at him during road games.If Madden/Michaels had backed the calls on the field as they happened, this "uproar" would not exist. I urge anyone still griping about the officiating to watch this week's Inside The NFL and see what guys like Marino, Collinsworth (even though he hates Pittsburgh) and Cris Carter (even though he picked Seattle) have to say about these plays and then see if you're still so bent out of shape about the officiating.

 

[Sheriff66]

20 Reasons Seattle Can't Blame the Refs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Seattle crybabies and other excuse makers...print this out and give it to them, no need to say anything.

1. The Refs didn't give up the longest run in SB history...Seattle's defense did.

2. The Refs didn't bite on a 43 yd trick play, Randle to Ward for a TD...Seattle's defense did.

3. The Refs didn't allow Ben to scramble around on a 3rd and 28 and complete a long pass to the 2 yd. line...Seattle's defense did.

4. The Refs didn't miss two field goals, that was Seattle.

5. The Refs didn't fail to step out of bounds late in the 1st half to stop the clock in Pitt territory in a crunch time situation...Seattle's offense did.

6. The Refs didn't let the 1st half clock tick down from 48 seconds all the way down to 13 seconds before finally running their next play at Pitt's 36 yd line...Seattle's offense did.

7. And on this play, 3rd down, 53 yds away from a FG, it wasn't the Refs who tried and failed to go deep for a TD rather than a safer 5-7 yd play and timeout setting up a much easier FG attempt....that, again, would be Seattle's offense.

8. The Refs didn't get confused by Pitt's zone defense and throw an INT...that would be Seattle's QB.

9. The Refs didn't let a little physical contact intimidate them from catching 4 very catchable passes...that would be the Seattle TE Jeremy Stevens.

10. With approx. 20 seconds left in the game, knowing they need a TD and FG, in no particular order, and in easy FG range on 4th down, it wasn't the Refs who ignored the FG and elected to throw up a prayer trying for a TD...that AGAIN would be Seattle.

And Seattle if you're Steel salty and steel reaching for excuses...

11. The Refs didn't constantly punt deep into the end zone, repeatedly giving Pitt the ball at the 20 yd line...that of course was Seattle.

12. It wasn't the Refs who received a Christmas gift wrapped easy INT lobbed in perfect position to return deep into Pitt territory...the lucky beneficiary of that break would be Seattle.

13. It wasn't the Refs who got a break when a Steeler DB dropped an easy int early in the game...that too would be a break for Seattle.

14. It wasn't the Refs who caught a break when a Steeler WR dropped a very catchable TD pass...that break again would go to Seattle.

15. It wasn't the scapegoat Refs that received a break when a WR caught the ball, turned, stepped, was hit hard enough to cause a fumble, and then ruled INCOMPLETE...that would be of course, another chance for Seattle.

(this was an interesting call considering that after Troy's famous overruled Int, the NFL stated that it WAS a catch. If so, than this definitely WAS a catch)

16. The Refs weren’t the ones who caught a break when at the conclusion of a 2nd qtr play, as a Pitt DE was walking away, the Seattle Center blindsided the defenseless player, leveling him to the ground. This mysteriously unseen crime was again another break for Seattle.

17. It wasn't the Refs who got a break when Pitt QB Big Ben was blocked in the back as he pursued the DB who he'd tossed an int to...that again would go to Seattle.

18. It wasn't the Refs who stopped Seattle RB Alexander in a few key situations. That would be the Pittsburgh Steelers.

19. It wasn't the Refs who converted many of their 3rd downs yet stopped their opponent on 3rd down often...that would be the Pittsburgh Steelers.

20. And the very bottom line is this...On plays when there wasn't any penalties...One team made plays and one team didn't. The end result was the final score. Seattle was outcoached and outplayed.

Get over it Seattle, lose with a little dignity.

Congratulations to the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers !!!

 

[DoctorDetroit]

20 Reasons Seattle Can't Blame the Refs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Seattle crybabies and other excuse makers...print this out and give it to them, no need to say anything.

1. The Refs didn't give up the longest run in SB history...Seattle's defense did.

2. The Refs didn't bite on a 43 yd trick play, Randle to Ward for a TD...Seattle's defense did.

3. The Refs didn't allow Ben to scramble around on a 3rd and 28 and complete a long pass to the 2 yd. line...Seattle's defense did.

