Refs suck
- Thread starter mcsluggo
- Start date
Pittsburgh also played poorly. They "won."
I don't think that Vegas, or the Kissinger, or the Maloofs, or any of the Cheneys (Lon, Dick, or Lon Jr.) had anything to do with it. But the simple fact is that the refs flat out blew chunks, and all the chunks landed on and stuck to, one team.
You (meaning anyone) can argue all you want that the Hawks should've overcome this adversity, and had they been a true champion they would have... bla bla bla. Fine, that is all true. However, had those vile chunks soiled the Steelers instead of the Hawks, hawks win. period. It is as simple as that. And so the Steeler's victory rings a bit hollow. It is hard to crow about THEIR championship hearts as well, we didn't didn't get to witness it.
The refs had an influence over which team that was playing poorly won the game. Whether or not it was a conspiracy (which is highly highly unlikely, to say the least) it soils the game.
I don't think that Vegas, or the Kissinger, or the Maloofs, or any of the Cheneys (Lon, Dick, or Lon Jr.) had anything to do with it. But the simple fact is that the refs flat out blew chunks, and all the chunks landed on and stuck to, one team.
You (meaning anyone) can argue all you want that the Hawks should've overcome this adversity, and had they been a true champion they would have... bla bla bla. Fine, that is all true. However, had those vile chunks soiled the Steelers instead of the Hawks, hawks win. period. It is as simple as that. And so the Steeler's victory rings a bit hollow. It is hard to crow about THEIR championship hearts as well, we didn't didn't get to witness it.
The refs had an influence over which team that was playing poorly won the game. Whether or not it was a conspiracy (which is highly highly unlikely, to say the least) it soils the game.
If you and I run a race against each other, and midway some random dog rushes up and starts gnawing on your ankle, and I win. It doesn't matter that you were already running slower than Bob Dole before the dog appeared, or that the dog wasn't mine (or in my employ).
What matters is I win the race, but I lose a lot of my justification to crowe about said victory. In any less structured sport (boxing, or track and field or whatever etc...) all the handlers would ALREADY be booking HBO and setting up a re-match. The outcome is tainted.
What matters is I win the race, but I lose a lot of my justification to crowe about said victory. In any less structured sport (boxing, or track and field or whatever etc...) all the handlers would ALREADY be booking HBO and setting up a re-match. The outcome is tainted.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5314560
NFL defends Super Bowl officiating
Associated Press
Posted: 8 hours ago
The NFL defended the officiating in the Super Bowl
Two days after the Steelers beat the Seahawks 21-10 in the NFL title game, the league said Tuesday that the game was "properly officiated."
"Including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement.
The officiating, though, has been a the major topic of discussion since Sunday night. Right after the game, Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren suggested that a first-quarter offensive interference call on the Seahawks' Darrell Jackson, negating what would have been the game's first touchdown, probably should have been "a no call."
Holmgren, a former chairman of the NFL's rule-making competition committee, fueled the debate Monday during a rally for the Seahawks at Qwest Field when he said, "We knew it was going to be tough going up against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I didn't know we were going to have to play the guys in the striped shirts as well."
The questionable calls:
- Replays on the offensive interference call showed that Jackson's arms made contact with Pittsburgh's Chris Hope and that they separated afterward. Under the rules, pass interference took place but sometimes the call isn't made.
- The first TD of the game scored on a third-down rollout by Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger late in the first half. Roethlisberger appeared to come down short of the goal line, but it was unclear on replay whether he had gotten the ball to the line before going down. Referee Bill Leavy upheld the call because there was not enough incontrovertible evidence to overturn it.
- Holding call on Sean Locklear in the fourth: Locklear's penalty erased an 18-yard completion from Matt Hasselbeck to Jerramy Stevens to the Pittsburgh 1 that would have put the Seahawks in position to go ahead 17-14 with around 12 minutes left. It was a close call that was difficult to see on replay.
