This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What polls does everyone keep talking about? If they're not scientific, using them as evidence of widespread fan-dissatisfaction is about as useful as. . . well, something that's not very useful. Show me the results of a scientific poll, and I might buy your argument that the dissatisfaction is widespread (rather than a bunch of whiners getting really motivated and self-selecting into voting in a poll on the internet).
Well I'll just write my Senator to get those polls going nation-wide. There are not any "scientific polls" outside most websites. Obviously people aren't happy. There has never been this kind of outcry in the past about refs and questionable officiating.
Oooooh, *that's* your logic. Yes, your point of view seems much more intelligent and well-versed now. I forgot the ol' "only a moron wouldn't agree with my biased and unfounded claims" argument.Touche!
Get a life. It's over.
Are you kidding? Watching Steeler fans trying to justify the officiating is priceless.
See, that's just it. I'm not a Steeler fan. Been a Cowboys fan all of my life. Don't like the Steelers, am annoyed that they have 5 titles, just like my team. Go check out Yudkin's "is Bettis a Hall of Famer" thread--I argue against Bettis there.Fact is, I'm probably as objective as one can be; I have no dog in this fight. If I did have a mild preference, it was for the Seahawks. But the game is over. The officiating was bad. Worst game ever? Probably not. Too bad the Seahawks got the fuzzy end of the lollypop. Too bad they were too inept to overcome adversity.
Are you kidding? Watching Steeler fans trying to justify the officiating is priceless.
This list is kind of half-joking, half-serious. However, I think this one actually hits on something that pertains uniquely to the Super Bowl. I don't think there's any disputing the fact that the Super Bowl has the most uninformed and least knowledgeable football audience. It would not surprise me in the least to see these people vote that the officiating was particularly bad due to less understanding of the rules and a greater likelihood of being swayed by the media.In any case, you need look no farther than this board to see people who sincerely believe that Darrell Jackson should have a TD for getting one foot inbounds and the other hitting the pylon. You also see posts that show people don't understand that the "chop blocking" rule applies differently at the line of scrimmage and especially after a change in possession. The horsecollar rule is probably the least understood, and I'll include myself in that one, but I do know that part of the rule is that the tackle must be immediate. I see two factors at work here contributing to the chatter about bad officiating:
Well, I just talked to three different people at work today, and all of them said that they don't think that the officiating issue is that big of a deal. So I must be right.That information is just as useful as using internet polls to back up your point of view. (In other words, it's not.)
I'd suggest you watch it again.One, Hope never grabs him. Yes, the both use their hands to keep tabs on where the other is, but neither of them impede the other's progress. Hand checking is never, ever called.
Then I guess everyone that is even a bit uncertain about the calls aren't justified. There is an obvious outcry like I said before, more than ever before. Something has to be true there. I'm not saying that it cost the game, but it surely didn't help the Seahawks. Djax's PI woulda been a td anyway (simply moved his hand down, no push-off), the block penalty on Hass, the holding call was a tickytack. Ben Worthelessburger's TD was a TD or at least not enough evidence to reverse it. Everything was just so conspicuously in favor of the bad guys that it chaps my ### a bit.
I'm not sure that's true in this case. This isn't, say, a political poll where majority of responders would be partisan to one side or the other, and pre-disposed to reply a certain way. If you ran a poll with just Seattle or Pittsburgh responders, you could be assured of a biased sample in both cases and toss out the results. Multiple national polls have all trended the same in this case (including the one on this site). The responders are self-selected, but should represent a fairly broad sampling of sports fans. ESPN actually has a very good system of breaking down results by state, and 48 out of 50 states showed a majority of people having problems with the Super Bowl officiating. I'd just seriously like the discussion to turn away from the Super Bowl, to what the NFL is or isn't doing about the overall state of officiating. Does anyone want to jump in and say that the current system is perfect and can't be improved?
Very
My sentiments exactly! I wasn't thrilled with either team being there - but was was still anxious to see the big game! I've only seen one other game called more poorly in my life... (Kings/Lakers - game 6!) The BS call of Hass's block below the waste... the bogus holding call on the Seattle's O-lineman... D-Jax's pushoff with the defender holding his arm... COMEON! The other thing that astonishes me over this BS Super Bowl... is the # of Steeler fans adorning their gear again. For the first time ever - I was out of the country watching the game in the Bahamas - and Monday morning, everyone on the Island had on a friggen Steelers cap or jersey.. 
What gives? I think the Steelers just moved into my #2 position of most-hated (no one will overtake the Cowboys).
I have bolded all that you need to know. ESPN could break down into NEIGHBORHOODS the number of people who self-selected to responding to a poll. Doesn't matter--the results are garbage. Trash. Worthless. Not indicative of anything other than the opinion of the people who responded.Internet polls (and call-in phone polls, and mail-in questionnaires, etc.) are not able to generalize their results, period.
I seem to remember Alexander running down the sideline and a Steeler defender reaching from behind into his jersey, grabbing his pad, and pulling him down. Thought they made a huge stink about something sort of EXACTLY LIKE THAT this season called a horsecollar. Madden missed that one, apparently his mind was on horsetrailers or something. That was in front of God and everybody. Refs just didnt feel in the Steeler penalty kind of mood for some reason.
Actually, Al Michaels said "close to a horsecollar but no call" which is one of the reasons people believe this should have been called. And you cannot blame Michaels for not knowing what distinguishes legal from illegal here. I've been looking for specifics on the rule and finally found a decent article on it:USA Today article on the passage of the horsecollar rule
I could not tell based on the camera angles whether or not Porter grabbed the top of the jersey or had Alexander's shoulder pad, but it doesn't matter. Based on the "immediate" qualifier, Porter's tackle was legal.This just reinforces what I said in my eralier post (#60), where a combination of ignorance on the part of media and the fans and nuances in the rules contributes to calls (or non-calls) that look like they are incorrect when they actually follow the rules.
I thought Shawn went down immediately?
I addressed that in the other thread, but briefly that intepretation makes no sense. Porter had no idea Alexander could gut out another step nor is it material to the ruling. Immidiate can more accurately and logically be read to mean in the same motion... ie the tackle. Porter grabbed and pulled him down to the ground, thats immediate on his part. The fact that Alexander trucked out a few extra feet horizontally is immaterial.
I agree with this
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.
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.
I tend to agree with ideas that make sense. Immediate and in the same motion is the same thing. How is something that is immediate not in the same motion? No matter what this rediculous rule says, it should be only to prevent an injury like we've seen before. Therefore, I don't agree with any use of the back pads to make any form of tackle. It's just too dangerous.Shocking!I agree with this
Oh yeah, the game was poorly officiated from my POV.What I get a kick out of are the people clamoring for an overhaul of the entire NFL refereeing system, claiming that there is widespread discontent among the fans (and then using internet polls to "bolster" their argument).
Compare the Roy Williams tackle of Terrell Owens last year with the Porter tackle of Alexander. Williams ended up landing on Owens legs because he pulled immediately and directly down so that Owens' entire forward progress was immediately stopped. It was like he ran into a clothesline.Again, the subtleties and nuances of the rules are what is getting everyone to believe the calls were wrong. Why did the NFL add the "immediately" clause? It just leads to situations like this one. One person's immediate may not be the same as another's, and that leads to trouble. I think it would be better to simplify the rule and make it illegal to grab the shoulder pads from the front or the sides. However, that is not the rule that was in place for SB XL. If it was, there would be no argument.
Again, you are using an example where there is an assumption of bias and clear demographic skew. The only bias that should be assumed in this case (outside of WA, PA, and WV) is that the people choosing to respond have an opinion. At best you could postulate that a randomly selected group of sports fans would turn up a higher percentage no opinion or no strong leaning. Either that, or that the nation is filled with closet Seahawk fans/Steeler haters who are skewing the results. While these poll cetainly shouldn't be looked at as an exact measurement, for all of the good reasons you cited, to deny that a large percentage (if not large majority) of neutral fans thought there was a problem would be foolish.
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.
I am 100% in agreement with you, but unfortunately that is not how the rule was defined for this year. I believe the best thing the NFL could do as far as this rule is concerned is make a tackle illegal any time the back or sides of the pads are used. That said, unless they also make it illegal to tackle when grabbing the front of the pads, you'll STILL have some judgment involved. And on and on it goes.
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.
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.
If Owens had landed on another player before being grounded would that have mattered in the context of this rule? In such a case, he wasnt 'immediately' brought down. Thats the point, its the tacklers actions that are relevant, not the circumstances outstanding to that (such as Alexander gaining a yard before being Porter pulled him completely down).
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".
Let me tell you what would be foolish--to try to support one's argument with worthless data. And that is what this is.Again, I have highlighted the portion of your post that leads us to conclude that internet polls are WORTHLESS FROM WHICH TO GENERALIZE, especially on this issue. I have italicized the portion of your post where you seem to grasp why. Yes, the only bias we should assume is that those who have responded actually CARE. Read portions of this thread's initial post:
So you are going to use the sixth definition of a word to make your argument? Wow, pretty convincing. But you know what, let's use it, because it's irrelevant to the discussion. In my opinion, you're missing the bigger point. It doesn't matter how I, or you, or the dictionary defines immediate. All that matters is does the official consider the downward motion of the tackle to be immediate or not. If he does, then it's an illegal tackle. If he doesn't than it is not.Which leads us to one of three conclusions:
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??
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.