4. The Refs didn't miss two field goals, that was Seattle.

5. The Refs didn't fail to step out of bounds late in the 1st half to stop the clock in Pitt territory in a crunch time situation...Seattle's offense did.

6. The Refs didn't let the 1st half clock tick down from 48 seconds all the way down to 13 seconds before finally running their next play at Pitt's 36 yd line...Seattle's offense did.

7. And on this play, 3rd down, 53 yds away from a FG, it wasn't the Refs who tried and failed to go deep for a TD rather than a safer 5-7 yd play and timeout setting up a much easier FG attempt....that, again, would be Seattle's offense.

8. The Refs didn't get confused by Pitt's zone defense and throw an INT...that would be Seattle's QB.

9. The Refs didn't let a little physical contact intimidate them from catching 4 very catchable passes...that would be the Seattle TE Jeremy Stevens.

10. With approx. 20 seconds left in the game, knowing they need a TD and FG, in no particular order, and in easy FG range on 4th down, it wasn't the Refs who ignored the FG and elected to throw up a prayer trying for a TD...that AGAIN would be Seattle.

And Seattle if you're Steel salty and steel reaching for excuses...

11. The Refs didn't constantly punt deep into the end zone, repeatedly giving Pitt the ball at the 20 yd line...that of course was Seattle.

12. It wasn't the Refs who received a Christmas gift wrapped easy INT lobbed in perfect position to return deep into Pitt territory...the lucky beneficiary of that break would be Seattle.

13. It wasn't the Refs who got a break when a Steeler DB dropped an easy int early in the game...that too would be a break for Seattle.

14. It wasn't the Refs who caught a break when a Steeler WR dropped a very catchable TD pass...that break again would go to Seattle.

15. It wasn't the scapegoat Refs that received a break when a WR caught the ball, turned, stepped, was hit hard enough to cause a fumble, and then ruled INCOMPLETE...that would be of course, another chance for Seattle.

(this was an interesting call considering that after Troy's famous overruled Int, the NFL stated that it WAS a catch. If so, than this definitely WAS a catch)

16. The Refs weren’t the ones who caught a break when at the conclusion of a 2nd qtr play, as a Pitt DE was walking away, the Seattle Center blindsided the defenseless player, leveling him to the ground. This mysteriously unseen crime was again another break for Seattle.

17. It wasn't the Refs who got a break when Pitt QB Big Ben was blocked in the back as he pursued the DB who he'd tossed an int to...that again would go to Seattle.

18. It wasn't the Refs who stopped Seattle RB Alexander in a few key situations. That would be the Pittsburgh Steelers.

19. It wasn't the Refs who converted many of their 3rd downs yet stopped their opponent on 3rd down often...that would be the Pittsburgh Steelers.

20. And the very bottom line is this...On plays when there wasn't any penalties...One team made plays and one team didn't. The end result was the final score. Seattle was outcoached and outplayed.

Get over it Seattle, lose with a little dignity.

Congratulations to the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers !!!

One reason Pittsburgh Steelers fans are hated more and more by everyone else as every day passes: YOU. Try winning with a little dignity. You absolutely pollute every single thread on this forum and are a poor example of a fan of any team in any city. So we will see yet another thread locked because of people like you when a meaningful and respectful dialogue was taking place. Well done.

 

[jetpack]

What's not surprising to me at all is that all the Seahawk and Steeler stories are now page 3 material (at best) to be replaced with.... you guessed it... Manning and Vick.

 

[SoFresh&SoClean]

The fact is, on ESPN the poll is just on the site.  People don't go out looking for polls to do, they are presented to them.  Most of the viewers of the poll agree that there was unfair officiating.  These are the same sort of polls where anything that Pittsburgh is involved in, they are the overwhelming majority due to their large fanbase.  I think that alone has something to say.

Yeah but Steeler fans have mostly been too busy celebrating and going to parades.

You surely have the time to argue about the superbowl.Edit: On the Internet.

 

[The Jerk]

Honestly I don't know why you keep defending the officiating.  Your statements about the one bad call (Hasselbeck chop block) and the fact that some people in this forum are with you really don't matter.  The fact is that a majority of the national media, and a majority of the fans (ESPN poll with 208k votes) believed the officiating was bad.  You can't control public opinion or the opinion of the media. 

DD,I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. If you feel the officiating was bad, or even terrible, that's your opinion. But when you state the "majority" of the media and fans believes that, I can disagree.

