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

[Liquid Tension]

Most of the people are complaining about stuff they don't know about, especially the friggin' sports media.

All of the rules were followed by the book and this fact seems to be lost on those complaining about the calls.  The NFL came out and stated this but some people can't get it through their thick skulls, they would rather whine and cry about it.

If people would quit whining and think with their head not with their heart, we'll be to get over thjis sooner than later.

I was rooting for Pittsburgh because I wanted to see Bettis get his ring. the above post is someone who is sticking their head in the sand. The pass interference call could (but usually isn't) have been called PI. However, if the letter of the law was followed the Pitt defensemen could have easily been called for illegal contact before the so called push off because the Pitt guy put his hand on Jackson to control him. My take was that neither should have been called. The same for the holding call. Yeah, you could argue that in some circles, that is holding, but it hadn't been called all game and when you take into account the Pitt rusher was offsides, bad call. There was another Phantom holding on an earlier Jackson 18 yard completion that hurt a lot. Then again on the kick return there was another phantom hold 35 yard difference) Say what you want but it looked to me that the refs were looking to call Seattle whenever they could. Even the Hasselback fumble that was overturned and the illegal hit that was picked up went against Seattle at first. That simply didn't happen to Pitt all day. For the Record the Roethlisberger TD should not have been overturned as that call could have gone either way. That being said, it went Pitts was again. I also think when people talk about that they are weakening the argument that the refs screwed Seattle. Even if this call went Seattles way, they still would have had to stop them on 4th down.

No matter what anyone says there are two things that I am pretty sure of. 1) Pitt will remain the SB champs and 2) that if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs. That would mean that 3 calls against Seattle ended up being 3 calls against Pitt. Think about if there was a holding call on the 3rd and 28 "hail Mary" to Hines Ward. What if there was defensive holding on the Hasselback INT? What if Pitt was called for holding on the Parker run? Now what if's are pretty stupid if you ask me, but lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

NY Giant fan and Miami Dolphin fan.

 

[tommyboy]

bottom line, bad calls all day or not, the critical part of the game Pitt leads 14-10 and Seattle is marching down the field, gets a bad call on the Stevens catch at the 2, then they promptly throw a pick in the red zone. At the moment of truth, Seattle got zero points and a critical turnover. Game over.

 

[Sheriff66]

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 refs called the game tight on one side, not so tight on the other side. All you've got to say is "yup, it wasn't a level playing field, but it doesn't matter now, and we've got no idea if it would have changed the outcome or not."If you don't agree with that, fine, then don't say it.

I won't, because I do not agree....Which penalties on the Steelers that should have been called were not ?? Just wondering...

 

[Liquid Tension]

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."

I want to say that I agree with everything Jeff Fisher is saying here and anyone with a brainb would as well. BUT that does not mean the calls were the correct ones. If those calls were bing made all day then you could say they were calling it tight both ways. But it was only being called on Seattle and that is just wrong. How many times have you heard someone say the OL holds on every play? They probably do, but the refs set the threshold on what they will call and it needs to be the same for both teams...and it clearly was not. Again, this coming from someone who was rooting for Pitt (although Pitt is not my team)

 

[Ghost Rider]

No matter what anyone says there are two things that I am pretty sure of. 1) Pitt will remain the SB champs and 2) that if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs. That would mean that 3 calls against Seattle ended up being 3 calls against Pitt. Think about if there was a holding call on the 3rd and 28 "hail Mary" to Hines Ward. What if there was defensive holding on the Hasselback INT? What if Pitt was called for holding on the Parker run? Now what if's are pretty stupid if you ask me, but lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

NY Giant fan and Miami Dolphin fan.

 

[Sheriff66]

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 refs called the game tight on one side, not so tight on the other side. All you've got to say is "yup, it wasn't a level playing field, but it doesn't matter now, and we've got no idea if it would have changed the outcome or not."If you don't agree with that, fine, then don't say it.

I won't, because I do not agree....Which penalties on the Steelers that should have been called were not ?? Just wondering...

I'm not interested in beating that horse any more. We'll agree to disagree.

Me either, but seriously, when did you see a call that was not called against Pittsburgh that should have been, I want to take another look at the tape.....(no sarcasm here)

 

[CalBear]

These 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'm not sure what your line of work is, but I'd be willing to be that your decisions aren't dissected for weeks afterwards on nationally-broadcast HDTV in super-slow-mo, over and over. The idea that NFL officiating needs more review is preposterous.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Interesting article from The Seattle Times

Friday, February 10, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Explanations of six key plays

The play: Darrell Jackson is called for offensive pass interference, nullifying a 16-yard touchdown catch with 2:08 left in the first quarter.

The gripe: The general consensus is that, while Jackson touched safety Chris Hope, it shouldn't have been pass interference.

Conclusion: NFL rules state: "Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation" is grounds for pass interference. Replays show contact with Jackson extending his arm, and, as former NFL official Jim Tunney explains, "There was contact, and it looked like the defender took a step backwards. He [Hope] is closing, and all of a sudden he stops. From the standpoint of the back judge, he sees that separation and makes the call."

The play: Jerramy Stevens drops a pass from Matt Hasselbeck early in the second quarter that would have given the Seahawks a first down. Replays show that Stevens might actually have made a catch then fumbled.

The gripe: Was that a catch and fumble? And if so can the Seahawks challenge and keep the ball, since it went out of bounds?

Conclusion: Because the play was ruled incomplete and blown dead, it cannot be reviewed. Had the play been ruled a fumble, Steelers linebacker James Farrior would almost certainly have recovered the ball.

The play: Late in the second quarter, Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger dives for the end zone and is met at the goal line by Seahawks linebacker D.D. Lewis. After a brief hesitation, head linesman Mark Hittner signals touchdown.

The gripe: There were two on the play. One, that Roethlisberger didn't break the plane of the goal line, and two, that Hittner signaled the quarterback down and appeared to be spotting the ball before he ruled touchdown.

Conclusion: According to both NFL spokesman Greg Aiello and Tunney, Hittner's initial one-handed signal did not indicate fourth down, but rather that the play was over. As for whether Roethlisberger scored, that was a judgment call and replays did not provide enough incontrovertible evidence to overturn the ruling.

The play: In the final minute of the first half, Jackson catches a long pass but gets only one foot in bounds before stepping out of the end zone.

The gripe: Some fans wondered if getting one foot in while kicking the pylon with the other constitutes possession.

Conclusion: While replays seem to indicate that Jackson kicked the pylon with his right foot, that alone does not establish possession. "A completed pass is having both feet on the ground," Tunney said. "He came from the air, caught the ball, and the second foot knocked over the pylon. He has to hit the second foot down to be a catch."

