When is a bad call a bad call? (1 Viewer)

[Steelers4Life]

First, I do NOT want to turn this into a debate over the officials in the Super Bowl. I don't really care if anyone thinks the calls were right or wrong.

But all that debate causes me to wonder why some bad calls are more important than others. Is an official really supposed to factor in the game situation on every call he makes? Is a foul not always a foul?

A questionable call is a questionable call no matter what the result of the play ends up being. Are the calls that went the Steelers' way any worse than the blatant block in the back on Roethlisberger that went uncalled and gave the Seahawks 30 extra yards of field position? Or the Stevens non-fumble? Just because the Seahawks ended up punting on that drive, does that make it less of a bad call? Or the flimsy down-by-contact ruling on Hasselbeck because a hand touched him before he went down? I guess those calls are unimportant and overlooked because the Steelers won or overcame them?

The argument that, "Yes, it could've been a penalty, but they shouldn't have called it" doesn't make sense to me.

The pass interference call on Jackson doesn't get nearly the press if it happens at midfield, but since it was in the endzone, that makes it more important?

And the holding call on Locklear doesn't get the attention at all if the pass is incomplete. Because the pass was complete, did that make it less of a penalty? It's not like the referee waited until he saw the pass completed before he threw the flag.

Again, this is not about whether the calls are right or wrong, because they were made and it doesn't matter anymore. I just want to know if calls are only important if the result is important.

 

[B-Deep]

This won't end how you want it to. Steelers fans should all just enjoy their championship and ignore the people crying about the refs costing the haws the game (including Holgrem).

Pointing out bad calls the other way only drags you into a debate you don't really want to be in.

 

[HomestarRunner]

The argument that, "Yes, it could've been a penalty, but they shouldn't have called it" doesn't make sense to me.

I think all calls need to be evaluated on two levels - the strict interpretation of the rules, and the spirit of the rules. It is possible to be in violation of a rule but still be within the spirit of the rules and play on the field.The driver who gets a ticket when pulled over for going 56 in a 55 MPH zone probably thinks something along the lines of "Yes, it could've been a penalty, but they shouldn't have called it".

 

[Ghost Rider]

Of course it matters. When bad calls take points off of the board (like what happened in the Super Bowl), they are much worse than calls that ended up having little impact on the game.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Of course it matters. When bad calls take points off of the board (like what happened in the Super Bowl), they are much worse than calls that ended up having little impact on the game.

So, you're saying that officials shouldn't make calls they think are accurate if it will have a direct impact on the scoreboard?Following that logic, is the missed call that everyone seems to remember on the block in Roethlisberger's back less important than the perceived bad Locklear holding call?

 

[Steelers4Life]

This won't end how you want it to. Steelers fans should all just enjoy their championship and ignore the people crying about the refs costing the haws the game (including Holgrem).

Pointing out bad calls the other way only drags you into a debate you don't really want to be in.

I'm not up for debating this anymore, because it doesn't matter at all. And I'm not up for debating the calls that went against the Steelers either.Just wondering if people wait to judge a call based on how the play or score ends up.

 

[Hamstring]

There was no block in the back on Ben. Its just grasping for straws. All the refs in Superbowl XL should be ashamed. I remember a couple weeks ago a ref having his his window broken because of a bad call int he Indy/pitt game. And they won the game.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

A bad call is a bad call when it inures to my team's detriment. When it is to my team's benefit is is just part of the game.

 

[Godsbrother]

It will be interesting to see what the NFL has to say about the officiating. They are usually pretty good in sending out apologies when they've blown calls. It should be interesting to see if Seattle gets one.

 

[David Yudkin]

Personally, I do think that the standard for a penalty shifts based on the imprtance of the game and the siutation.

And I think to a certain extent that the NFL would like penalties at key moments to be either clear as day WITH THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PLAY rather than something that people will debate for years.

For example, if a wide receiver on the opposite site of a play happens to get a handful of jersey on a block on a running play the other direction, momentaily impeding the progress of a cornerback, I don't think that that should potentially wipe out a game winning run the other way in the last minute of the Super Bowl.