I'll let pinequick's earlier posts speak to the validity of Internet polls. (Note he is a Cowboy fan who dislikes the Steelers.)

As to the media, I've made quick visits to one newspaper from each NFL city. Nearly one quarter of the sites required registration or were not archiving articles, so I ignored them. I also stayed out of Seattle and Pittsburgh. Out of the remaining 20 or so cities, I saw only four that specifically questioned the officiating. Those are New York, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City. Even in those papers, it was not a unanimous opinion.

So I don't think the majority of the media believes the officiating was bad. What I did see was:

The same articles from Chicago and New York being reprinted in a few of the other papers.

Many articles talking about how Holmgren and/or the Seahawks believe the officiating was bad.

An article talking about the media hyping the officiating as bad (Detroit)

Stories reporting that the NFL said the officiating was proper.

None of those advance your opinion that the majority of the media agrees the officiating was bad. Even on ESPN, you will see differing opinions. So what I see is ESPN and large cities being outspoken and promoting controversy by claiming the officiating was terrible. What a shock! However, when you look at the media as a whole, it's simply not a majority.

Edit to add: In many cases, the coverage looks like this. A couple of excerpts:

Even his critics around the NFL admit that Titans Coach Jeff Fisher knows the rulebook as well as any of his peers.

Fisher, who is co-chairman of the NFL Competition Committee, conceded yesterday that the league had a tough weekend officiating-wise on Jan. 14-15 in the Divisional Playoffs. But he said he thinks much of the debate over officiating in Super Bowl XL was a result of the extensive media coverage of the game.

Fisher on some of the controversial calls in Super Bowl XL:

• Offensive pass interference against Seattle wide receiver Darrell Jackson that washed away a 16-yard touchdown catch: "Offensive pass interference is called when a receiver extends the arm and initiates contact resulting in separation between he and the defender. In my opinion that was the correct call. Now the difficulty with the call is you certainly can go in and look at other instances where there is separation where it's not called. Well, oftentimes it's not seen. But as the interpretation of the rule is concerned, that is offensive pass interference."

• Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown plunge that was upheld by replay review: "The issue is not officiating, the issue is replay. The call went to review and because there was not indisputable evidence under the hood, the ruling on the field stood. Most times in a challenge situation that's going to be the case. It's not going to be reversed because there is not overwhelming, indisputable evidence.

"In the official's opinion the ball crossed the plane. We can't say based on the replays we got on the network feed that it didn't. Maybe it didn't, but you can't say that. It wasn't a situation where the ball ended up a yard short of the goal line and it was a disastrous type call. That was a very close call."

• Holding call against Seattle OT Sean Locklear that washed away an 18-yard pass: "By definition it's a hold. There is contact, there was a grab, there was restriction."

 

[CalBear]

The NFL shouldn't do anything because they want or expect the fans to stop questioning calls. Sure that is always going to happen. They should do something because they can improve the quality of their product. Even if the improvements are to go from good to great, rather than bad to good.

I haven't seen a single concrete proposal for "improving officiating," just lots of whining about the calls.

 

[jonessed]

The NFL shouldn't do anything because they want or expect the fans to stop questioning calls.  Sure that is always going to happen.  They should do something because they can improve the quality of their product.  Even if the improvements are to go from good to great, rather than bad to good.

I haven't seen a single concrete proposal for "improving officiating," just lots of whining about the calls.

Full-time refs would be a start. You are either or just plain obstinate.

 

[Clayton Gray]

But to bury your head in the sand and say that the game was called great is just wrong.

Not a fan of either team and I know the game was called greatly. Disagree if you want but the more people complain the more they are the fool.

So you think A, and anyone that maintains B is a fool. Solid argument.

 

[CrossEyed]

The fact is, on ESPN the poll is just on the site. People don't go out looking for polls to do, they are presented to them. Most of the viewers of the poll agree that there was unfair officiating. These are the same sort of polls where anything that Pittsburgh is involved in, they are the overwhelming majority due to their large fanbase. I think that alone has something to say.

Yeah but Steeler fans have mostly been too busy celebrating and going to parades.

You surely have the time to argue about the superbowl.Edit: On the Internet.

My name is CrossEyed and I'm addicted to FBGs.

 

[Clayton Gray]

Immediate means immediate, as in right away, as in no time elapses from the time the contact is made, and the pulling down occurs. If the NFL wanted the rule to be "in the same motion" I'm guessing they would have used the words "in the same motion" instead of "immediate" in the rule.

