Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Don't stop here. The Steelers didn't have even one penalty called on them in Super Bowl X. And I think Stallworth got credit for a catch he didn't completely control. Also, in 1947 the Steelers may have gotten a few calls even though they lost that playoff game.
From two other threads...Many posters own themselves by not understanding all details of a rule. People seem to be in such a hurry to express outrage that they fail to examine the nuances involved with what happened on the field. An example of this from SB XLIII is the "arm was going forward" argument concerning Warner's final pass attempt. It's one thing to state your opinion of what you saw and what the rule is while the game is ongoing, but hours after the game I'm still reading people who claim Warner's fumble was an incorrect ruling.
The ruling of fumble or incomplete pass is made based on whether the QB has control of the ball as his arm moves forward. Live, it appeared to me immediately that the play was a fumble, but of course I appreciated the replay that was shown. The slower speed replay clearly showed the ball being punched out before the arm moved forward. It seems that only a small minority of posters understand that the reason that a lengthy booth review did not occur is because the first replay conclusively showed that the right call was made.As I said, I'm not going to go over call by call, as I've learned that most posters won't admit that they may have been even slightly mistaken and they rather like having an axe to grind.
I think what the problem is for most posters is that who ever was up in the booth making that decision made the wrong call. Yes it was looked at, but never got the full review that it deserved. I doubt in the matter of time that they looked at it that they had that obvious of a conclusion that it wasnt worth taking a closer look. So when the posters complain about it not getting reviewed they are right, it was looked at just like every other play does, and they didnt find it review worthy. IMO its the final seconds of a neck to neck super bowl, take the friggen time to make sure. They made the wrong call on letting it end like that, whether or not the play stood.
I really don't understand why people think that was a block in the back.
Because they don't like your team.I really don't understand why people think that was a block in the back.
Because it was? Watch it again. Harrison is about two yards shy of Hightower, and with the angle Hightower had, he would collided with him and either tackled him or taken him out of bounds easily, but the Steeler behind him shoves him with two hands in the back knocking him over and allowing the play to continue. It is a very obvious block in the back.I really don't understand why people think that was a block in the back.
Hightower dives in front of Woodley and turns as he does so. Not only that but Woodley blocked him on the shoulder, not in the back.Because it was? Watch it again. Harrison is about two yards shy of Hightower, and with the angle Hightower had, he would collided with him and either tackled him or taken him out of bounds easily, but the Steeler behind him shoves him with two hands in the back knocking him over and allowing the play to continue. It is a very obvious block in the back.I really don't understand why people think that was a block in the back.
One hand was on his shoulder, the other was on his back, and the shove came from behind. You cannot block a player out of the play from behind like that. That is a penalty. I just rewatched the play, and that is exactly what happened.
No. It wasn't.
It should have been. It wasn't called a penalty, but it should have been. And I understand that on a run back, it is chaos, and the refs are trying to run back to keep up with the play, and to avoid getting run over at the same time, so it is easy to miss some stuff, but a block in the back at nearly the point of the ball carrier is pretty blatant.
Hightower was cutting him off by getting to the sideline, and was reversing momentum to reach back and grab or slow Harrison when he was pushed in the back, continuing his momenmtum forward and taking him out of the play.Had there been no push, I believe Hightower would have slowed him enough to allow pursuit to stop the playCrossEyed said:Hightower dives in front of Woodley and turns as he does so. Not only that but Woodley blocked him on the shoulder, not in the back.Ghost Rider said:Because it was? Watch it again. Harrison is about two yards shy of Hightower, and with the angle Hightower had, he would collided with him and either tackled him or taken him out of bounds easily, but the Steeler behind him shoves him with two hands in the back knocking him over and allowing the play to continue. It is a very obvious block in the back.CrossEyed said:I really don't understand why people think that was a block in the back.Ghost Rider said:
Pretty much what I came here to post.Don't care about either team, but I was rooting for the Cards. And I had the Cards ML and the under, so that last drive really hurt.Evilgrin 72 said:
What do you expect him say? That it was the wrong call and it should have been reviewed? Regardless of whether it was the right or wrong call on the field, you can't believe that Pereira would say that the officials/review booth messed up during the Super Bowl.Evilgrin 72 said:
Why do people always say this? First of all, watch the play and read the rule book. It was a fumble, plain and simple. People are complaining that the booth didn't review it, they DID review it. It was so obviously a fumble that they didn't even need to stop the clock to look at it further. It was cut and dry.And yes, Pereira would have admitted there was a mistake. He's done it on a number of occasions before.. whether it's in the SB or not is irrelevant.Like I said, it's a non-issue. Anyone saying otherwise is just