I've said about 100 times that if the refs looked hard enough that they could easily find a penalty on each and every play. Yet they dion't call them on every play (nor should they as the game wuold be unberaable to watch or play).

IMO, if two guys are trying to go after a ball and there is some bumping or minor grabbing going on both ways, there should not be a penalty. For instance, on the pass interference call in the DEN/NE game, bothe the defender and the receiver were both bumping and pushing each other, so IMO that should not be a penalty. Something like that should require a BLATANT disregard for the rules.

I suppose I would be less inclined to ever gripe about officiating if the calls were CONSISTENT every week, but that clearly is not the case. Some plays a defender can cannibalize the receiver, spitting out the bones and walking away with his watch and wallet and its not a foul, yet seemingly other games a slight bump or stepping on a guy's shoelace results in a 50 yard penalty.

Bottom line, the game should be decided by the players and not the subjectivity of the refs.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Of course it matters. When bad calls take points off of the board (like what happened in the Super Bowl), they are much worse than calls that ended up having little impact on the game.

So, you're saying that officials shouldn't make calls they think are accurate if it will have a direct impact on the scoreboard?

I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. A bad call that takes points off the board is obviously worse than one that, when all is said and done, has no impact on the game. How can you not see that?

Following that logic, is the missed call that everyone seems to remember on the block in Roethlisberger's back less important than the perceived bad Locklear holding call?

Which is worse...the block on Roethlisberger not being called and resulting in great field position for Seattle or the hold on Hastings not being called on a play where the Steelers scored a long touchdown?

 

[Steelers4Life]

There was no block in the back on Ben. Its just grasping for straws. All the refs in Superbowl XL should be ashamed. I remember a couple weeks ago a ref having his his window broken because of a bad call int he Indy/pitt game. And they won the game.

All I'll say to that is that you should watch that play again. One hand on the back of Ben's shoulder, and one in the middle of his back. It happens right around the 30 yard line, and Ben went flying.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

A bad call is always a bad call.

It did look like Roeth may have been clipped and I said so at the time, but from the angle of the replay, and only having seen it once, maybe the ref thought the blocker made more side contact or that Roeth "turned" hi sback into the block. I'd be happy to look at it again. It looked similar to the no-call on a possible holding when Roeth ran for the 1st down late in the game. I'd be happy to review that one too.

 

[HomestarRunner]

Steelers4Life, I'm not sure if it is "correct" for the outcome of play to factor into whether something was called correctly.

I do know in baseball, the strike zone is a lot larger at 3-0 than it is at 3-2.

In hockey, the high sticking call called in the middle of the first period rarely gets called in the overtime of a Game 7.

In soccer, the defender's ability to manhandle attackers goes way up the minute the attacker gets in the penalty area.

In basketball, we praise officials for their "letting 'em play" once the shot clock goes off and it's the last series.

Is it "correct"? I dunno. But it happens all the time and people have come to expect it.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Of course it matters.  When bad calls take points off of the board (like what happened in the Super Bowl), they are much worse than calls that ended up having little impact on the game.

So, you're saying that officials shouldn't make calls they think are accurate if it will have a direct impact on the scoreboard?

I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth. A bad call that takes points off the board is obviously worse than one that, when all is said and done, has no impact on the game. How can you not see that?

Following that logic, is the missed call that everyone seems to remember on the block in Roethlisberger's back less important than the perceived bad Locklear holding call?

Which is worse...the block on Roethlisberger not being called and resulting in great field position for Seattle or the hold on Hastings not being called on a play where the Steelers scored a long touchdown?

Oh, I agree that some calls have more of an effect and can be considered "worse," but I don't think that makes it any less of a foul.And I'll have to go back and watch that play to see what Hartings did. I haven't heard that mentioned at all. I don't think either of them are any more of a penalty than the other, though.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Personally, I do think that the standard for a penalty shifts based on the imprtance of the game and the siutation.