Immediate, as in 'instant'? What about the second or so it would take the runners knee to hit the ground? By your reading a horsecollar is impossible. Unless it was made on a runner already lying on the turf i suppose.

I find that Pittsburgh fans who claim that this was not a horse collar are lumped in to the same group as Seattle fans who claim that Daryll Jackson hitting the pylon should have counted as a TD. Both groups lose credibility in my eyes, and both groups cannot overcome the bias they have for their team to view these calls objectively.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Honestly I don't know why you keep defending the officiating.  Your statements about the one bad call (Hasselbeck chop block) and the fact that some people in this forum are with you really don't matter.  The fact is that a majority of the national media, and a majority of the fans (ESPN poll with 208k votes) believed the officiating was bad.  You can't control public opinion or the opinion of the media. 

DD,I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. If you feel the officiating was bad, or even terrible, that's your opinion. But when you state the "majority" of the media and fans believes that, I can disagree.

I'll let pinequick's earlier posts speak to the validity of Internet polls. (Note he is a Cowboy fan who dislikes the Steelers.)

As to the media, I've made quick visits to one newspaper from each NFL city. Nearly one quarter of the sites required registration or were not archiving articles, so I ignored them. I also stayed out of Seattle and Pittsburgh. Out of the remaining 20 or so cities, I saw only four that specifically questioned the officiating. Those are New York, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City. Even in those papers, it was not a unanimous opinion.

So I don't think the majority of the media believes the officiating was bad. What I did see was:

The same articles from Chicago and New York being reprinted in a few of the other papers.

Many articles talking about how Holmgren and/or the Seahawks believe the officiating was bad.

An article talking about the media hyping the officiating as bad (Detroit)

Stories reporting that the NFL said the officiating was proper.

None of those advance your opinion that the majority of the media agrees the officiating was bad. Even on ESPN, you will see differing opinions. So what I see is ESPN and large cities being outspoken and promoting controversy by claiming the officiating was terrible. What a shock! However, when you look at the media as a whole, it's simply not a majority.

Edit to add: In many cases, the coverage looks like this. A couple of excerpts:

Even his critics around the NFL admit that Titans Coach Jeff Fisher knows the rulebook as well as any of his peers.

Fisher, who is co-chairman of the NFL Competition Committee, conceded yesterday that the league had a tough weekend officiating-wise on Jan. 14-15 in the Divisional Playoffs. But he said he thinks much of the debate over officiating in Super Bowl XL was a result of the extensive media coverage of the game.

Fisher on some of the controversial calls in Super Bowl XL:

• Offensive pass interference against Seattle wide receiver Darrell Jackson that washed away a 16-yard touchdown catch: "Offensive pass interference is called when a receiver extends the arm and initiates contact resulting in separation between he and the defender. In my opinion that was the correct call. Now the difficulty with the call is you certainly can go in and look at other instances where there is separation where it's not called. Well, oftentimes it's not seen. But as the interpretation of the rule is concerned, that is offensive pass interference."

• Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown plunge that was upheld by replay review: "The issue is not officiating, the issue is replay. The call went to review and because there was not indisputable evidence under the hood, the ruling on the field stood. Most times in a challenge situation that's going to be the case. It's not going to be reversed because there is not overwhelming, indisputable evidence.

"In the official's opinion the ball crossed the plane. We can't say based on the replays we got on the network feed that it didn't. Maybe it didn't, but you can't say that. It wasn't a situation where the ball ended up a yard short of the goal line and it was a disastrous type call. That was a very close call."

• Holding call against Seattle OT Sean Locklear that washed away an 18-yard pass: "By definition it's a hold. There is contact, there was a grab, there was restriction."

So far, I've heard Sirius NFL Radio, Greg Aiello, the pros on Inside the NFL, and now Jeff Fisher agree with the referees. I've heard Skip Bayless, Michael Smith, and 66% of the yokels clicking on the ESPN.com poll disagreeing.I'll cast my lot with the former. Each day that goes on, it becomes more and more obvious that all this hoopla is unwarranted, which is what I have been contending since Monday morning.

 

[The Jerk]

Immediate means immediate, as in right away, as in no time elapses from the time the contact is made, and the pulling down occurs. If the NFL wanted the rule to be "in the same motion" I'm guessing they would have used the words "in the same motion" instead of "immediate" in the rule.