- One call that clearly appeared erroneous came after that penalty, when Hasselbeck threw an interception to Pittsburgh's Ike Taylor, then made the tackle but was called for a block below the waist, giving the Steelers an extra 15 yards. They scored soon afterward on a pass from Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward. Replays showed Hasselbeck never made contact with the player he was supposed to have hit illegally, instead going straight to Taylor to make the tackle.
The Super Bowl crew headed by Leavy was comprised of officials who graded out best at each position during the regular season.
As with the Indy-Pittsburgh game, the NFL looked into some of the questionable calls, which is what fans on both sides were asking for them to do. Unfortunately, people are still going to question even that.
I love the Steelers just as much as I do the Kings and the Cubs. And like with the NLCS back in 2003, even thought I "know" Steve Bartman didn't cause them to lose that series, I still like to blame him, so I understand Seattle fans wanting to blame the refs. It makes taking a loss easier if the blame can be put squarely on someone else's shoulders instead of our own.
NFL defends Super Bowl officiating
Associated Press
Posted: 8 hours ago
The NFL defended the officiating in the Super Bowl
Two days after the Steelers beat the Seahawks 21-10 in the NFL title game, the league said Tuesday that the game was "properly officiated."
"Including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement.
The officiating, though, has been a the major topic of discussion since Sunday night. Right after the game, Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren suggested that a first-quarter offensive interference call on the Seahawks' Darrell Jackson, negating what would have been the game's first touchdown, probably should have been "a no call."
Holmgren, a former chairman of the NFL's rule-making competition committee, fueled the debate Monday during a rally for the Seahawks at Qwest Field when he said, "We knew it was going to be tough going up against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I didn't know we were going to have to play the guys in the striped shirts as well."
The questionable calls:
- Replays on the offensive interference call showed that Jackson's arms made contact with Pittsburgh's Chris Hope and that they separated afterward. Under the rules, pass interference took place but sometimes the call isn't made.
- The first TD of the game scored on a third-down rollout by Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger late in the first half. Roethlisberger appeared to come down short of the goal line, but it was unclear on replay whether he had gotten the ball to the line before going down. Referee Bill Leavy upheld the call because there was not enough incontrovertible evidence to overturn it.
- Holding call on Sean Locklear in the fourth: Locklear's penalty erased an 18-yard completion from Matt Hasselbeck to Jerramy Stevens to the Pittsburgh 1 that would have put the Seahawks in position to go ahead 17-14 with around 12 minutes left. It was a close call that was difficult to see on replay.
- One call that clearly appeared erroneous came after that penalty, when Hasselbeck threw an interception to Pittsburgh's Ike Taylor, then made the tackle but was called for a block below the waist, giving the Steelers an extra 15 yards. They scored soon afterward on a pass from Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward. Replays showed Hasselbeck never made contact with the player he was supposed to have hit illegally, instead going straight to Taylor to make the tackle.
The Super Bowl crew headed by Leavy was comprised of officials who graded out best at each position during the regular season.
As with the Indy-Pittsburgh game, the NFL looked into some of the questionable calls, which is what fans on both sides were asking for them to do. Unfortunately, people are still going to question even that.
I love the Steelers just as much as I do the Kings and the Cubs. And like with the NLCS back in 2003, even thought I "know" Steve Bartman didn't cause them to lose that series, I still like to blame him, so I understand Seattle fans wanting to blame the refs. It makes taking a loss easier if the blame can be put squarely on someone else's shoulders instead of our own.
Last edited:
C
HBO's Inside the NFL discussed the calls. Here is how they ruled:
1. Darrell Jackson's pushoff: Marino - "good call," Collinsworth - "good call," Carter - "good call"
2. Roethslisberger's touchdown: Marino- "good call," Collinsworth - "good call," Carter - "good call"
3. Darrell Jackson's out of bounds reception: Marino "good call," Collinsworth - "good call," Carter - "good call"
4. Sean Locklear's holding penalty: Marino - "good call," Collinsworth - "bad call," Carter - "bad call"
5. Hasselbeck's chop block: Marino - "bad call," Collinsworth - "bad call," Carter - "bad call"
Overall, all three thought the referees did a very good job. I agree.