The play: Early in the fourth quarter, right tackle Sean Locklear is flagged for holding linebacker Clark Haggans, negating a Stevens catch to the 1-yard line.

The gripe: Fans, writers and broadcasters all seem to agree that there was no hold on the play. Also, there was a question of whether Haggans was offsides on the play. Hasselbeck said he thought he had a free play because Haggans had jumped early.

Conclusion: Haggans seemed to have the snap count figured out that drive, as he timed several plays to get a head start on Locklear. In slow motion, it looks like he crossed the line right at the snap, not early. As for the hold, NFL rules state that "hands or arms that encircle a defender — i.e., hook an opponent — are to be considered illegal." It was borderline whether Locklear hooked his arm around Haggans, and certainly similar plays frequently go uncalled, but Locklear did appear to briefly get his right arm around Haggans' neck.

"I would need to see it from where the umpire was standing. But if he sees him [Locklear] restricting that player from getting to the quarterback with his arm wrapped around him, then he can call a hold," Tunney said. "As I remember the play, he got his arm around the neck, so by the letter of the law that's restricting, and it's a hold."

The play: Three plays after Locklear's questionable hold, Hasselbeck throws an interception to Ike Taylor. On the return, Hasselbeck takes out Taylor by diving in front of him, and is flagged for a 15-yard illegal block.

The gripe: How can a tackler be penalized for an illegal block?

Conclusion: The official who threw the flag did so because he thought Hasselbeck was going low to take out a blocker, which is a penalty on returns. Every replay, however, seems to show Hasselbeck missing lead blocker Deshea Townsend and touching only Taylor.

Even Aiello left the door open when asked about this play. "If Hasselbeck did not make contact with the blocker, then a flag should not have been thrown."

John Boyle

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

 

[mbuehner]

Ok, there are 2 points in play here and it wont do to mix them up.

-Was the call 'bad', ie it should not have been called by the rule book.

-The call may have been technically correct, or at least arguably correct which amounts to the same thing, but was that call made consistantly.

I dont think there were too many 'bad' calls (Hasselbecks tackle was a bad call, not to mention inexplicable which goes to the second point). I would even suggest the horsecollar was not necessarilly a bad non-call, but it again points to inconsistant officiating.

Look at it like baseball. Every umpire has a slightly different strike zone, this is well known. No-one (well actually everyone, but no-one seriously) complains so long as the zone is consistant, from one pitch to the next, and more importantly for both teams. On judgement calls, the referees took 7 points off the board literally, and at almost certainly at least 3 more for Seattle. They added 7 to Pittsburgh's total. Thats a 17 point (more likely 21 in fact) swing on questionable calls that all went the Steelers way. You start looking at the non-call on the horsecollar, the horrible Hasselbeck call, and even things like consistantly calling D-Jax out of bounds (correctly, but again the law of probability only works if good and bad calls go both ways) which at least would have cost Pitt a time out to fix. Yes Jerk, the horsecollar and the others were certainly judgement calls, certainly subjective. Every call in football is subjective, thats the nature of the game. There will be mistakes, but ideally the mistakes will go both ways and even out. Often they dont, and that is understandable. But in this Superbowl there were a large number of critically questionable calls, enough to absolutely alter the game, and they all went one way. It was like 2 different sets of officials were judging each team. That is what ruined the game for me, and im not even a Seahawks fan, and in fact i was leaning towards wanting the Steelers to win. But not like that. I wanted a good game decided by the players, not the zebras.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

One more from the Seattle Times

Friday, February 10, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Super Bowl XL

Upon further review, it's time to move on

By John Boyle

OK, Seattle, it has been almost a week now.

It's time to sit back, take a deep breath, debunk a few myths, and start letting go.

Yes, the Seahawks lost the Super Bowl. Yes, there were some questionable calls by the officials. Yes, they all seemed to go against the Seahawks. But if you take a step back and look at things objectively, it wasn't quite as bad as it probably seemed when you were throwing Cheetos at your TV on Sunday.

Earlier this week, the NFL defended its Super Bowl officials, and Seahawks fans everywhere muttered a collective, "What the ... ?"

The blame game can be caused by something psychologists refer to as "attribution."

"Nobody likes to lose," said Dr. John F. Murray, a clinical and sport performance psychologist in Palm Beach, Fla. "If you can find an alternative explanation that doesn't include your team, you're going to use it to protect your self esteem. It makes it easier to say, 'Our team was not bad, but we got jobbed.' "

It's not just Seahawks faithful who have a hard time with the league's statement that the game was "properly officiated." Newspaper columnists, TV personalities and other NFL players have criticized the Super Bowl officiating ad nauseam this week.

Critics point not only to the Super Bowl but to the rest of the playoffs as evidence of shoddy officiating. The most obvious play went against the Pittsburgh Steelers in a divisional playoff game against the Indianapolis Colts. Troy Polamalu had an apparent interception overturned after the play was reviewed, and the league later admitted it got the play wrong.

It would seem problematic for a league and its fans and impartial observers to be so far apart on the topic of officiating, but the NFL doesn't think it has a problem.

"It's not unusual. It's part of sports," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "This happened to be the Super Bowl, so it has been magnified. But it is a very normal part of sports. Our officials are doing a great job. The quality of the officiating, based on the feedback we get from our clubs, has been outstanding over the last couple of years."

Every time controversy happens on a big stage — and this was the biggest of all —people scream for change. Suddenly, the league needs full-time officials. Suddenly, the officials are too old to keep up with a high-speed game. Suddenly, the fix is in.

None of this is new to the NFL. The league has heard the complaints before.

"You're never going to have everyone happy with every call," said Aaron Pointer, a former NFL official who lives in Tacoma and works for the league as a game-day observer. "It's the same thing you see in every sport. That goes with the territory. You're never going to please all the fans. That's an impossibility."

As for making officials full-time employees, Pointer doesn't think it would make a difference.

"You can make officials in the NFL full time, but it won't correct anyone's judgment," he said. "There's a human element involved, and when that's involved there are going to be some questions in judgment. All of these guys know the rules. Spending more time on that won't make a difference."

NFL officials work 15 games per season, not including playoffs. First-year officials make about $3,000 per game, while veterans make upward of $5,000. The top-graded officials during the course of the season are selected to work the playoffs, where the pay increases to approximately $12,000 per game. The playoff officials are then rated on their playoff and season performances to determine who works the Super Bowl. Those officials are paid about $15,000.

Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NHL all employ full-time officials, but those sports play substantially more games. Besides, most NFL officials will tell you it is pretty much a full-time gig.

"I think 'full time' is a misnomer," said Jim Tunney, an NFL official for 31 years before retiring in 1991. "If it means that's all you do, then they're not full time. Almost all these guys have other jobs, but they still do football-related stuff every day.