Immediate, as in 'instant'? What about the second or so it would take the runners knee to hit the ground? By your reading a horsecollar is impossible. Unless it was made on a runner already lying on the turf i suppose.

I find that Pittsburgh fans who claim that this was not a horse collar are lumped in to the same group as Seattle fans who claim that Daryll Jackson hitting the pylon should have counted as a TD. Both groups lose credibility in my eyes, and both groups cannot overcome the bias they have for their team to view these calls objectively.

Clayton,Do you really find those calls comparable?

Jackson's catch involves enforcing a black-and-white rule based on where his second foot lands, either in or out of bounds. Porter's horsecollar is defined by a rule that states the ball carrier must be "immediately" pulled downward. To me, there's an element of subjectivity. If the ref doesn't feel it's immediate, it's not a foul. In addition, Porter may have had only jersey, not shoulder pad.

 

[Sheriff66]

20 Reasons Seattle Can't Blame the Refs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Seattle crybabies and other excuse makers...print this out and give it to them, no need to say anything.

1. The Refs didn't give up the longest run in SB history...Seattle's defense did.

2. The Refs didn't bite on a 43 yd trick play, Randle to Ward for a TD...Seattle's defense did.

3. The Refs didn't allow Ben to scramble around on a 3rd and 28 and complete a long pass to the 2 yd. line...Seattle's defense did.

4. The Refs didn't miss two field goals, that was Seattle.

5. The Refs didn't fail to step out of bounds late in the 1st half to stop the clock in Pitt territory in a crunch time situation...Seattle's offense did.

6. The Refs didn't let the 1st half clock tick down from 48 seconds all the way down to 13 seconds before finally running their next play at Pitt's 36 yd line...Seattle's offense did.

7. And on this play, 3rd down, 53 yds away from a FG, it wasn't the Refs who tried and failed to go deep for a TD rather than a safer 5-7 yd play and timeout setting up a much easier FG attempt....that, again, would be Seattle's offense.

8. The Refs didn't get confused by Pitt's zone defense and throw an INT...that would be Seattle's QB.

9. The Refs didn't let a little physical contact intimidate them from catching 4 very catchable passes...that would be the Seattle TE Jeremy Stevens.

10. With approx. 20 seconds left in the game, knowing they need a TD and FG, in no particular order, and in easy FG range on 4th down, it wasn't the Refs who ignored the FG and elected to throw up a prayer trying for a TD...that AGAIN would be Seattle.

And Seattle if you're Steel salty and steel reaching for excuses...

11. The Refs didn't constantly punt deep into the end zone, repeatedly giving Pitt the ball at the 20 yd line...that of course was Seattle.

12. It wasn't the Refs who received a Christmas gift wrapped easy INT lobbed in perfect position to return deep into Pitt territory...the lucky beneficiary of that break would be Seattle.

13. It wasn't the Refs who got a break when a Steeler DB dropped an easy int early in the game...that too would be a break for Seattle.

14. It wasn't the Refs who caught a break when a Steeler WR dropped a very catchable TD pass...that break again would go to Seattle.

15. It wasn't the scapegoat Refs that received a break when a WR caught the ball, turned, stepped, was hit hard enough to cause a fumble, and then ruled INCOMPLETE...that would be of course, another chance for Seattle.

(this was an interesting call considering that after Troy's famous overruled Int, the NFL stated that it WAS a catch. If so, than this definitely WAS a catch)

16. The Refs weren’t the ones who caught a break when at the conclusion of a 2nd qtr play, as a Pitt DE was walking away, the Seattle Center blindsided the defenseless player, leveling him to the ground. This mysteriously unseen crime was again another break for Seattle.

17. It wasn't the Refs who got a break when Pitt QB Big Ben was blocked in the back as he pursued the DB who he'd tossed an int to...that again would go to Seattle.

18. It wasn't the Refs who stopped Seattle RB Alexander in a few key situations. That would be the Pittsburgh Steelers.

19. It wasn't the Refs who converted many of their 3rd downs yet stopped their opponent on 3rd down often...that would be the Pittsburgh Steelers.

20. And the very bottom line is this...On plays when there wasn't any penalties...One team made plays and one team didn't. The end result was the final score. Seattle was outcoached and outplayed.

Get over it Seattle, lose with a little dignity.

Congratulations to the World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers !!!