And I think to a certain extent that the NFL would like penalties at key moments to be either clear as day WITH THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PLAY rather than something that people will debate for years.

For example, if a wide receiver on the opposite site of a play happens to get a handful of jersey on a block on a running play the other direction, momentaily impeding the progress of a cornerback, I don't think that that should potentially wipe out a game winning run the other way in the last minute of the Super Bowl.

I've said about 100 times that if the refs looked hard enough that they could easily find a penalty on each and every play. Yet they dion't call them on every play (nor should they as the game wuold be unberaable to watch or play).

IMO, if two guys are trying to go after a ball and there is some bumping or minor grabbing going on both ways, there should not be a penalty. For instance, on the pass interference call in the DEN/NE game, bothe the defender and the receiver were both bumping and pushing each other, so IMO that should not be a penalty. Something like that should require a BLATANT disregard for the rules.

I suppose I would be less inclined to ever gripe about officiating if the calls were CONSISTENT every week, but that clearly is not the case. Some plays a defender can cannibalize the receiver, spitting out the bones and walking away with his watch and wallet and its not a foul, yet seemingly other games a slight bump or stepping on a guy's shoelace results in a 50 yard penalty.

Bottom line, the game should be decided by the players and not the subjectivity of the refs.

OK David, do you think a referee should wait and see the result of a play before throwing a flag? I think you're walking a dangerous line if you base your opinions of penalties on game situations.Case in point... the official saw Locklear's hand pulling on Haggans' shoulder from the side, which is even clear in replays. Ticky tack? Maybe, but it was on the end and plainly visible. If you were the official, do you wait and see how the play ends before throwing a flag for what looks to you like holding?

And I agree that I wish everything was more consistent, but refs don't see everything the same way and only have a split second to make a decision. They don't have the benefit of instant replays like us.

 

[David Yudkin]

Personally, I do think that the standard for a penalty shifts based on the imprtance of the game and the siutation.

And I think to a certain extent that the NFL would like penalties at key moments to be either clear as day WITH THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PLAY rather than something that people will debate for years.

For example, if a wide receiver on the opposite site of a play happens to get a handful of jersey on a block on a running play the other direction, momentaily impeding the progress of a cornerback, I don't think that that should potentially wipe out a game winning run the other way in the last minute of the Super Bowl.

I've said about 100 times that if the refs looked hard enough that they could easily find a penalty on each and every play.  Yet they dion't call them on every play (nor should they as the game wuold be unberaable to watch or play).

IMO, if two guys are trying to go after a ball and there is some bumping or minor grabbing going on both ways, there should not be a penalty.  For instance, on the pass interference call in the DEN/NE game, bothe the defender and the receiver were both bumping and pushing each other, so IMO that should not be a penalty.  Something like that should require a BLATANT disregard for the rules.

I suppose I would be less inclined to ever gripe about officiating if the calls were CONSISTENT every week, but that clearly is not the case.  Some plays a defender can cannibalize the receiver, spitting out the bones and walking away with his watch and wallet and its not a foul, yet seemingly other games a slight bump or stepping on a guy's shoelace results in a 50 yard penalty.

Bottom line, the game should be decided by the players and not the subjectivity of the refs.

OK David, do you think a referee should wait and see the result of a play before throwing a flag? I think you're walking a dangerous line if you base your opinions of penalties on game situations.Case in point... the official saw Locklear's hand pulling on Haggans' shoulder from the side, which is even clear in replays. Ticky tack? Maybe, but it was on the end and plainly visible. If you were the official, do you wait and see how the play ends before throwing a flag for what looks to you like holding?

And I agree that I wish everything was more consistent, but refs don't see everything the same way and only have a split second to make a decision. They don't have the benefit of instant replays like us.

As I mentioned in the other threads on officiating, I don't think you can fault officials for calling the game they see, but I do think that as the stakes get higher the intent of the player involved and the infraction under consideration should be 100% clear and without a doubt a penalty.So the result of the play likely should not enter into the equation, but the importance of the game and situation is tantamount to consideration in my book. If a defender clearly mauls a receiver because he can't stop him and drags him to the ground, that should be a penalty. But if it's the Super Bowl and there is no intent to break a rule, no clear benefit is gained by doing it, and it's pretty minor I don't think it should be a penalty.