"Besides, 'full time' doesn't make you perfect. Baseball umpires are full time, and if you watched the World Series last year, mistakes were made. It's a human game. Players make mistakes, coaches make mistakes, officials make mistakes."

People criticizing officials like to play the age card as well. The thought is that middle-aged men have a hard time keeping up with the speed of the game and are missing calls as a result. Of course, if younger officials were brought in, critics would start to complain about a lack of experience. Current NFL officials need at least 10 years of experience in major college football or other professional leagues, such as the Arena League.

"I felt like I was better in the last two years than I ever was," said Tunney, who retired when he was 61. "As I watch the games, I see guys going down the sideline with guys who are 30 years younger than them. When you get to the point when you're not keeping up, you should get out, and most of them do. All of them are in really good shape."

And don't get these guys started on corruption.

Pointer points out that officials, like players, are not allowed to gamble on sports — not just football, but any sport. They are subject to random drug tests; cannot drink alcohol the day before a game; and, during the season, cannot go to Las Vegas or other cities that allow gambling.

"I couldn't go see my sisters perform when they played in Vegas during the season," said Pointer, brother of the Pointer Sisters. "And I had to notify the NFL that I was going to Las Vegas to see them perform when the season was over.

"I can assure Seahawks fans that there is no conspiracy."

So why was the officiating so terrible? Well, it might not have been quite as atrocious as you remember. Aside from the illegal-block call on Matt Hasselbeck — which no one seems willing to defend — an argument can be made for each controversial call.

In the days following Super Bowl XL, everyone has been so eager to rip the officiating that a few facts have changed along the way. And that phenomenon was not just limited to fans.

Media members with no ties to Seattle have exaggerated, and in some cases just been wrong, describing plays such as the Darrell Jackson pass-interference call.

One writer said back judge Bob Waggoner threw the flag on Jackson after signaling a touchdown, which he didn't. Several others have said he hesitated for several seconds and threw the flag after complaints from safety Chris Hope. Watching a replay at full speed shows Waggoner reaching for his flag within one second of Jackson making the catch.

It's also easy when blaming the officials to forget calls that went against the Steelers, such as a Jerramy Stevens drop that might have actually been a fumble. Had the play been ruled a fumble, linebacker James Farrior almost certainly would have recovered for the Steelers.

Richard Crowley, a California psychologist who works with athletes, says blaming the officials is just a way to cope with loss.

"When there's a death or a loss, someone has to be the fall guy," he said. "You have to get mad at somebody; it's human nature. 'Someone has to take responsibility for our team not winning.'

"After enough time goes by, however, you lick your wounds and you slowly move on."

John Boyle: jboyle@seattletimes.com.

 

[Gargoylez]

All of the rules were followed by the book

All of the rules were followed by the book when it came to the Seahawks, but not the Steelers.Seahawks RT Locklear got called for a crucial holding penalty but Steelers RT Max Starks was holding all game long.

Seahawks WR D-Jax got called for offensive pass interference negating a TD but the Steelers got away with it on several occasions.

And so on and so forth.

Whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.

I listed 7-8 holding calls that were not called on teh Seahawks... at least THREE on the Flyin Hawaiin....

But of course NO ONE will mention that.

F-U Seahawk fans. Get the hell over it.

 

[Godsbrother]

No matter what anyone says there are two things that I am pretty sure of.  1) Pitt will remain the SB champs and 2) that if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs.  That would mean that 3 calls against Seattle ended up being 3 calls against Pitt.  Think about if there was a holding call on the 3rd and 28 "hail Mary" to Hines Ward.  What if there was defensive holding on the Hasselback INT?  What if Pitt was called for holding on the Parker run?  Now what if's are pretty stupid if you ask me, but lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

NY Giant fan and Miami Dolphin fan.

As you said "What If" games are stupid. Dispute the calls that were made if you like but don't start inventing stuff. As it has been said a million times before, the NFL reviewed the officiating and said it was called correctly. "Inside the NFL" spent the first part of their show discussing the controversial call and only found fault on the 15 yard low block call on Hasselbeck during the return.Seattle was down by only 4 points with 20 minutes left in the game and couldn't score. You and Mike Holmgren wanna blame the loss on the officials go right ahead.

 

[mbuehner]

Again, the point is consistancy. If the refs flagged one team every time there was a hold, correctly, they could throw a flag near every play. The league could argue that every single instance was correct. But if they never threw a flag at the other team, would that make for a fair game? Even if every flag had its rationale? Of course not. This game was inconsistantly ref'ed. Which may differ from 'badly' but at the end of the day it comes out the same way.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

No matter what anyone says there are two things that I am pretty sure of.  1) Pitt will remain the SB champs and 2) that if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs.  That would mean that 3 calls against Seattle ended up being 3 calls against Pitt.  Think about if there was a holding call on the 3rd and 28 "hail Mary" to Hines Ward.  What if there was defensive holding on the Hasselback INT?  What if Pitt was called for holding on the Parker run?  Now what if's are pretty stupid if you ask me, but lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

NY Giant fan and Miami Dolphin fan.

As you said "What If" games are stupid. Dispute the calls that were made if you like but don't start inventing stuff. As it has been said a million times before, the NFL reviewed the officiating and said it was called correctly. "Inside the NFL" spent the first part of their show discussing the controversial call and only found fault on the 15 yard low block call on Hasselbeck during the return.Seattle was down by only 4 points with 20 minutes left in the game and couldn't score. You and Mike Holmgren wanna blame the loss on the officials go right ahead.

Exactly. If they hadn't called illegal formation on Bettis' TD in the Denver game (still don't get that call) - people could have theoretically said : "If they call illegal formation there, the Steelers are likely held to a FG and......... blah blah blah" when we all know now that what really "would have happened" is that the Steelers would have scored a TD on the very next play. Likewise, on the play to Stevens where Locklear got flagged, Alexander could have fumbled at the one like Bettis did vs. Indy, and the Steelers could have run that all the way back for a TD.No one knows what "would have happened" - you can only surmise what is "likely to have happened." And as we've all seen, what is "likely" to have occurred often doesn't occur at all.

 

[Godsbrother]

Again, the point is consistancy. If the refs flagged one team every time there was a hold, correctly, they could throw a flag near every play. The league could argue that every single instance was correct. But if they never threw a flag at the other team, would that make for a fair game? Even if every flag had its rationale? Of course not. This game was inconsistantly ref'ed. Which may differ from 'badly' but at the end of the day it comes out the same way.

But this happens all the time. The calls in the Colts/Steelers game was lopsided in favor of the Colts. In the Patriots/Denver game the calls went against the Patriots. You either ovecome the calls and win or you don't and you lose.