       

One reason Pittsburgh Steelers fans are hated more and more by everyone else as every day passes: YOU. Try winning with a little dignity. You absolutely pollute every single thread on this forum and are a poor example of a fan of any team in any city. So we will see yet another thread locked because of people like you when a meaningful and respectful dialogue was taking place. Well done.

Try LOSING with a little dignity, the only thing some people will accept is all Steelers fan coming out and saying "Ya, we were outplayed in every way, we should have lost, I can't believe the refs handed us the game, we should not have been in it, sorry Seattle fans, here's the Lombardi you soooooo deserve" . Can we just have a re-do of the playoffs and put Carsons knee back together ??? I don't agree that they were the wrong calls, the refs were calling it close, and clearly the Jackson pushoff and Locklear arm hook were penalties, and both occured RIGHT IN FRONT OF A REF. Sorry, Steelers had the best playoff run in NFL history, overcame adversity and won the World Championship, I'm not going to apologize for defending it....

 

[CalBear]

The NFL shouldn't do anything because they want or expect the fans to stop questioning calls. Sure that is always going to happen. They should do something because they can improve the quality of their product. Even if the improvements are to go from good to great, rather than bad to good.

I haven't seen a single concrete proposal for "improving officiating," just lots of whining about the calls.

Full-time refs would be a start. You are either or just plain obstinate.

Exactly how would the refs being full-time have affected, for example, the Jackson PI call in the end zone that so many people are focusing on?

 

[jonessed]

The NFL shouldn't do anything because they want or expect the fans to stop questioning calls.  Sure that is always going to happen.  They should do something because they can improve the quality of their product.  Even if the improvements are to go from good to great, rather than bad to good.

I haven't seen a single concrete proposal for "improving officiating," just lots of whining about the calls.

Full-time refs would be a start. You are either or just plain obstinate.

Exactly how would the refs being full-time have affected, for example, the Jackson PI call in the end zone that so many people are focusing on?

Beats me, but that's irrelevant. You are talking about one call on one day. It seems probable that the overall consistency of calls would go up and the likelihood of a rule misinterpretation would go down if the refs could spend more time examining film and less time working their day job. In a league that makes money hand over fist like the NFL does it is laughable they deem part-time refs a reasonable cost saving measure.

 

[The Jerk]

Try LOSING with a little dignity, the only thing some people will accept is all Steelers fan coming out and saying "Ya, we were outplayed in every way, we should have lost, I can't believe the refs handed us the game, we should not have been in it, sorry Seattle fans, here's the Lombardi you soooooo deserve"  . Can we just have a re-do of the playoffs and put Carsons knee back together ??? I don't agree that they were the wrong calls, the refs were calling it close, and clearly the Jackson pushoff and Locklear arm hook were penalties, and both occured RIGHT IN FRONT OF A REF. Sorry, Steelers had the best playoff run in NFL history, overcame adversity and won the World Championship, I'm not going to apologize for defending it....  

All I've ever said is congratulations to the Steelers, they're the champs, we're not, and you guys earned it. That being said, I don't feel the game was reffed fairly, and I would have liked to see a level playing field. Is that opinion not classy?

You've been nothing but classy, in my opinion. I think your above statement is very generous toward the Steelers and their fans. Honestly, I can only hope to be as generous if the situation is ever reversed.

 

[CalBear]

Beats me, but that's irrelevant. You are talking about one call on one day. It seems probable that the overall consistency of calls would go up and the likelihood of a rule misinterpretation would go down if the refs could spend more time examining film and less time working their day job. In a league that makes money hand over fist like the NFL does it is laughable they deem part-time refs a reasonable cost saving measure.

It seems likely that it's a waste of time to me. The reason NFL refs aren't full-time is that they ref one game a week, and watching film won't help you make those tough calls any better. Look at blocking/charging in basketball, or tag-outs in baseball; despite having full-time officials, they get those calls wrong all the time. Why? Because they're difficult calls to make. They're also judgement calls, and different officials judge them differently. Pass interference calls are similar to the two above, as is holding, illegal contact, illegal block in the back on kick returns. I guarantee that if the NFL makes officials full-time, people will still complain just as much about calls or non-calls on all of those penalties.