Where did I say it wasn't a fumble? Where did I say that the booth didn't review it? Calm down, you don't need to be so defensive. If you honestly believe the ANYONE associated with the NFL (or NBC for that matter) would admit to making a mistake of this magnitude during a Super Bowl, you are absolutely nuts. Yes, Pereira has admitted to mistakes being made during games. But I have never seen him admit to mistakes being made during the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl. The fact that it is the Super Bowl, is completely relevant as it is the biggest game of the year, and should be held to higher standards than a regular season game. Whether or not you believe it was a fumble, or that it should have been reviewed is not the point I am making, understand that. The point I am making is, if you expect Pereira to say ANYTHING other than what he said, you are a fool. No way in hell does he admit that the officials made the wrong call, or that the review should have happened. The last thing the NFL wants is to put up with claims that the refs favored the Steelers, and by making any reference to the fact that the play should have been reviewed, the NFL would be inviting those kind of remarks.Again, it isn't about whether the right call was made, it is about whether they would admit to a mistake if there was one.Why do people always say this? First of all, watch the play and read the rule book. It was a fumble, plain and simple. People are complaining that the booth didn't review it, they DID review it. It was so obviously a fumble that they didn't even need to stop the clock to look at it further. It was cut and dry.And yes, Pereira would have admitted there was a mistake. He's done it on a number of occasions before.. whether it's in the SB or not is irrelevant.Like I said, it's a non-issue. Anyone saying otherwise is just
From LAST SEASON:Mike Pereira, the NFL's head of officiating, admitted yesterday that his crew working the Steelers-Jaguars playoff game erred in not calling a holding penalty against Jacksonville on a crucial play that allowed the Jaguars to kick the winning field goal.
100% correct.
People on both sides of this game seem to have blinders on. I guess that's what happens when a team as polarizing as PIT, DAL, or NE is in a big game.But in multiple threads, nobody is even close to having a bigger gap between his own proclaimed knowledge and objectivity, and his actual, glaring bias and confusion as this guy. Christ, my team lost to Pittsburgh 3x this year. If I can watch this game objectively, why in god's name are you so agenda-driven?Refs directly or indirectly caused caused situations that led to scores for both teams. The strange personal fouls called on ARZ, the curious decision of the booth not to demand closer scrutiny of the last "fumble," the bobbled Fitzgerald TD, and the phantom safety. The officials weren't great by any means, but they sure as hell weren't lopsided in their bias. Seeing the tons of lousy calls that went one way, while failing to see the tons of lousy calls that went the other, can only be suggestive of a mind determined to find evidence of conspiracy.Ghost Rider said:
An egregious example, in plain sight of the officials, the players, and the world, of Steeler officiating.He grabbed Ben in a Bear Hug and tried pulling him forward
I don't know that I have seen this called more than once in my lifetime, and not in 30 years or more so I am not even certain if it is still on the books. It just struck me at the time. I am in the camp that the game was pretty well officiated. the calls on the field were very reasonable and when wrong were corrected on review. The on field crew refrained from the too quick whistle and relied upon their backup upstairs.
Again, I never said that the review DIDN'T happen. You are misconstruing the point of what I am saying. And, yes, you did find two instances of where Pereira admitted to mistakes happening in playoff games. I hadn't seen those two write ups. The first one you posted says it took three months to admit to the wrong call. The second link, lacks sources etc. I am sure there is a better article out there. Either way, both of the articles you listed, aren't exactly ringing endorsements of your claim that the NFL admits its mistakes without hesitation. To further redirect you back to my point, because you obviously have your blinders on, and think I am trying to bash the Steelers...you have found two instances where the NFL has admitted mistakes in playoff games. I hadn't seen them before, and even seeing them now, neither of those two links lead me to believe that they would admit to a mistake now IF there was one made. Further more, neither of those two calls/mistakes were in the Super Bowl, again the ultimate correlation I am looking for here. I will say it again as simple as I can, because you keep confusing my intentions, regardless of whether the right call was made, Pereira would have said the same thing. The is no way the NFL takes a crap on its own product, and invites criticism.
I'm not understanding what you're trying to get me to see here. I don't have blinders on, these are facts: you said no way would Pereira admit to mistakes being made in the playoffs - off the top of my head I gave you two examples just involving my team where he did exactly that (and FYI - the Polamalu judgment came within 48 hours of the game, IIRC - not several months later like the Garrard judgment.)I don't think you're trying to bash the Steelers, but I really don't know what you ARE trying to say. Are you saying the wrong call was made? It wasn't. Are you saying that the play should have been reviewed? It was. Are you saying Pereira would have covered for the refs even if they had made the wrong call? He wouldn't, as proven above. So, what precisely is your point?