 

[jonessed]

These 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'm not sure what your line of work is, but I'd be willing to be that your decisions aren't dissected for weeks afterwards on nationally-broadcast HDTV in super-slow-mo, over and over. The idea that NFL officiating needs more review is preposterous.

My work is dissected by thousands of sales people, execs, etc. All of whose input I value, but it's not a peer review and doesn't provide the same kind of feedback. It's not even in the same ballpark. If you can't understand the value of having a *dialogue*, project in hand, with someone who not only specializes in your kind of work, but understands the decision making process, the ins and outs of your industry, and your job stresses then I'm not sure this is worth carrying any further.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The difference between Pittsburgh overcoming the bad calls against Indy and Seattle not overcoming bad calls to beat Pittsburgh is that the Steelers outplayed the Colts so badly that they were able to hang on and win (despite the last 8 points being the result of a terrible call by the refs). Seattle/Pittsburgh was a closely contested game and when the calls are lopsided in one favor, it CAN make a difference.

 

[Sheriff66]

No matter what anyone says there are two things that I am pretty sure of.  1) Pitt will remain the SB champs and 2) that if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs.  That would mean that 3 calls against Seattle ended up being 3 calls against Pitt.  Think about if there was a holding call on the 3rd and 28 "hail Mary" to Hines Ward.  What if there was defensive holding on the Hasselback INT?  What if Pitt was called for holding on the Parker run?  Now what if's are pretty stupid if you ask me, but lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

NY Giant fan and Miami Dolphin fan.

As you said "What If" games are stupid. Dispute the calls that were made if you like but don't start inventing stuff. As it has been said a million times before, the NFL reviewed the officiating and said it was called correctly. "Inside the NFL" spent the first part of their show discussing the controversial call and only found fault on the 15 yard low block call on Hasselbeck during the return.Seattle was down by only 4 points with 20 minutes left in the game and couldn't score. You and Mike Holmgren wanna blame the loss on the officials go right ahead.

Exactly. If they hadn't called illegal formation on Bettis' TD in the Denver game (still don't get that call) - people could have theoretically said : "If they call illegal formation there, the Steelers are likely held to a FG and......... blah blah blah" when we all know now that what really "would have happened" is that the Steelers would have scored a TD on the very next play. Likewise, on the play to Stevens where Locklear got flagged, Alexander could have fumbled at the one like Bettis did vs. Indy, and the Steelers could have run that all the way back for a TD.No one knows what "would have happened" - you can only surmise what is "likely to have happened." And as we've all seen, what is "likely" to have occurred often doesn't occur at all.

The WR has to be off the LOS on the side the TE lines up on, Ward was lined up on the LOS, thus illeagal formation...good call. :(

 

[Evilgrin 72]

No matter what anyone says there are two things that I am pretty sure of.  1) Pitt will remain the SB champs and 2) that if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs.  That would mean that 3 calls against Seattle ended up being 3 calls against Pitt.  Think about if there was a holding call on the 3rd and 28 "hail Mary" to Hines Ward.  What if there was defensive holding on the Hasselback INT?  What if Pitt was called for holding on the Parker run?  Now what if's are pretty stupid if you ask me, but lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

NY Giant fan and Miami Dolphin fan.

As you said "What If" games are stupid. Dispute the calls that were made if you like but don't start inventing stuff. As it has been said a million times before, the NFL reviewed the officiating and said it was called correctly. "Inside the NFL" spent the first part of their show discussing the controversial call and only found fault on the 15 yard low block call on Hasselbeck during the return.Seattle was down by only 4 points with 20 minutes left in the game and couldn't score. You and Mike Holmgren wanna blame the loss on the officials go right ahead.

Exactly. If they hadn't called illegal formation on Bettis' TD in the Denver game (still don't get that call) - people could have theoretically said : "If they call illegal formation there, the Steelers are likely held to a FG and......... blah blah blah" when we all know now that what really "would have happened" is that the Steelers would have scored a TD on the very next play. Likewise, on the play to Stevens where Locklear got flagged, Alexander could have fumbled at the one like Bettis did vs. Indy, and the Steelers could have run that all the way back for a TD.No one knows what "would have happened" - you can only surmise what is "likely to have happened." And as we've all seen, what is "likely" to have occurred often doesn't occur at all.

The WR has to be off the LOS on the side the TE lines up on, Ward was lined up on the LOS, thus illeagal formation...good call. :(

OK, I thought there was more to it than that, but it's irrelevant anyway. The only reason I brought it up was to illustrate how easily someone could have said (if the penalty wasn't called) - "That would have taken 7 points off the board and backed the Steelers up to the 17 with only :15 left in the half. They'd probably have been held to a FG attempt - that was a game-changing play......etc." when we all know it changed exactly nothing.

 

[Godsbrother]

The difference between Pittsburgh overcoming the bad calls against Indy and Seattle not overcoming bad calls to beat Pittsburgh is that the Steelers outplayed the Colts so badly that they were able to hang on and win (despite the last 8 points being the result of a terrible call by the refs). Seattle/Pittsburgh was a closely contested game and when the calls are lopsided in one favor, it CAN make a difference.

The Patriots game was a close game that was just as much influenced by a few calls as the Super Bowl but yet Bellichick didn't cry like Holmgren and no one was saying that Denver didn't deserve the win.There are tons of games every year where one team thinks that calls went against them. That doesn't mean you still couldn't have won the game and to blame the loss on the refs is the epitome of bad sportsmanship.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs. 

lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

I'm seeing your and I am reading your sig and something just isn't adding up.

 

[Ghost Rider]

if the calls went Seattles way the way they went Pitts way, Seattle would have been the SB champs.

lets' say that one of those plays did get called that way and only one of the bad calls against Seattle got called that way (even officiating), who do you really think would win that game?

I'm seeing your and I am reading your sig and something just isn't adding up.

Heh...speculating is fun, regardless of how true might sig is. And for the record, I rewatched the play where Seattle was called for holding in the 4th quarter and the Steeler defender who was allegedly held did NOT jump offsides. He actually timed it perfectly.

 

[Banger]

Again, the point is consistancy. If the refs flagged one team every time there was a hold, correctly, they could throw a flag near every play. The league could argue that every single instance was correct. But if they never threw a flag at the other team, would that make for a fair game? Even if every flag had its rationale? Of course not. This game was inconsistantly ref'ed. Which may differ from 'badly' but at the end of the day it comes out the same way.

I think this consistency thing is getting blown way out of proportion. This year the average # of penalties called per game were 7.26 for an average of 58.19 yards. Seattle was called for 7-70 not 14-200 that you would think with all the debate.Seattle was called for 1 false start, the Steelers were called for 2.

Seattle was called for one low block

Seattle was called for 2 offensive holding calls

Seattle was called for 1 off. PI call, the Steelers were called for one Off PI call.