 

[Sheriff66]

Try LOSING with a little dignity, the only thing some people will accept is all Steelers fan coming out and saying "Ya, we were outplayed in every way, we should have lost, I can't believe the refs handed us the game, we should not have been in it, sorry Seattle fans, here's the Lombardi you soooooo deserve"  . Can we just have a re-do of the playoffs and put Carsons knee back together ??? I don't agree that they were the wrong calls, the refs were calling it close, and clearly the Jackson pushoff and Locklear arm hook were penalties, and both occured RIGHT IN FRONT OF A REF. Sorry, Steelers had the best playoff run in NFL history, overcame adversity and won the World Championship, I'm not going to apologize for defending it....  

All I've ever said is congratulations to the Steelers, they're the champs, we're not, and you guys earned it. That being said, I don't feel the game was reffed fairly, and I would have liked to see a level playing field. Is that opinion not classy?

Proninja, this isn't really directed at you, mostly others in this thread and your coach. The only call I have a real problem with in the game was the Hasselbeck PF, should not have been called, other then that, I have no problem with any of the other calls....for or against the Steelers.

 

[Sheriff66]

Try LOSING with a little dignity, the only thing some people will accept is all Steelers fan coming out and saying "Ya, we were outplayed in every way, we should have lost, I can't believe the refs handed us the game, we should not have been in it, sorry Seattle fans, here's the Lombardi you soooooo deserve"  . Can we just have a re-do of the playoffs and put Carsons knee back together ??? I don't agree that they were the wrong calls, the refs were calling it close, and clearly the Jackson pushoff and Locklear arm hook were penalties, and both occured RIGHT IN FRONT OF A REF. Sorry, Steelers had the best playoff run in NFL history, overcame adversity and won the World Championship, I'm not going to apologize for defending it....  

All I've ever said is congratulations to the Steelers, they're the champs, we're not, and you guys earned it. That being said, I don't feel the game was reffed fairly, and I would have liked to see a level playing field. Is that opinion not classy?

Proninja, this isn't really directed at you, mostly others in this thread and your coach. The only call I have a real problem with in the game was the Hasselbeck PF, should not have been called, other then that, I have no problem with any of the other calls....for or against the Steelers.

I've said I don't think the game was called fairly, and I agree with Holmgren on that. It is possible to carry the opinion that the refs sucked with some dignity.

Sure, and I think you have, but others around here want the Steelers fans to apologize and say the game was reffed terribly, and I just don't agree with it. Were the refs calling the game tight??? Absolutely. Did I think they made the wrong calls ??? Nope, not they way they were calling it. When will people understand that if you push off or hook under someones arm RIGHT IN FRONT OF A REF, it will get called most of the time(unless you're M. Irvin ) ???

 

[The Jerk]

Honestly I don't know why you keep defending the officiating.  Your statements about the one bad call (Hasselbeck chop block) and the fact that some people in this forum are with you really don't matter.  The fact is that a majority of the national media, and a majority of the fans (ESPN poll with 208k votes) believed the officiating was bad.  You can't control public opinion or the opinion of the media. 

DD,I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. If you feel the officiating was bad, or even terrible, that's your opinion. But when you state the "majority" of the media and fans believes that, I can disagree.

I'll let pinequick's earlier posts speak to the validity of Internet polls. (Note he is a Cowboy fan who dislikes the Steelers.)

As to the media, I've made quick visits to one newspaper from each NFL city. Nearly one quarter of the sites required registration or were not archiving articles, so I ignored them. I also stayed out of Seattle and Pittsburgh. Out of the remaining 20 or so cities, I saw only four that specifically questioned the officiating. Those are New York, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City. Even in those papers, it was not a unanimous opinion.

So I don't think the majority of the media believes the officiating was bad. What I did see was:

The same articles from Chicago and New York being reprinted in a few of the other papers.

Many articles talking about how Holmgren and/or the Seahawks believe the officiating was bad.

An article talking about the media hyping the officiating as bad (Detroit)

Stories reporting that the NFL said the officiating was proper.

None of those advance your opinion that the majority of the media agrees the officiating was bad. Even on ESPN, you will see differing opinions. So what I see is ESPN and large cities being outspoken and promoting controversy by claiming the officiating was terrible. What a shock! However, when you look at the media as a whole, it's simply not a majority.

Edit to add: In many cases, the coverage looks like this. A couple of excerpts:

Even his critics around the NFL admit that Titans Coach Jeff Fisher knows the rulebook as well as any of his peers.