1. Darrell Jackson's pushoff: Marino - "good call," Collinsworth - "good call," Carter - "good call"
2. Roethslisberger's touchdown: Marino- "good call," Collinsworth - "good call," Carter - "good call"
3. Darrell Jackson's out of bounds reception: Marino "good call," Collinsworth - "good call," Carter - "good call"
4. Sean Locklear's holding penalty: Marino - "good call," Collinsworth - "bad call," Carter - "bad call"
5. Hasselbeck's chop block: Marino - "bad call," Collinsworth - "bad call," Carter - "bad call"
Overall, all three thought the referees did a very good job. I agree.
C
ESPN Gene Wojchichowski's take:
And finally, can we stuff a very large sani-sock into the mouth of Seattle coach Mike Holmgren, and anyone else who says the refs had it out for the poor, little Seahawks? The signs are very clever (Refs 21, Seahawks 10 ... or, Pittsburgh's 12th Man: The Refs), but they're bogus. It's how sore losers rationalize a final score. Worse yet, it's crying. And there's no crying in football, unless you're Hines Ward.
I know what you're thinking Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts, Denver Broncos and, yes, Seattle Seahawks. You're thinking about the way the Steelers bumbled about in Ford Field, and you're saying to yourselves: "Tell me again how we lost to these guys?''
Think about Sunday's game:
Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger freaked out ... The best Pittsburgh pass of the day (and I'm stealing Michael Irvin's line here) was thrown by wide receiver Antwaan Randle El ... The Steelers' inspirational "hero,'' Jerome Bettis, rushed for a grand total of 43 yards and couldn't pound it in when Pittsburgh needed him most ... The Steelers had fewer passing yards, less time of possession, fewer total yards, and more turnovers. And yet, the Steelers won by 11, covering the spread with ease.
Conspiracy theories arrived moments later.
The refs stole it.
The NFL "wanted'' this.
The Seahawks were really the better team.
Look, the game itself was 3 hours and 36 minutes of yawns. I think we can all pretty much agree on that. I loved the story lines, but the game, not so much. But to simply dismiss the Steelers victory as an act of referee kindness is to take a Bettis-sized leap of faith.
Sorry, but Seahawks receiver Darrell Jackson pushed off in the end zone. Did it gain him an advantage? Maybe. Maybe not. All that matters is that the official standing nearby -- a lot closer than John Madden, you or me -- thought so. Instead of a touchdown, Seattle settled for a 3-0 first quarter lead.
Sorry, but Roethlisberger might have broken the plane of the goal line on his second quarter 1-yard TD dive. Or not. That's what matters, right? Not where he landed, but if the ball broke the plane? The play was reviewed and upheld. What else was anyone supposed to do? And while there are no guarantees, if the ball had been spotted just short of the goal line, the Steelers were 100 percent on fourth-and-goals this season.
Sorry, I truly don't know whether Sean Locklear held Clark Haggans on that key fourth quarter call. Even if he didn't, and it was first-and-goal from the Pittsburgh 1, then what? If you can't guarantee Pittsburgh's scoring on fourth-and-inches in the second quarter, you can't guarantee Seattle's scoring on first-and-goal from the 1. Why? Because funny things happen, like the Bettis fumble against Indy. Or Roethlisberger's underthrowing a wide-open Cedrick Wilson against Seattle, costing the Steelers a sure touchdown or a likely field goal (the ball was at the Seahawks' 7). Instead, Kelly Herndon intercepted the crummy pass, returned it 76 yards and Seattle scored three plays later.
No one can deny there were questionable calls during the game. But before Holmgren and Latte Nation start whining about playing "the guys in the striped shirts as well,'' perhaps a history lesson is in order.
The striped shirts didn't cause tight end Jerramy Stevens to drop four passes. The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up a Steelers first down on a third-and-28 situation (which later led to the Roethlisberger disputed TD). The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up the longest touchdown run in Super Bowl history. They also didn't cause Etric Pruitt to sprint up from his safety position, only to be fooled by the trick play that resulted in Randle El's 43-yard TD pass to Ward (and by the way, if everyone knows the Steelers like to run gadget plays near midfield, don't you think the Seahawks knew it too?). Or cause Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck to throw a killer interception with nearly 11 minutes left in the game and Seattle trailing by only four points.