Seattle was called for holding during two kick returns

The real issue was that a number of the calls were on big plays by Seattle that they couldn't overcome. The number of calls was not out of the ordinary nor did it appear that the ref's got any of the calls wrong. Debatable yes, wrong no.

 

[Gargoylez]

F-U Seahawk fans. Get the hell over it.

Your mother must be so proud

Probably not, but my Dad would be... you guys are a bunch of whiney little b*tches.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

F-U Seahawk fans. Get the hell over it.

Your mother must be so proud

Probably not, but my Dad would be... you guys are a bunch of whiney little b*tches.

to the conversation. Your hard hitting and thought provoking analysis has been sorely missed over the past few days. Just remembered you had a membership card and an opinion did ya? :shut'em down:

 

[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.

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.

OK

 

[mbuehner]

Seattle was called for 1 false start, the Steelers were called for 2.

Seattle was called for one low block

Seattle was called for 2 offensive holding calls

Seattle was called for 1 off. PI call, the Steelers were called for one Off PI call.

Seattle was called for holding during two kick returns

You dont find that disturbing? The play they got D-Jax on happens 20 or 30 times in every game, every season. Same with the holding penalty on the Stevens catch. The Hasselbeck play should never get called. I guarentee if you went over that endzone referee's record and noted how many times he didnt call that push off penalty it would be a huge number. The number of times he didnt call it against Pitt in that game, particularly on critical plays, would be measureable, you could certainly find footage of Ward or Randel El 'pushing off' if touching the other player when he is hand checking you is the definition. So why were they making those calls and why didnt they go against Pittsburgh, when the calls were rare and out of character for any referee in any NFL game (not unheard of, but unlikely). And if the ref is that exacting, why didnt he call any ticky tack pass interference penalties on the Steelers D, on that play or any other? The ticky-tack factor only went in one direction, and thats glaringly odd.The point is unlikely calls certainly do happen, but when they happen again and again, and only against one team, the odds of it being a purely statistical anamoly grow vanishingly small. Now, i dont claim that means the ref's were bought, but bias certainly is consistant with that result. If the refs were leaning that way, thats the result you would expect.

 

[poopdawg]

If I hear the ###### term "ticky tack" one more ######## time, Im going to :X

 

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm not sure I can take another Super Bore like that one. I could care less who won, but the officiating was poor and uneven, and I think it greatly effected the game. A better called game might not of helped the Hawks win, but it could of at least made it interesting.

Agree 100%.And it probably cast some doubt on the Steelers who probably would have won anyway.

 

[tommyboy]

find it laughable we're still arguing a game in which only 10 total penalties were called on both teams combined.

Porter did horsecollar, at least as I watched it live that was my first comment. Surprised they didn't call it.

seahawks have no one to blame but themselves though, they had a chance to win or almost tie with 10 minutes left in the game and turned it over, then gave up a 45yd bomb. That 10 or 14 pts swing right there, making it a 2 possession game with 6 minutes left. Then they didn't exactly make a case for themselves by bungling the last drive with wasting time and poor play calling and clock mgmt. That's the time you have to be perfect. They weren't, they lost. I hope they get back in again soon, because they are a good team, a good group of guys and I think they'd like another shot. I'm sure they'll be kicking themselves all offseason.

 

[Godsbrother]

Seattle was called for 1 false start, the Steelers were called for 2.

Seattle was called for one low block

Seattle was called for 2 offensive holding calls

Seattle was called for 1 off. PI call, the Steelers were called for one Off PI call.

Seattle was called for holding during two kick returns

You dont find that disturbing? The play they got D-Jax on happens 20 or 30 times in every game, every season. Same with the holding penalty on the Stevens catch. The Hasselbeck play should never get called. I guarentee if you went over that endzone referee's record and noted how many times he didnt call that push off penalty it would be a huge number. The number of times he didnt call it against Pitt in that game, particularly on critical plays, would be measureable, you could certainly find footage of Ward or Randel El 'pushing off' if touching the other player when he is hand checking you is the definition. So why were they making those calls and why didnt they go against Pittsburgh, when the calls were rare and out of character for any referee in any NFL game (not unheard of, but unlikely). And if the ref is that exacting, why didnt he call any ticky tack pass interference penalties on the Steelers D, on that play or any other? The ticky-tack factor only went in one direction, and thats glaringly odd.The point is unlikely calls certainly do happen, but when they happen again and again, and only against one team, the odds of it being a purely statistical anamoly grow vanishingly small. Now, i dont claim that means the ref's were bought, but bias certainly is consistant with that result. If the refs were leaning that way, thats the result you would expect.

The Steelers and Seahawks were both called for 1 offensive PI penalty so I don't see why you are complaining about that. The penalty on Jackson was right in front of the official and he called it immediately.False starts are probably the easiest penalties to see and the 'Hawks got 2 and the Steelers 1 so no big deal there either.

The one Seattle penalty for a low block was a bad call, no argument there. Holding calls on KO and punt returns are pretty easy to see as well and are so comonplace that only 1 called in a game tells me that both teams were pretty good here.

That brings us to the 2 offensive holding calls. I don't think one team getting 2 holding calls and the other not get any is an alarming figure. It probably happens in dozens of games during the course of a season and nothing is said about it. I can also tell you that there was a point in the season where the Steelers o-line went several games without a penalty called on them, so it is not unheard of.

So there you have it. One call was definitely bad and should not have been called. Other than that I don't see this great travesty against the Seahawks.

 

[Banger]

Seattle was called for 1 false start, the Steelers were called for 2.

Seattle was called for one low block

Seattle was called for 2 offensive holding calls

Seattle was called for 1 off. PI call, the Steelers were called for one Off PI call.

Seattle was called for holding during two kick returns

You dont find that disturbing? The play they got D-Jax on happens 20 or 30 times in every game, every season. Same with the holding penalty on the Stevens catch. The Hasselbeck play should never get called. I guarentee if you went over that endzone referee's record and noted how many times he didnt call that push off penalty it would be a huge number. The number of times he didnt call it against Pitt in that game, particularly on critical plays, would be measureable, you could certainly find footage of Ward or Randel El 'pushing off' if touching the other player when he is hand checking you is the definition. So why were they making those calls and why didnt they go against Pittsburgh, when the calls were rare and out of character for any referee in any NFL game (not unheard of, but unlikely). And if the ref is that exactly, why didnt he call any ticky tack pass interference penalties on the Steelers D, on that play or any other? The ticky-tack factor only went in one direction, and thats glaringly odd.The point is unlikely calls certainly do happen, but when they happen again and again, and only against one team, the odds of it being a purely statistical anamoly grow vanishingly small. Now, i dont claim that means the ref's were bought, but bias certainly is consistant with that result. If the refs were leaning that way, thats the result you would expect.