Fisher, who is co-chairman of the NFL Competition Committee, conceded yesterday that the league had a tough weekend officiating-wise on Jan. 14-15 in the Divisional Playoffs. But he said he thinks much of the debate over officiating in Super Bowl XL was a result of the extensive media coverage of the game.

Fisher on some of the controversial calls in Super Bowl XL:

• Offensive pass interference against Seattle wide receiver Darrell Jackson that washed away a 16-yard touchdown catch: "Offensive pass interference is called when a receiver extends the arm and initiates contact resulting in separation between he and the defender. In my opinion that was the correct call. Now the difficulty with the call is you certainly can go in and look at other instances where there is separation where it's not called. Well, oftentimes it's not seen. But as the interpretation of the rule is concerned, that is offensive pass interference."

• Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown plunge that was upheld by replay review: "The issue is not officiating, the issue is replay. The call went to review and because there was not indisputable evidence under the hood, the ruling on the field stood. Most times in a challenge situation that's going to be the case. It's not going to be reversed because there is not overwhelming, indisputable evidence.

"In the official's opinion the ball crossed the plane. We can't say based on the replays we got on the network feed that it didn't. Maybe it didn't, but you can't say that. It wasn't a situation where the ball ended up a yard short of the goal line and it was a disastrous type call. That was a very close call."

• Holding call against Seattle OT Sean Locklear that washed away an 18-yard pass: "By definition it's a hold. There is contact, there was a grab, there was restriction."

So far, I've heard Sirius NFL Radio, Greg Aiello, the pros on Inside the NFL, and now Jeff Fisher agree with the referees. I've heard Skip Bayless, Michael Smith, and 66% of the yokels clicking on the ESPN.com poll disagreeing.I'll cast my lot with the former. Each day that goes on, it becomes more and more obvious that all this hoopla is unwarranted, which is what I have been contending since Monday morning.

More evidence for the accuracy of polls:How Many TDs for Joe Delicious Jurevicius, How Many Delicious Super Bowl TDs?

2 [ 12 ] [28.57%]

3 [ 2 ] [4.76%]

4 [ 0 ] [0.00%]

5 [ 1 ] [2.38%]

6+ [ 27 ] [64.29%]

Obviously, this poll was intended as a joke. Yet seeing nearly 2/3 of the respondents pick the most amusing answer is interesting.

Surely, no ANONYMOUS voter would choose an answer for any but the most objective of reasons, especially on the Internet, right?

No doubt many people in the ESPN poll chose the "officiating was terrible and decided the game" option because they felt that way. But others chose for another reason, and not just because they hate the Steelers. They could be:

frustrated by specific calls that went against their team earlier in the season

trying to help make a point that the officiating needs to improve

picking the most controversial answer because having controversy is more interesting and entertaining than not having controversy

simply having fun (along the lines of Joe Delicious Jurevicius)

We don't know who these people are, they have no accountability for their vote, no attempt is made to get a representative sample, and there are many possible reasons for their vote being cast as it was. Other than that, it's perfect.

 

[jonessed]

Beats me, but that's irrelevant.  You are talking about one call on one day.  It seems probable that the overall consistency of calls would go up and the likelihood of a rule misinterpretation would go down if the refs could spend more time examining film and less time working their day job.  In a league that makes money hand over fist like the NFL does it is laughable they deem part-time refs a reasonable cost saving measure.

It seems likely that it's a waste of time to me. The reason NFL refs aren't full-time is that they ref one game a week, and watching film won't help you make those tough calls any better. Look at blocking/charging in basketball, or tag-outs in baseball; despite having full-time officials, they get those calls wrong all the time. Why? Because they're difficult calls to make. They're also judgement calls, and different officials judge them differently. Pass interference calls are similar to the two above, as is holding, illegal contact, illegal block in the back on kick returns. I guarantee that if the NFL makes officials full-time, people will still complain just as much about calls or non-calls on all of those penalties.

I don't see how you can guarantee that watching film and discussing rule changes with couterparts would not have changed the outcome, of say, the Polamalu interception . That was clearly a rule interpretation gaff and it could have decided who won the Super BowlThese guys don't even have peer reviews of their games. As a working professional that's nuts. If I could gather all of my nationwide peers in one room to go over my projects I would be 100% better at my job.

I can't even imagine the stress of working all week, flying out on the weekend, reffing a game, then catching a late flight back home to work again on Monday. It's not like these games aren't stressful. No time with the familly, very little time to review your work. I just can't see this as a non-factor come gametime.