Enough already with the whining. The Seahawks had their chances. Plenty of them to overcome the Steelers and, if they insist, the refs, too.
Holmgren, who didn't exactly distinguish himself in the waning minutes of both halves, is no doubt suffering some post-Super Bowl anger. Perfectly understandable, especially in front of the thousands who greeted the team upon its return to Seattle. But days, weeks, months from now, when he's able to think more clearly, he'll realize the only people to blame for the loss were wearing Seahawks metallic blue, not black and white.
And finally, can we stuff a very large sani-sock into the mouth of Seattle coach Mike Holmgren, and anyone else who says the refs had it out for the poor, little Seahawks? The signs are very clever (Refs 21, Seahawks 10 ... or, Pittsburgh's 12th Man: The Refs), but they're bogus. It's how sore losers rationalize a final score. Worse yet, it's crying. And there's no crying in football, unless you're Hines Ward.
I know what you're thinking Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts, Denver Broncos and, yes, Seattle Seahawks. You're thinking about the way the Steelers bumbled about in Ford Field, and you're saying to yourselves: "Tell me again how we lost to these guys?''
Think about Sunday's game:
Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger freaked out ... The best Pittsburgh pass of the day (and I'm stealing Michael Irvin's line here) was thrown by wide receiver Antwaan Randle El ... The Steelers' inspirational "hero,'' Jerome Bettis, rushed for a grand total of 43 yards and couldn't pound it in when Pittsburgh needed him most ... The Steelers had fewer passing yards, less time of possession, fewer total yards, and more turnovers. And yet, the Steelers won by 11, covering the spread with ease.
Conspiracy theories arrived moments later.
The refs stole it.
The NFL "wanted'' this.
The Seahawks were really the better team.
Look, the game itself was 3 hours and 36 minutes of yawns. I think we can all pretty much agree on that. I loved the story lines, but the game, not so much. But to simply dismiss the Steelers victory as an act of referee kindness is to take a Bettis-sized leap of faith.
Sorry, but Seahawks receiver Darrell Jackson pushed off in the end zone. Did it gain him an advantage? Maybe. Maybe not. All that matters is that the official standing nearby -- a lot closer than John Madden, you or me -- thought so. Instead of a touchdown, Seattle settled for a 3-0 first quarter lead.
Sorry, but Roethlisberger might have broken the plane of the goal line on his second quarter 1-yard TD dive. Or not. That's what matters, right? Not where he landed, but if the ball broke the plane? The play was reviewed and upheld. What else was anyone supposed to do? And while there are no guarantees, if the ball had been spotted just short of the goal line, the Steelers were 100 percent on fourth-and-goals this season.
Sorry, I truly don't know whether Sean Locklear held Clark Haggans on that key fourth quarter call. Even if he didn't, and it was first-and-goal from the Pittsburgh 1, then what? If you can't guarantee Pittsburgh's scoring on fourth-and-inches in the second quarter, you can't guarantee Seattle's scoring on first-and-goal from the 1. Why? Because funny things happen, like the Bettis fumble against Indy. Or Roethlisberger's underthrowing a wide-open Cedrick Wilson against Seattle, costing the Steelers a sure touchdown or a likely field goal (the ball was at the Seahawks' 7). Instead, Kelly Herndon intercepted the crummy pass, returned it 76 yards and Seattle scored three plays later.
No one can deny there were questionable calls during the game. But before Holmgren and Latte Nation start whining about playing "the guys in the striped shirts as well,'' perhaps a history lesson is in order.