That's why I was saying before that on each and every play SOMEWHERE there is offensive holding, defensive hands to the face, obstruction of receivers, pushing off by receivers, or a litany of infractions IF REFS WERE TO FOLLOW THINGS TO THE LETTER OF THE RULEBOOK.

When guys are battling at 300+ pounds, I don't think we need to flag every lineman that seems to get held, or hits an offensive lineman on the helmet, or whatever. It does not serve anyone's best interest to call 50 penalties a game.

And I'm not sure having instant replay on penalties makes sense either (I went over that in other threads as well), as that would cause even more problems.

No matter what, the system will be flaVVed somewhere, as there is no way to call everything or time to review everything. So basically we are left with each official calling what he sees at his discretion with very little consistency.

And apparently the officals can pick up flags even when there is contact made (a la Steve Smith's punt return that originally mandated a flag but was later ruled ok).

 

[bryhamm]

Of course it matters. When bad calls take points off of the board (like what happened in the Super Bowl), they are much worse than calls that ended up having little impact on the game.

No, the call itself is no worse. The feeling you get in your stomach when it "takes points off the board" might be worse, but the call itself is not.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

One of the worst calls I have ever seen (especially given the "situation") was the Tom Brady fumble/tuck. The Raiders were in the Superbowl, period. That call changed A LOT, forever.

And for the record, I am a Broncos fan -- I can't stand the Raiders.

Refs have biases, they do. I think Al Davis hurts his team, at times...just like I think Art Rooney was a sentimental favorite on Sunday, especially over Paul Allen.

 

[Refbuz]

OK David, do you think a referee should wait and see the result of a play before throwing a flag?  I think you're walking a dangerous line if you base your opinions of penalties on game situations.

Case in point... the official saw Locklear's hand pulling on Haggans' shoulder from the side, which is even clear in replays.  Ticky tack?  Maybe, but it was on the end and plainly visible.  If you were the official, do you wait and see how the play ends before throwing a flag for what looks to you like holding?

And I agree that I wish everything was more consistent, but refs don't see everything the same way and only have a split second to make a decision.  They don't have the benefit of instant replays like us.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a "late flag" coming in on a play, becuase an official should wait an extra moment to make sure that 1. The call was there, and 2. what the overall impact that the foul had on the play.As with any call it ultimately comes down to an advantage/disadvantage situation. Sometimes an official will have a flag 15 - 20 yds behind the play, because they want to make sure that one team gained an advantage over the other. Does the timing of the call make a good call a bad one??? Not if the foul was there. Now I'm not saying that an official has all day to throw a flag, but you can't give him grief throwing it "late".

Case in point a DT busts through the line and is obviously held, but still makes the play. Is it a foul??? YES, but what was the impact on the play? NONE. In the same situation, the player gets held, misses the tackle, and the play results in a TD or long run. Which foul should be called, one, both, none??? Unfortunately, rule interpretation on the field is subjective to the covering officials interpretation of advantage/disadvantage, which has to be recognized and called in a matter of seconds...

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Refbuz, that sig is awful. No offense, but nobody cares about all that.

 

[The Jerk]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a "late flag" coming in on a play, becuase an official should wait an extra moment to make sure that 1. The call was there, and 2. what the overall impact that the foul had on the play.

I agree with you in principle that waiting could have merit, including to some extent what you listed, but mostly to be sure the call was CORRECT. However, have you seen the posts complaining that the ref did not IMMEDIATELY signal TD on Ben's run? Popular opinion of referees who wait to make calls are almost always that he is biased somehow.

 

[Refbuz]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a "late flag" coming in on a play, becuase an official should wait an extra moment to make sure that 1. The call was there, and 2. what the overall impact that the foul had on the play.