The Djax call gets called and missed each week. This time though the ref was in perfect position standing probably 4 feet directly behind him so it happened right in front of him. I've seen better calls I've seen worse but it was still a penalty especially when viewed in real time speed. Look at the play calls after the penalty though. Seattle gets a TD nullified on a call that is sometimes not called, tough break (I mean that seriously, as a Steeler fan I wouldn't be happy about that call if it went against me). So now they the ball 1st and 20 at the Steelers 26 so what do they do? They run Alexander for 1 yard. Ok, keep the defense honest in the event of blitz, etc. So now it's 2-19 and what do they do? They run Alexander AGAIN from the 25 yard line for -4 yards. TWO consecutive runs against one of the best run defenses in the league and their passing has been killing the Steelers at this point in the game. If I were a Seattle fan I would be throwing things at my tv right about now and not because of the penalty but because of the awful play calling. So now it's 3rd and 23 from the 29 and they throw an incompletion. What kind of play calling is that inside the 30 yard line? So the Hawks get a free pass for terrible play calls, terrible clock management throughout the game and the game is lost due to bad calls? I just don't buy it. The got a td nullified but it was still only 1st and 20 from the 26 yard line. Certainly not insurmountable. When I was watching the game my father yelled holding on the Stevens play as soon as it happened. I didn't see it at the time but the ref called it. It wasn't a tackle but it looked like a hold during live action enough that my father yelled it at the time.

The call on Hass was silly and said as much during the game. Bad call but apparently is a rule.

My point was that the average number of calls during the entire season was 7.25-58 yards a game and Seattle had 7-70 which is right in line with the NFL average. Additionally, the refs didn't get any of the calls WRONG. They were judgement calls and as such sometimes are called and sometimes are not. It was the timing of the plays more than the number of plays, all the Seattle penalties seemed to happen on the end of big plays.

 

[Gargoylez]

F-U Seahawk fans. Get the hell over it.

Your mother must be so proud

Probably not, but my Dad would be... you guys are a bunch of whiney little b*tches.

If your dad is half the tool you are, I can see why he'd be proud of his son - obviously the apple didn't fall far from the tree.One other thing - if you can watch your team get hosed by the refs in their first super bowl ever, after being a fan since you could walk and "get over it" in a week, well, you must not be much of a fan to assume that's even possible. Grow up.

Like I said before.The Bucs were completely hosed on REAL bad calls. They had the opportunity to win that game and they didn't. Refs sucked that game, but I won't blame anyone but the Bucs for that loss.

Yeah my dad taught me to be a guy. Not a little girl pouting about some marginal calls. If your team is so good, then they would of won the game, PERIOD. I dont know if you were raised by two women or a real feminine guy or something I don;t know. But its sad.

I find it funny that I am tool, who accepts things, and you are some trailblazing poster. You are the tools STILL whining about marginal calls... I am just hear to keep reminding you to shut your hole and accept your team just wasn't all that good in the superbowl, bad calls or not.

Sad day to be a Seahawk fan and for those fans who actually understand Football.

 

[Banger]

Seattle was called for 1 false start, the Steelers were called for 2.

Seattle was called for one low block

Seattle was called for 2 offensive holding calls

Seattle was called for 1 off. PI call, the Steelers were called for one Off PI call.

Seattle was called for holding during two kick returns

You dont find that disturbing? The play they got D-Jax on happens 20 or 30 times in every game, every season. Same with the holding penalty on the Stevens catch. The Hasselbeck play should never get called. I guarentee if you went over that endzone referee's record and noted how many times he didnt call that push off penalty it would be a huge number. The number of times he didnt call it against Pitt in that game, particularly on critical plays, would be measureable, you could certainly find footage of Ward or Randel El 'pushing off' if touching the other player when he is hand checking you is the definition. So why were they making those calls and why didnt they go against Pittsburgh, when the calls were rare and out of character for any referee in any NFL game (not unheard of, but unlikely). And if the ref is that exacting, why didnt he call any ticky tack pass interference penalties on the Steelers D, on that play or any other? The ticky-tack factor only went in one direction, and thats glaringly odd.The point is unlikely calls certainly do happen, but when they happen again and again, and only against one team, the odds of it being a purely statistical anamoly grow vanishingly small. Now, i dont claim that means the ref's were bought, but bias certainly is consistant with that result. If the refs were leaning that way, thats the result you would expect.

That brings us to the 2 offensive holding calls. I don't think one team getting 2 holding calls and the other not get any is an alarming figure. It probably happens in dozens of games during the course of a season and nothing is said about it. I can also tell you that there was a point in the season where the Steelers o-line went several games without a penalty called on them, so it is not unheard of.

With the way the Steelers were blitzing and putting pressure on it's surprising they didn't have more two holds.

 

[Gargoylez]

My point was that the average number of calls during the entire season was 7.25-58 yards a game and Seattle had 7-70 which is right in line with the NFL average.  Additionally, the refs didn't get any of the calls WRONG.  They were judgement calls and as such sometimes are called and sometimes are not.  It was the timing of the plays more than the number of plays, all the Seattle penalties seemed to happen on the end of big plays.

Yeah but that doesn't fit into the Seahawks Whiney Plans on blaming everyone else but the Seahawks so your excellent post will fall on deaf ears, or won;t be heard over the crying. BTW.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Gargoylez is killing it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go baby !

 

[mbuehner]

The Steelers and Seahawks were both called for 1 offensive PI penalty so I don't see why you are complaining about that. The penalty on Jackson was right in front of the official and he called it immediately.

So were the two instances of 'illegal contact' on the defender that happened a split second earlier. Cant recall the Pittsburgh call, but it certainly didnt overturn a touchdown.

False starts are probably the easiest penalties to see and the 'Hawks got 2 and the Steelers 1 so no big deal there either.

Agreed not a lot of room for interpretation.

The one Seattle penalty for a low block was a bad call, no argument there. Holding calls on KO and punt returns are pretty easy to see as well and are so comonplace that only 1 called in a game tells me that both teams were pretty good here.

Except that Seattle got flagged twice for it. Again, sometimes ref are hot on this but as has been pointed out, there actually werent that many penalties in this game. So why were penalties that are usually ignored suddenly called, and always on the Seahawks at critical times?

That brings us to the 2 offensive holding calls. I don't think one team getting 2 holding calls and the other not get any is an alarming figure. It probably happens in dozens of games during the course of a season and nothing is said about it. I can also tell you that there was a point in the season where the Steelers o-line went several games without a penalty called on them, so it is not unheard of.

Not in and of itself of course, but it has to be looked at in context. Both calls were noted by the announcers as borderline at best (and they were). Now either this game was played so damned flawlessly that the refs had to really dig to find something to do with themselves (and Seattle was just slightly less flawless), or they were ignoring/missing the 'usual' holds/pass int/ etc and calling little ones at specific times against a specific team.

So there you have it. One call was definitely bad and should not have been called. Other than that I don't see this great travesty against the Seahawks.

Its not just what was called. Its what wasnt called, when, and why. 10 penalties is indeed not a huge number. Throw out the 3 false starts and 6 out of 7 penalties in the game were called against the Seahawks. Now that seems odd. Add to it the nature and timing of those penalties and you see where the questions arise.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Gargoylez is killing it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go baby !

It takes an idiot to raze a village...I mean thread.

 

[The Jerk]

Ok, there are 2 points in play here and it wont do to mix them up.

-Was the call 'bad', ie it should not have been called by the rule book.

-The call may have been technically correct, or at least arguably correct which amounts to the same thing, but was that call made consistantly.

I dont think there were too many 'bad' calls (Hasselbecks tackle was a bad call, not to mention inexplicable which goes to the second point). I would even suggest the horsecollar was not necessarilly a bad non-call, but it again points to inconsistant officiating.

Look at it like baseball. Every umpire has a slightly different strike zone, this is well known. No-one (well actually everyone, but no-one seriously) complains so long as the zone is consistant, from one pitch to the next, and more importantly for both teams. On judgement calls, the referees took 7 points off the board literally, and at almost certainly at least 3 more for Seattle. They added 7 to Pittsburgh's total. Thats a 17 point (more likely 21 in fact) swing on questionable calls that all went the Steelers way.

First off, your math is not working out here. I disagree that the Jackson PI call was wrong, but even if we agreed to call it wrong, Seattle got a FG. That's a 4 point difference, not 7. I don't know where you get the 3 more, but I'm assuming that's the Locklear hold. In this case, Seattle was still in FG range until the interception was made by Taylor. But let's give you those 3 points, too. Next you say they added 7 to Pittsburgh's total, i.e., Roethlisberger TD. There's a good chance Pittsburgh scores on 4th and goal from less than 2 inches. Or you can argue field goal. In that case, your argument is that Pittsburgh ended up with 7 points when they would have had 3 with the field goal.Adding it up, the total "points swing" is 4 + 3 + 4 = 11

Secondly, you ignore the fact that the Steelers were not trying to score any points after getting the Randle El to Ward TD. You cannot assume the game works out as it did with the calls that were made rather than the hypothetical calls that you would have preferred to see.

You start looking at the non-call on the horsecollar, the horrible Hasselbeck call, and even things like consistantly calling D-Jax out of bounds (correctly, but again the law of probability only works if good and bad calls go both ways) which at least would have cost Pitt a time out to fix.

What does the law of probability have to do with the receiver being in bounds or out of bounds? Are you suggesting that if the same receiver barely lands out of bounds on three plays in the same game, the officials should count the third one a a catch because he's been close two other times before? Each play is an independent event. The receiver is in bounds or out of bounds based solely on one play, not an accumulation of previous plays.

Yes Jerk, the horsecollar and the others were certainly judgement calls, certainly subjective. Every call in football is subjective, thats the nature of the game.

No. Every call is NOT subjective. I don't think we're using the term "subjective" in the same way. Perhaps I'm using it wrong. What I mean by subjective is that the rules have to be applied by the referee to determine if a play is illegal or illegal. Holding and interference and the horsecollar tackle are more subjective than say is a receiver's foot in or out of bounds, or if a field goal is between the uprights or wide, or if the ball crosses the endline on a punt for a touchback, ... Those last few calls are based purely on the vision of the official. Bad calls can happen in those cases, but they're not subjective as I understand it.

There will be mistakes, but ideally the mistakes will go both ways and even out.  Often they dont, and that is understandable. But in this Superbowl there were a large number of critically questionable calls, enough to absolutely alter the game, and they all went one way. It was like 2 different sets of officials were judging each team. That is what ruined the game for me, and im not even a Seahawks fan, and in fact i was leaning towards wanting the Steelers to win. But not like that. I wanted a good game decided by the players, not the zebras.

I agree with the spirit of that statement.Edited to correct points total to 4 + 3 + 4 = 11 (originally, I mistakenly wrote 3 +3 + 4 = 10)

 

[jonessed]

Gargoylez is killing it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Go baby !

Seahawks fans around here have been pretty classy throughout this process. To support someone telling them to FO doesn't say much about you. Class act

 

[tarheel23]

Enough already.

:IBTL: requested.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Gargoylez is killing it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Go baby !

Seahawks fans around here have been pretty classy throughout this process. To support someone telling them to FO doesn't say much about you. Class act

I guess the smiley was necessary here.People need to loosen up and have a little fun. Season's over, the Steelers are Champs, and it's almost quitting time on Friday. Have a drink and chill out, everyone.

 

[The Jerk]

Its not just what was called. Its what wasnt called, when, and why. 10 penalties is indeed not a huge number. Throw out the 3 false starts and 6 out of 7 penalties in the game were called against the Seahawks. Now that seems odd. Add to it the nature and timing of those penalties and you see where the questions arise.

I think you make some good points here. However, I would ask you to explain how the "timing" of the calls is the fault of the officials. For example, on the penalty for holding on Locklear, the flag was being thrown before the pass was completed. I don't believe the officials waited until after the play was over, saw Stevens catch the ball at the 2 yard line, then threw the flag. The only exception to this is the Jackson PI, because the activity that drew the flag happened one second or so before the catch was made. You cannot get the flag out that fast.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

In before the :IBTL: with Sean Salisbury is a TOOL of TOOLESQUE proportions.

I can't justify starting a new thread with this so it belongs here.

 

[mbuehner]

You cannot assume the game works out as it did with the calls that were made rather than the hypothetical calls that you would have preferred to see.

I agree with that and i was going off the top of my head. My point, however, i think is valid. Those calls in question materially altered the course of the game in a big way. The bottom line is they all went against Seattle.

What does the law of probability have to do with the receiver being in bounds or out of bounds?

Nothing. But on any play there is a probability of the play either being correctly or incorrectly officiated, especially a very close play. That ratio affects the game, because a blown call forces a challenge. Refs didnt blow any calls for Pittsburgh although there were many close plays. Now either they were just monumentally accurate on those particular incidents, and god bless them, or not. All im saying is that oddly although Seattle had to endure a large number of referee induced decisions going against them, the Steelers never had to despite several close plays.

Holding and interference and the horsecollar tackle are more subjective than say is a receiver's foot in or out of bounds, or if a field goal is between the uprights or wide, or if the ball crosses the endline on a punt for a touchback, ... Those last few calls are based purely on the vision of the official. Bad calls can happen in those cases, but they're not subjective as I understand it.

And vision is certainly subjective, they think they saw what they saw. There is a reason the endzone refs look at each other before signalling a FG.

 

[Bevo]

I don't think the problem is whether or not the penalties were called correctly in a "technical" manner or not in this game (and almost all of the other games), the problem is the consistency of the calls. And this is a problem ALL season long.

Player on Team A commits a sort of ticky tacky foul and gets flagged for it. Player on Team B commits the same foul but knocks the crap of his opponent and walks away without a penalty. Yes, they both technically commited the same foul but one was a hangnail that got yanked out by the root and the other one was a train wreck where the person that caused the wreck is awarded a medal.

Just like the umpire behind the plate calling balls and strikes it is very important that the football refs call the fouls in a consistent manner so the players understand what they can and cannot do. NFL refs fail at this important aspect of refereeing in an abysmal way.

I love it.. 2 days ago, everyone was screaming about 3 or 4 specific plays, but now, it's not about any specific plays, it's about the consistency of the calls. Give me a break. How do you expect the NFL to defend against an accusation like that? Might as well ask them to prove that they don't beat their wives.

Not me. I challenge you to find one place where I was screaming about any of the plays in the Super Bowl. Personally I am not a fan of either team and I find the whining by the Seahawk fans to be a bit humorous considering how the Seahawks managed to shoot both of their feet off even without the refs involvement. I am talking about something more global than this one game.As to how I expect the NFL to react? Probably not at all, they would never even admit thay have a problem. What they SHOULD do is work a LOT harder on having the refs be consistent with their calls; within a game and across the season.

 

[Banger]

The Steelers and Seahawks were both called for 1 offensive PI penalty so I don't see why you are complaining about that. The penalty on Jackson was right in front of the official and he called it immediately.

So were the two instances of 'illegal contact' on the defender that happened a split second earlier. Cant recall the Pittsburgh call, but it certainly didnt overturn a touchdown.

False starts are probably the easiest penalties to see and the 'Hawks got 2 and the Steelers 1 so no big deal there either.

Agreed not a lot of room for interpretation.

The one Seattle penalty for a low block was a bad call, no argument there. Holding calls on KO and punt returns are pretty easy to see as well and are so comonplace that only 1 called in a game tells me that both teams were pretty good here.

Except that Seattle got flagged twice for it. Again, sometimes ref are hot on this but as has been pointed out, there actually werent that many penalties in this game. So why were penalties that are usually ignored suddenly called, and always on the Seahawks at critical times?

That brings us to the 2 offensive holding calls. I don't think one team getting 2 holding calls and the other not get any is an alarming figure. It probably happens in dozens of games during the course of a season and nothing is said about it. I can also tell you that there was a point in the season where the Steelers o-line went several games without a penalty called on them, so it is not unheard of.

Not in and of itself of course, but it has to be looked at in context. Both calls were noted by the announcers as borderline at best (and they were). Now either this game was played so damned flawlessly that the refs had to really dig to find something to do with themselves (and Seattle was just slightly less flawless), or they were ignoring/missing the 'usual' holds/pass int/ etc and calling little ones at specific times against a specific team.

So there you have it. One call was definitely bad and should not have been called. Other than that I don't see this great travesty against the Seahawks.

Its not just what was called. Its what wasnt called, when, and why. 10 penalties is indeed not a huge number. Throw out the 3 false starts and 6 out of 7 penalties in the game were called against the Seahawks. Now that seems odd. Add to it the nature and timing of those penalties and you see where the questions arise.

It's funny you mention the Steelers illegal contact play. It was nearly on the same exact point on the field. It was 2nd and 10 from the Seattle 22 forcing a 2nd and 20 from the Seattle 32. The Steelers did the smart aggressive play and called a pass (as opposed to the run called by Seattle in the same spot) and got sacked for an 8 yard loss. Now it's 3rd and 28 from the Seattle 40 and you know what happens from here. Roth makes a play which results in a TD whereas Hass from nearly the same spot on the field in the same situation threw an incompletion. Calling the penalties 50-50 does not mean that the refs are doing their jobs. In the Indy game, the Steelers had 2 penalties for 8 yards while Indy had 9 for 67. Using your logic you'd say that Indy got screwed when in fact the Steelers got screwed royally in that game. Sometimes one team commits more infractions than the other. The timing on Seattles was bad but if they MADE PLAYS instead of making excuses maybe they'd have won the super bowl.

 

[CalBear]

You cannot assume the game works out as it did with the calls that were made rather than the hypothetical calls that you would have preferred to see.

I agree with that and i was going off the top of my head. My point, however, i think is valid. Those calls in question materially altered the course of the game in a big way. The bottom line is they all went against Seattle.

Except the non-call on Stevens' fumble. And the non-call on the block in the back on Roethlisberger. And probably a whole bunch of other things that you didn't notice.

 

[mbuehner]

However, I would ask you to explain how the "timing" of the calls is the fault of the officials. For example, on the penalty for holding on Locklear, the flag was being thrown before the pass was completed.

True, but in this game push offs werent being called on an 8 yard curl at the 45 yardline, nor were holds being called on 3 yard sweeps. For some reason, the flags came out during big plays.

I don't believe the officials waited until after the play was over, saw Stevens catch the ball at the 2 yard line, then threw the flag. The only exception to this is the Jackson PI, because the activity that drew the flag happened one second or so before the catch was made. You cannot get the flag out that fast.

Agreed but when the QB is holding the ball in the pocket for 5 seconds its pretty obvious what he is planning. As far as the Jackson play he didnt start reaching for the flag until after the catch, not when the infraction occured. Again, not all that unusual but another oddity.

 

[The Jerk]

However, I would ask you to explain how the "timing" of the calls is the fault of the officials. For example, on the penalty for holding on Locklear, the flag was being thrown before the pass was completed.

True, but in this game push offs werent being called on an 8 yard curl at the 45 yardline, nor were holds being called on 3 yard sweeps. For some reason, the flags came out during big plays.

I don't believe the officials waited until after the play was over, saw Stevens catch the ball at the 2 yard line, then threw the flag. The only exception to this is the Jackson PI, because the activity that drew the flag happened one second or so before the catch was made. You cannot get the flag out that fast.

Agreed but when the QB is holding the ball in the pocket for 5 seconds its pretty obvious what he is planning. As far as the Jackson play he didnt start reaching for the flag until after the catch, not when the infraction occured. Again, not all that unusual but another oddity.

I think the fact that the Jackson PI happened right in front of the official had as much or more to do with the fact that the call was made than the degree of "push off" involved. As you stated in another post, they can only call what they see, or perhaps better yet, what they THINK they see.Thanks for actually discussing the points rather than just yelling. I appreciate that. I'm not "right" and you "wrong" -- we see some things from different perspectives, that's all.