The striped shirts didn't cause tight end Jerramy Stevens to drop four passes. The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up a Steelers first down on a third-and-28 situation (which later led to the Roethlisberger disputed TD). The striped shirts didn't cause the Seahawks defense to give up the longest touchdown run in Super Bowl history. They also didn't cause Etric Pruitt to sprint up from his safety position, only to be fooled by the trick play that resulted in Randle El's 43-yard TD pass to Ward (and by the way, if everyone knows the Steelers like to run gadget plays near midfield, don't you think the Seahawks knew it too?). Or cause Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck to throw a killer interception with nearly 11 minutes left in the game and Seattle trailing by only four points.
Enough already with the whining. The Seahawks had their chances. Plenty of them to overcome the Steelers and, if they insist, the refs, too.
Holmgren, who didn't exactly distinguish himself in the waning minutes of both halves, is no doubt suffering some post-Super Bowl anger. Perfectly understandable, especially in front of the thousands who greeted the team upon its return to Seattle. But days, weeks, months from now, when he's able to think more clearly, he'll realize the only people to blame for the loss were wearing Seahawks metallic blue, not black and white.
That line of reasoning is vacant.
Yes there were many plays in the game. Yes, the refs did not have a direct influence in the outcome of some of them (even most of them). Yes, Pitt came out on top in some of the plays that the refs did not influence (though not many).
So what? You could use that EXACT same reasoning if there were 50 plays in the game, and the refs literally would not allow pitt to touch seattle players on 6 plays (and literally handed out 42 points), you could STILL just point to 44 other individual plays and use that exact same argument. Verbatum. Without changing a word. What does it say? Absolutely nothing.
OJ is innocent, because he clearly hasn't murdered Debrah Gibson yet.
Yes there were many plays in the game. Yes, the refs did not have a direct influence in the outcome of some of them (even most of them). Yes, Pitt came out on top in some of the plays that the refs did not influence (though not many).
So what? You could use that EXACT same reasoning if there were 50 plays in the game, and the refs literally would not allow pitt to touch seattle players on 6 plays (and literally handed out 42 points), you could STILL just point to 44 other individual plays and use that exact same argument. Verbatum. Without changing a word. What does it say? Absolutely nothing.
OJ is innocent, because he clearly hasn't murdered Debrah Gibson yet.
T
Interesting take from Clark Judge:
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9216799
"No. Sorry, Seattle fans, but officiating is OK the way it is -- which is imperfect but effective. I don't care that we have mistakes. Last time I checked human error was part of sports. What I do care about is that we don't have so many mistakes where the outcome is affected. That didn't happen this time, and it won't happen -- thanks to instant replay. It can correct a bad call, as it did Sunday with an alleged Matt Hasselbeck fumble. Or, it can verify a good one, as it did with Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown run. And that is its purpose. Don't tell me about Darrell Jackson's pass interference. He extended his arms, and the official was in perfect position to make the call. Sean Locklear's holding? Marginal, but it was a judgment decision -- and if your complaint is with judgment calls then have instant replay adjudicate every decision of every game. Then sit back and enjoy eight hours of dissecting videotape. No, Super Bowl XL wasn't officiated perfectly, but it was officiated a lot better than it was played."
The game is over. As am I with this thread. I'm not a Pitt fan or a Hawk hater, just tired of the complaining. Peace.
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9216799
"No. Sorry, Seattle fans, but officiating is OK the way it is -- which is imperfect but effective. I don't care that we have mistakes. Last time I checked human error was part of sports. What I do care about is that we don't have so many mistakes where the outcome is affected. That didn't happen this time, and it won't happen -- thanks to instant replay. It can correct a bad call, as it did Sunday with an alleged Matt Hasselbeck fumble. Or, it can verify a good one, as it did with Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown run. And that is its purpose. Don't tell me about Darrell Jackson's pass interference. He extended his arms, and the official was in perfect position to make the call. Sean Locklear's holding? Marginal, but it was a judgment decision -- and if your complaint is with judgment calls then have instant replay adjudicate every decision of every game. Then sit back and enjoy eight hours of dissecting videotape. No, Super Bowl XL wasn't officiated perfectly, but it was officiated a lot better than it was played."
The game is over. As am I with this thread. I'm not a Pitt fan or a Hawk hater, just tired of the complaining. Peace.
Last edited by a moderator: