Would the outcome of the superbowl be the same...

[Motion]

The game was called fair.

You must have been watching a different game. Or your a closet Steelers fan.

 

[adamprez2003]

Every game will have blown calls, but having every call seemingly go for one team is why conspiracy theorists believe the game was fixeed. Does anyone remember the final odds for the game? Was it still at 4 or 4 1/2?

Vegas needed the Steelers to win and surprise - they did. From what I heard they made a killing. Let the conspiracy theories start:evil:

 

[MNFINFAN]

I don't know if they would have won though I think they would have done, but blimey I would love to have seen what a fair called game would have been like, it would have been a lot more exciting that is for sure.

 

[flintsilver7]

Bad Pass interferecnce call so it should be 7-0

Big Ben didnt get in so it should be 7-0, or 7-3, possibly 7-7 if they go for it on fourth

Play before halftime the WR got his left foot in and kicked the pylon with his right- 14-7/14-3

75 yard run 14-14/14-10

Terrible holding call or else seattle is on the 1 yard line so lets assume the MVP does score 21-14/21-10

Trick play TD 21-21/21-17

Basically if everything goes the same without the dumb calls, it comes down to a coaching decision by the Steelers after Ben doesnt get the TD, if they go for a TD and get it its a tie, if they dont then they lose

Of course things wouldnt go the same but im saying IF they did

Not that I expect more from you, but...

Assumption 1: The pass interference call was incorrect. According to the rulebook, it was pass interference. The rules are clear on this.

Assumption 2: Roethlisberger didn't get in. Video is inconclusive but does suggest that the ball did cross the plane of the goalline. The referee, the one guy with the best view, said it was a touchdown. Reviews upheld this. The truth of the matter is he very likely got in, judging from the photos, videos, and referee perspective that we know exists.

Assumption 3: Darrell Jackson scored a TD. You clearly do not, as I have stated in another thread, understand the rules. This was never contested - during the game or otherwise - by anybody who knows the rules.

Assumption 4: The holding call was incorrect. As I have pointed out - as have other NFL analysts - Locklear hooked the defender, which is explicity disallowed by the rules. If you want to ***** that it wasn't called on other plays, maybe it wasn't. I've seen no proof of Steelers holding that was not called. I have seen several instances of Seattle holding that was not called. Regardless, the defender was hooked. This is textbook holding.

Assumption 5: That Seattle scores from the 1. This should be 0, 3, or 7. There are no guarantees, considering Jerome Bettis, who hadn't fumbled in more than a year, fumbled against the Colts from the 2.

Seattle got outplayed. Deal with it. The only bad call in the game was the low blocker takeout called on Hasselbeck.

 

[nopony]

The game was called fair. These "bad calls" are being blown out of proportion. Whatever though, I'm tired of the discussion. Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl. That's that. Seattle and all their fans can cry all the way through the off season. Doesn't change a thing.

If you think that game was called fairly... you are either related to the refs or didn't actualy watch the game.

I couldn't care less who won, if anything I was rooting for the Steelers.

And about 90% of the people saying the officiating was crap are not Seahawk fans.

As far as this thread... no way to know. But I can say one thing for sure... it would have been a much better game.

 

[SCall13]

You must have been watching a different game. Or your a closet Steelers fan.

Oh yeah. I'm a closet Steelers fan. :rolleyes2

 

[Pauly]

If you think that game was called fairly... you are either related to the refs or didn't actualy watch the game.

I couldn't care less who won, if anything I was rooting for the Steelers.

And about 90% of the people saying the officiating was crap are not Seahawk fans.

As far as this thread... no way to know. But I can say one thing for sure... it would have been a much better game.

The game was called fairly. The referees made the calls as they saw them. The fact that the TV analysts (and therefore the majority of the population) disagreed with those calls doesn't change the fact that the referees called the game fairly. It might help if the TV networks actually emplyed a referee on the broadcast crew because some of the ex players and ex coaches seem to have trouble understanding what's actually in the rulebook.

To say the game was called unfairly is to say that the referees went out with a deliberate agenda to help the Steelers, which is X-files stuff.

Close calls are a swings and roundabouts kind of things. Some days you get them going your way, some days you don't. The other thing is that everybody is focussing on the calls and non-calls that went the Steelers way, but if the Steelers had lost there'd be a lot more attention payed to the calls and non-calls that went the Seahawks way. As flintsilver has pointed out the Seahawks OL got away with a fair bit of holding in the game.

The referees weren't the ones who dropped 4 passes, or screwed up the clock management at the end of the first half. The difference between the 2 teams was that the Steelers made 3 big plays against the Seahawks 1. If the Seahawks had been able to bust one long run or long pass all day they'd have a much better case for whining.

 

[nopony]

The game was called fairly.

Not hardly.

The referees made the calls as they saw them.

That's fine. But they saw them wrong.

The fact that the TV analysts (and therefore the majority of the population) disagreed with those calls doesn't change the fact that the referees called the game fairly.

No, it's the fact that they made multiple crap calls that means they didn't call the game fairly.

It might help if the TV networks actually emplyed a referee on the broadcast crew because some of the ex players and ex coaches seem to have trouble understanding what's actually in the rulebook.

:shakeno:

Yeah. none of us know the rules.

To say the game was called unfairly is to say that the referees went out with a deliberate agenda to help the Steelers, which is X-files stuff.

No, it isn't. Fair doesn't imply intent. You are implying intent, not me.

Close calls are a swings and roundabouts kind of things. Some days you get them going your way, some days you don't. The other thing is that everybody is focussing on the calls and non-calls that went the Steelers way, but if the Steelers had lost there'd be a lot more attention payed to the calls and non-calls that went the Seahawks way. As flintsilver has pointed out the Seahawks OL got away with a fair bit of holding in the game.

1. The seahawks didn't get away with any holdign that the Steelers didn't... and as a bonus they got a couple phantom calls, too! Lucky them.

2. Sure. bad calls go around and come around. But in the biggest game of the year, to have almost every questionable call go against one team is crap.

3. The idea that if the Hawks won, the Steelers would have as much complaint is preposterous. I've never seen such a consensus that the game was officiating was horrific.

The referees weren't the ones who dropped 4 passes, or screwed up the clock management at the end of the first half. The difference between the 2 teams was that the Steelers made 3 big plays against the Seahawks 1. If the Seahawks had been able to bust one long run or long pass all day they'd have a much better case for whining.

The difference was the refs called back half the Seahawks big plays.

And whining? Give me a break. Critical analysis of an officiating breakdown is not whining. If anything whining is the people that say "But... but... but the Hawks could have won if they'd just completed some big plays..."

I don't like the hawks at all. And I was rooting for Pittsburg. And that was hands down the worst officiated superbowl yet. And all at the expense of one team.

Fair? Hardly.

 

[Pauly]

I look at close calls as a toin coss. If you flip a coin 10 times you won't get heads-tails-heads-tails distribution. Sometimes it will seem like that coin has two heads or two tails.

A fairly called game is one where the referees make the calls as they see them, it's all I ask of referees. I'm not saying the game was called well or that I necessarily agree with all the calls made by the referees. But there is a world of difference between a bad call and an unfair call, unfair does imply intent or bias.

The reason why I think that having a referee on board for a broadcast is a good idea is that I've listened to rugby games where one of the callers was an ex-international referee, it makes a huge difference having someone who actually knows the rules explain calls and non calls as opposed to ex players or ex coaches who think they know expound on the rules. If one of the NFL broadcasters ever takes up the idea and you'll see what I mean.

I'm not suggesting that the Steelers had anywhere as much to complain about if they'd lost, but what I am saying is that if they had there would be a lot more looking at calls and non calls that went the Seahawks way. It's a fact of life that the questionable calls that go against the loser are the usually the ones that get the magnifying glass attention.

I'm not suggesting that both teams got an equal share of the questionable/bad calls, all what I'm saying is that the referees didn't go out with the intent to help the Steelers win and that if the microscope was applied to each and every play we might find that the Steelers had a few more calls go against them than is commonly believed.

At the end of the day refereeing is something the Seahawks have no control over. Look at the things they had control over. Their playcalling at the ends of both halves was poor. They missed field goals. They didn't cover receivers properly on critical plays. They dropped catches. They had the opportunity to overcome the refereeing but they didn't because of errors they made.

If you adjust the questionable calls to a 50-50 split you're probably looking at a 10 point differential. By my reckoning the Seahawks left about 14 - 20 points off the scoreboard due to their errors.

 

[Flying Pencil]

That's fine. But they saw them wrong.

On the hold, Locklear hooked Haggans' right arm with his right arm. The only replay ABC deigned to show came from the left completely obscuring the penalty that was seen and called by the refs. If you can't see the play at all, you can't just say "the refs saw it wrong".

On the Hasselback personal foul, he clearly dove through #26 to get to #24 Taylor. Any contact below the knees of a blocker on a return play is a penalty. The Steelers were called for a similar play against the Colts on Monday Night Football. The replay from up the field clearly showed the ref's perspective, and clearly showed the contact.

It's not the best penalty, but it's one of the "Player's Safety" penalty, just like leaping or the new penalty inspired by the Sapp-Clifton "block".

On the Ben TD, I don't think people realize how idiotproof the rule is. A sliver of the leather over a single speck of the chalk is a touchdown. The very, very front of the white line is all you need to reach, and Ben did that.

Regarding the official not signalling until he reached the pile, has anyone actually seen other football games? On goalline plays where the runner is down in the pile, officials quite often hold the signal until they reach the pile, even if it's obvious to us the runner crossed. I've seen it too often for it to be one official's habit. Surely you've seen at least one play where you've said to yourself, "Just call Touchdown already, half of his body's in the endzone!"

:shakeno:

Yeah. none of us know the rules.

Alex22 thinks kicking the pylon counts as getting a foot down in bounds. Numerous people have mockingly said, "How can Hasselback block low if he's a defender?", or "Big Ben blocked that Seahawk low on the trick play!"

If people actually knew the rules, they'd know and point out exactly how ridiculous and ignorant those statements are. Instead they just repeat them . . .

1. The seahawks didn't get away with any holdign that the Steelers didn't... and as a bonus they got a couple phantom calls, too! Lucky them.

Locklear's hold was directly responsible for preventing a sack and/or allowing Hasselback to throw the pass. Jackson's push-off was directly responsible for his gaining immediate separation and catching a touchdown (and directly in front of the official, for good measure). Refs try to be lenient in title games, but only if the actions aren't largely instrumental in shaping the play. Holding is called like that year-round.

 

[Mauler]

Bad Pass interferecnce call so it should be 7-0

Big Ben didnt get in so it should be 7-0, or 7-3, possibly 7-7 if they go for it on fourth

Play before halftime the WR got his left foot in and kicked the pylon with his right- 14-7/14-3

75 yard run 14-14/14-10

Terrible holding call or else seattle is on the 1 yard line so lets assume the MVP does score 21-14/21-10

Trick play TD 21-21/21-17

Basically if everything goes the same without the dumb calls, it comes down to a coaching decision by the Steelers after Ben doesnt get the TD, if they go for a TD and get it its a tie, if they dont then they lose

Of course things wouldnt go the same but im saying IF they did

You dont know football do you. You have to get TWO FEET DOWN.
Pylon is not out of bounds, but it does NOT equal the ground and does not get used to gain possession.

 

[Mauler]

And subsequently, according to your very own list,
the same team still wins and the same team still loses.

 

[djfresh47]

On the hold, Locklear hooked Haggans' right arm with his right arm. The only replay ABC deigned to show came from the left completely obscuring the penalty that was seen and called by the refs. If you can't see the play at all, you can't just say "the refs saw it wrong".

On the Hasselback personal foul, he clearly dove through #26 to get to #24 Taylor. Any contact below the knees of a blocker on a return play is a penalty. The Steelers were called for a similar play against the Colts on Monday Night Football. The replay from up the field clearly showed the ref's perspective, and clearly showed the contact.

It's not the best penalty, but it's one of the "Player's Safety" penalty, just like leaping or the new penalty inspired by the Sapp-Clifton "block".

On the Ben TD, I don't think people realize how idiotproof the rule is. A sliver of the leather over a single speck of the chalk is a touchdown. The very, very front of the white line is all you need to reach, and Ben did that.

Regarding the official not signalling until he reached the pile, has anyone actually seen other football games? On goalline plays where the runner is down in the pile, officials quite often hold the signal until they reach the pile, even if it's obvious to us the runner crossed. I've seen it too often for it to be one official's habit. Surely you've seen at least one play where you've said to yourself, "Just call Touchdown already, half of his body's in the endzone!"



Alex22 thinks kicking the pylon counts as getting a foot down in bounds. Numerous people have mockingly said, "How can Hasselback block low if he's a defender?", or "Big Ben blocked that Seahawk low on the trick play!"

If people actually knew the rules, they'd know and point out exactly how ridiculous and ignorant those statements are. Instead they just repeat them . . .



Locklear's hold was directly responsible for preventing a sack and/or allowing Hasselback to throw the pass. Jackson's push-off was directly responsible for his gaining immediate separation and catching a touchdown (and directly in front of the official, for good measure). Refs try to be lenient in title games, but only if the actions aren't largely instrumental in shaping the play. Holding is called like that year-round.

Locklear was not holding, and to thing so is just ridiculous. Jackson did push off but the ref didn't even go for the flag until I believe Hope turned around and pleaded for the call. Hasselbeck didn't clearly dive through anyone, he made a tackle and actually I believe one of the guys that he was going to take out jumped over him. Maybe you have different angles than are given to most people, because every replay of those calls i've seen have shown that they were wrong. The Ben touchdown is a judgement call, and if he's called not in the end zone then it wouldn't of been overturned if Pitt challenged. What about the hold on the punt return? That was a blown call also, and may have been the worst call of the whole game. I think the NFL needs to go to full-time officials, or rather than having the best individuals go officiate the most important games have the best crews.

 

[Flying Pencil]

Locklear was not holding, and to thing so is just ridiculous. Jackson did push off but the ref didn't even go for the flag until I believe Hope turned around and pleaded for the call.

Blame ABC's crappy production, not the refs. Locklear hooked Haggans near the right arm. The only replay ABC bothered to show was from the left side. If you looked really closely you could make it out. However choosing that and only that camera angle to use as the replay almost completely hid the hold from the general public, due to Locklear's and Haggans' bodies being in the way when the penalty occured. They had plenty of time to cue up a front side, or even the original camera view, but they just kept showing the only view that hid the damn penalty. The perils of being obsessed with your iso camera, I guess.

On the PI, the ref went for the flag almost immediately after the push-off. The problem was, he whiffed completely. By the time Hope turned around, the ref was looking at his pocket to make sure he got the flag out. That was obvious on the first viewing. It's amazing what groupthink can do to facts. :shakeno:

Hasselbeck didn't clearly dive through anyone, he made a tackle and actually I believe one of the guys that he was going to take out jumped over him.

This is the one time ABC actually had a decent replay angle. I'll retract the clearly. However from the ref's perspective, Hasselback certainly appeared to pass through the blocker to get to the returner. It's dumb, but it's one of the "safety" rules (like "leaping"). Most of those were pushed through by Shula, so show some respect!

What about the hold on the punt return? That was a blown call also, and may have been the worst call of the whole game.

That was the worst replay of the whole game. The flag was thrown when Warrick was returning the punt. They moved them 10 yards from the spot of the foul, and Seattle certainly didn't start 10 yards from the line of scrimmage. So, obviously, the hold happened downfield, after Warrick gained possession, and after the gunners and blockers had dropped back. The replay of the line of scrimmage was completely irrelevant to the penalty. ABC never showed a replay of the actual (supposed) infraction.

 

[Pennington's Rocket Arm]

i can't believe anyone actually thinks the pylon "kick" was a TD. it's not even close. there are some calls that may be controversial, but there's absolutely no controversy at ALL with that call.