I agree with you in principle that waiting could have merit, including to some extent what you listed, but mostly to be sure the call was CORRECT. However, have you seen the posts complaining that the ref did not IMMEDIATELY signal TD on Ben's run? Popular opinion of referees who wait to make calls are almost always that he is biased somehow.

I don't know what the f' he had on that TD...There are a lot if idiots in the world. Maybe they should get away from the computer and try to officiate a pee-wee game i guarantee that their opinion changes...

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

"Die in a fire"

 

[tommyboy]

i don't really care what's right or not, all I know is 2006 World Champions = Pittsburgh Steelers.

 

[Cookiemonster]

As for making calls DURING the game, I think for the most part the refs do an outstanding job. It is very difficult to make all the correct calls at full-game-speed. Many times during the season, an 0-lineman will be called for holding simply because he pancaked a defender. Just as many times, he will get away with a blatant hold. IT HAPPENS.

The calls that I really get upset with, are the ones that they review and STILL get wrong. Here, they get to watch whatever angle best supports/does not support the call, many times over, and in SLOW MOTION! These calls are the ones that you can argue that some refs are biased. Honestly, as a Steeler fan (in reference to Ben's dive) I'm not sure if the ball TOUCHED the line as contact was being made, but I couldn't tell for sure on replay. Conclusive evidence was needed to OVERTURN the call. I couldn't tell. Troy's INT vs. Indy is just the opposite. It looked like a pick in real time. It was ruled a pick. It was overturned in slo-mo. Don't get it. Same as tuck rule. In slo-mo, the ball TOUCHED his non-throwing hand before it was knocked out. In my opinion, putting both hands on the ball effectively ends your throwing motion. Those two calls were much more biased than any in the Super Bowl. But I do agree that more of the 'questionable' calls went in favor of Pitt.

 

[Tau837]

As I mentioned in the other threads on officiating, I don't think you can fault officials for calling the game they see, but I do think that as the stakes get higher the intent of the player involved and the infraction under consideration should be 100% clear and without a doubt a penalty.

This implies that sometimes referees call penalties when they aren't sure it is a penalty and/or the infraction they are calling is not clear.I think we (and the NFL) can all agree that they should follow your bolded guidelines above, but all the time, not just when "stakes get higher."

When would you think it would be acceptable to ignore those guidelines?

 

[David Yudkin]

As I mentioned in the other threads on officiating, I don't think you can fault officials for calling the game they see, but I do think that as the stakes get higher the intent of the player involved and the infraction under consideration should be 100% clear and without a doubt a penalty.

This implies that sometimes referees call penalties when they aren't sure it is a penalty and/or the infraction they are calling is not clear.I think we (and the NFL) can all agree that they should follow your bolded guidelines above, but all the time, not just when "stakes get higher."

When would you think it would be acceptable to ignore those guidelines?

I do agree that there should be a universal line drawn as to what a penalty is and isn't and have those guidelines met across the board.So IMO they need to eliminate the ticky tack stuff altogether and call only clear penalties and things that were intended to break the rules. Two guys bump going for the ball and it doesn't impact the play = no penalty. A guy mauls someone and takes out a receiver = penalty. A guy on either line happens to get a hand on someones face mask but doesn't do anything else = no penalty. A guy grabs a facemask and throws someone down = penalty. A guy grazes a receiver on a pattern when the play is clearly intended for a different player on the other side of the field = no penalty.

All in all, I don't care how they call games and individual plays AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSISTENT.

 

[DropKick]

A questionable call is a questionable call no matter what the result of the play ends up being.  Are the calls that went the Steelers' way any worse than the blatant block in the back on Roethlisberger that went uncalled and gave the Seahawks 30 extra yards of field position?  Or the Stevens non-fumble?  Just because the Seahawks ended up punting on that drive, does that make it less of a bad call?  Or the flimsy down-by-contact ruling on Hasselbeck because a hand touched him before he went down?  I guess those calls are unimportant and overlooked because the Steelers won or overcame them?