My point is, I think he would definitely cover for the refs, if the wrong call was made. The two examples you have given, aren't nearly as slam dunk as you are making them out to be. In one instance it takes three months for the mistake to be called. The second instance, was an extremely blatant call that everyone and their mother could have made, and didn't wind up changing the outcome of the game. Neither one of them in the Super Bowl. Now in AZ vs PIT, this call definitely could have changed the outcome of the game, most likely not, but it could have. It is a close call on whether or not he fumbled, regardless of how you slice it. I personally think he did fumble, and that even if it was reviewed, it wouldn't have been overturned. I also think that if it was ruled an incomplete pass on the field, it wouldn't have been overturned under review either. Either way you want to look at it, if you think it was the right call or wrong call, I sincerely doubt that the NFL would admit to a mistake if there was one. That is all I am trying to say, I don't think that is hard to understand.
It WAS reviewed by the replay official in the booth and upheld. It was so slam-dunk that they didn't even need to stop the game to see other angels, that's what I think you're missing. In any event, had it been a mistake, I am sure Pereira would have admitted it, especially since he's on his way out. He has no axe to grind. In any event, it's a moot point because the play was reviewed and upheld.
Not reviewing the play was absurd. You can't say that it was that obvious that it didn't require a review - it's the end of the Super Bowl, if it's even close, the refs on the field should be taking a look at it. The fact that this discussion even exists the day after the Super Bowl is unfortunate, and is why the NFL failed here.
Again, the point is the play was reviewed.It was deemed clear enough to not warrant further stoppage.
Stop with the semantics game. I don't mean that they didn't look at it. I mean the decision they made in the booth to not to give it a review by the officials on the field is absurd.
But, but, but, couldn't they have made a show of taking longer so that folks could have been satisfied that they really reviewed the hell out of it? I for one would have been happier with over review, even senselessly excessive review. Is tha tto much to ask?
How many times do I have to say this..THE PLAY WAS REVIEWED
I never said it wasn't reviewed by the booth, but there is a difference between a booth review and a review by the officials on the field...that was the distinction I was pointing out above. I know that the booth reviewed it, and deemed it the correct call; I've never argued that fact. We are just talking at each other at this point. You keep falling back on the fact that I am misinterpreting the facts some how, which I am not. I am just looking at it from a different angle. But regardless, we will just have to agree to disagree on the opinion on whether or not they would admit this sort of mistake (if there was one, not saying there was) in Super Bowl.
But was he super duper clear, I think that is the question.
Can you not read? I understand how it works. I'm saying the decision that the official in the booth made, was absurd. That play should've been reviewed, as in reviewed by the officials on the field, the ones who actually uphold or overturn plays.That play was not so obviously a fumble that it should not have been reviewed, no matter how many times you say it. Obvious plays are sent down for a review all the time, and this play being in the grey area, and the play that ended the Super Bowl, and (coincidentally) the play that ended the game to give a W to the Steelers, absolutely should have been reviewed by the officials on the field.
I get your point.The process worked exactly as it should have.I think once something is merely obvious is gets pointless to determine whether it is actually and officially beyond the shadow of a doubt, without hesitation, and for sure obvious or just simnply obvious.For me, it's a silly argument, but I do get your point.
thatguy said:
how could they not review that play?listen, i thought that was a great game. the steelers definately got the calls. but that last play, come on. how do they not do an official review? it looked like Warners' arm was moving forward when he lost control of the ball to me. the hit didnt jar the ball loose immediately. would they have overturned it? i dont know. but how do they not look at that?
OK, then don't say reviewed, say 'reviewed on the field' so I know what you mean.I get your point now, but it was very obviously a fumble and we didn't need 5 minutes of pointless review on the field to uphold a call that was never going to be overturned. Not with 5 seconds left in the game. The replay official did the exact right thing and let the game end the way it should have rather than with yet another interminable on-field review.
wow, that was a quick review of a very questionable call. i dont buy it. i've watched the play many times. it's not a 10 second review. to say it was clearly a fumble is wrong.
ok, so heres a question for you. when did Warner lose control of the ball? looked like as his arm was coming forward to me. the contact didnt immediately jar the ball loose.
I'd admit the play was a fumble and instead of worrying about whether or not it should have been reviewed, I'd admit it was the right call and tip my cap to the Cardinals instead of blaming the refs yet again.
At least, after XL, the whining can't ever be worse (not insinuating that whining is what any one individual in this thread is doing) than that, so this time around, I'm literally laughing in my office at some of the trolls trying to fish.
I've not heard one media person today say it should have been overturned.So reviewed or not no one seems to be stating that it was not a fumble.