Did the Stevens "non-fumble" help or hurt the Steelers? I'd have to see it again, but, as I recall, the ball was moving pretty quickly out of bounds. If a Steeler couldn't gain possession, it would have been a Seahawk ball inside the 15.The flimsy down by contact ruling? You seem unaware of the NFL rules. This is not a questionable call.

What is interesting, I think, is that the officials got it wrong initially (in Steeler favor) and that replay was needed to correct the call. I'm not sure how they missed the contact, especially being very close to the play.

I think there is so much backlash because of a SERIES of calls that all favored the Steelers. Did Big Ben score? Maybe yes, maybe no... but the bothersome thing is he didn't rule a TD until he ran out and saw where Ben had pushed the ball over the goal line.

Pitt had two procedure penalties on its first series. They had one for the remainder of the game. Time and time again, calls went against Seattle. (Overall, 7 for 70 yards) Then the Locklear "hold", reversed another big play with Seattle poised to take the lead. We were about to have a game! Instead, backed up, Hasselbeck threw a pick and gets flagged tackling the guy! No one has explained that one yet.

I don't want to debate any individual play. One could probably find arguments for and against each call. It was the cumulative effect I think, that turned most people off.

 

[The Jerk]

A questionable call is a questionable call no matter what the result of the play ends up being.  Are the calls that went the Steelers' way any worse than the blatant block in the back on Roethlisberger that went uncalled and gave the Seahawks 30 extra yards of field position?  Or the Stevens non-fumble?  Just because the Seahawks ended up punting on that drive, does that make it less of a bad call?  Or the flimsy down-by-contact ruling on Hasselbeck because a hand touched him before he went down?  I guess those calls are unimportant and overlooked because the Steelers won or overcame them?

Did the Stevens "non-fumble" help or hurt the Steelers? I'd have to see it again, but, as I recall, the ball was moving pretty quickly out of bounds. If a Steeler couldn't gain possession, it would have been a Seahawk ball inside the 15.

There appeared (at least to me) to be very little chance of the Steelers not recovering the ball in bounds. It was heading much more in the direction of the endzone than the sideline. In any case, if the Stevens play had been ruled a catch and fumble, and the ball went out of bounds, Seattle would have retained possession, but only at the spot where Stevens fumbled. The offense can LOSE yards on a fumble, but not gain them.

 

[Lobo237]

There are two things officials can do to drive me insane. One is being totally inconsistant with their calls throughout a game. I attend the University of New Mexico and I've said for years the MWC has the worst officials in college sports, mainly because it's so rare to get any sort of consistency from them and the players spend most of the game trying to figure out what is and isn't going to be called.

My other pet peeve is when a play happens right in front of one official and he calls nothing but his buddy across the court/field decides to make a call even though there's no way he had a better view then the guy right there. Just worry about your immediate area guys and trust that the rest of your crew will do their jobs.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

A questionable call is a questionable call no matter what the result of the play ends up being.  Are the calls that went the Steelers' way any worse than the blatant block in the back on Roethlisberger that went uncalled and gave the Seahawks 30 extra yards of field position?  Or the Stevens non-fumble?  Just because the Seahawks ended up punting on that drive, does that make it less of a bad call?  Or the flimsy down-by-contact ruling on Hasselbeck because a hand touched him before he went down?  I guess those calls are unimportant and overlooked because the Steelers won or overcame them?

Did the Stevens "non-fumble" help or hurt the Steelers? I'd have to see it again, but, as I recall, the ball was moving pretty quickly out of bounds. If a Steeler couldn't gain possession, it would have been a Seahawk ball inside the 15.

There appeared (at least to me) to be very little chance of the Steelers not recovering the ball in bounds. It was heading much more in the direction of the endzone than the sideline.

Huh? That ball was headed out of bounds, without question. It was crossing the line as they cut away. It did not look to me that they would have got to it, but that's conjecture. He would have had to slide down and scoop it up as he went out of bounds.The issue really is, why blow the whistle? They know better by now, than to end the play, as it will be looked at anyway. Same goes for the Roth TD (one in which his initial call was down). I can't believe that happens still, especially in a game that big. It's ridiculous.

 

[The Jerk]

Huh? That ball was headed out of bounds, without question. It was crossing the line as they cut away. It did not look to me that they would have got to it, but that's conjecture. He would have had to slide down and scoop it up as he went out of bounds.

You do recognize that you're changing your statement mid-post, right? It seems you actually agree that it was not an impossibility for the ball to have stayed in bounds. So all we are disagreeing about is how likely the recovery would be.

 

[Franknbeans]

There was no block in the back on Ben.  Its just grasping for straws.  All the refs in Superbowl XL should be ashamed.  I remember a couple weeks ago a ref having his his window broken because of a bad call int he Indy/pitt game.  And they won the game.

All I'll say to that is that you should watch that play again. One hand on the back of Ben's shoulder, and one in the middle of his back. It happens right around the 30 yard line, and Ben went flying.

Right hereand here

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Huh?  That ball was headed out of bounds, without question.  It was crossing the line as they cut away.  It did not look to me that they would have got to it, but that's conjecture.  He would have had to slide down and scoop it up as he went out of bounds.

You do recognize that you're changing your statement mid-post, right? It seems you actually agree that it was not an impossibility for the ball to have stayed in bounds. So all we are disagreeing about is how likely the recovery would be.

What are you talking about? I am saying the ball was headed out of bounds. IT WAS. Don't confuse that with saying it WOULD HAVE gone out of bounds -- two different things. The "conjecture" part is whether a Steeler could have posessed it before it got there. That's the part that's debatable, not WHERE the ball was going.

 

[BlueOnion]

Right here

and here

Look at the Seahawks head, it is squarely on Big Ben's shoulder, which is the deciding factor for a push in the back. Everything after contact is not relavent.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Right here

and here

Look at the Seahawks head, it is squarely on Big Ben's shoulder, which is the deciding factor for a push in the back. Everything after contact is not relavent.

And look at his right hand... squarely in the middle of Ben's back. His other hand is on the back of Ben's left shoulder. His head isn't what made contact. If called, the Seahawks are starting at the 50 yard line instead of the 20.Again, there are other threads for debating calls, because that doesn't matter anymore.

What it comes down to is that I don't think a referee has the luxury of waiting to see what happens on a play before throwing a flag. If he throws a flag when he sees a penalty, people complain if they don't agree with the call. If he waits to throw the flag, people complain that it was a late flag and the ref didn't really see anything.

People just tend to remember the penalties that had a bigger impact on the game, but dismiss the ones that were either overcome or didn't have as big an impact. I think a questionable call is questionable no matter what the result of the play is, but others disagree I guess.

 

[BlueOnion]

Right here

and here

Look at the Seahawks head, it is squarely on Big Ben's shoulder, which is the deciding factor for a push in the back. Everything after contact is not relavent.

And look at his right hand... squarely in the middle of Ben's back.

As I said, the hand doesn't matter, it is the player's head. You could push a guy in the back with you head squarely in his chest, the referees are not going to call you for pushing a guy in the back.But you might want to look at the new thread I started in regards to throwing flags or not throwing flags. Each referee team may have a different philosophy in regards to throwing flags, picking up flags or when to make a call.

 

[The Jerk]

Huh?  That ball was headed out of bounds, without question.  It was crossing the line as they cut away.  It did not look to me that they would have got to it, but that's conjecture.  He would have had to slide down and scoop it up as he went out of bounds.

You do recognize that you're changing your statement mid-post, right? It seems you actually agree that it was not an impossibility for the ball to have stayed in bounds. So all we are disagreeing about is how likely the recovery would be.

What are you talking about? I am saying the ball was headed out of bounds. IT WAS. Don't confuse that with saying it WOULD HAVE gone out of bounds -- two different things. The "conjecture" part is whether a Steeler could have posessed it before it got there. That's the part that's debatable, not WHERE the ball was going.

I should have been more clear. When I said "not an impossibility for the ball to stay in bounds," I should have continued with "before Farrior could have gotten to it." I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant. I believe I was the more confused.