# OT:Horrible call......



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I can't believe that they could make that bad of a call in a game of this magnitude....

There's no way that Roethlisberger was in the end zone....They got a major steal on that one...


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I can't believe that they could make that bad of a call in a game of this magnitude....
> 
> There's no way that Roethlisberger was in the end zone....They got a major steal on that one...


The weak *** call of offensive pass interferance was another long list of bad calls. The media assumed the Steelers were going to win and the officials have followed suit. It's like rooting for the Blazers. Not only do they have to beat the opposing team but the officials as well. B . S .


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I can't believe that they could make that bad of a call in a game of this magnitude....
> 
> There's no way that Roethlisberger was in the end zone....They got a major steal on that one...


Clearly the ball landed shy of the endzone, but it had been closer to the goal line before the defensive guy hit him. He may have been a tiny bit short of the end zone, but I think that's a call that's too close to overturn. 

PS - what's your opinion of Adam Morrison?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Clearly the ball landed shy of the endzone, but it had been closer to the goal line before the defensive guy hit him. He may have been a tiny bit short of the end zone, but I think that's a call that's too close to overturn.
> 
> *PS - what's your opinion of Adam Morrison?*



He rules the world! :rock:


----------



## Dragnsmke1 (Jul 29, 2002)

3 bad calls by the refs

1. phantom pass interference on Jackson
2. Holding on the kickoff return
3. Rothelburger in the endzone...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> 3 bad calls by the refs
> 
> 1. phantom pass interference on Jackson
> 2. Holding on the kickoff return
> 3. Rothelburger in the endzone...


I agree on the 1st two. That touchdown call was too close to overturn. They may have been wrong on the original call, but at real speed...that's a tough call. I don't think you can say it was that bad a call.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Dragnsmke1 said:


> 3 bad calls by the refs
> 
> 1. phantom pass interference on Jackson
> 2. Holding on the kickoff return
> 3. Rothelburger in the endzone...


Yep I agree on all those.....

piss poor officiating...


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I bet Paul Allen has grown to love pro sports officials over the years...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I thought the OI was a bad call, but it looked like the ball just broke the plane of the goal line before he hit the ground. All it has to do is touch the plane of the front part of the white line.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Man, Ben has been throwing everything low. What a gift and Seattle took advantage!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

They just took away another (likely) touchdown from Seattle. Hasselback hit Stevens at the one yard line, and it was called back on a phantom holding call in the offensive backfield.

A couple of plays later, Hasselback throws a pick.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

The worse call all night was the block below the waist they called on Hasselbeck. The hold before that was pretty bad and more costly but Hasselbeck was obviously going for the tackle. I thought the hold was real, it was just ticky tack.

Whats funny is that even though I live in Seattle I'm not a native or a Seahawks fan but I live in area with a lot of northern Africans and Arabs and right now I can hear a lot of swearing in Arabic.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

2k said:


> The worse call all night was the block below the waist they called on Hasselbeck. The hold before that was pretty bad and more costly but Hasselbeck was obviously going for the tackle. I thought the hold was real, it was just ticky tack.


That was a real bad call, the block below the waist one


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm not even that big of a Seahawks fan, but I'm disgusted.....


For them to make it that far and then have the game taken away from them by the refs is disgusting...


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

That was one of the worst officiated pro football games I've ever seen - and it was easily the worst officiated Super Bowl I've ever seen (and I've seen them all since the Dallas victory over Denver back in the '70s). That said, the Seahawks repeatedly dropped passes and caught balls out of bounds, allowing the Steelers to remain in front. I did feel a little like I was watching a Blazers' playoff game (and as zagsfan said, "I'm not even that big a Seahawks' fan" - actually, I'm not really a 'hawks fan at all - I just wanted to see a good game!).


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I ****ing hate the steelers like you wouldn't believe.

That said, Seattle has no one to blame but them selves for this one.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HearToTemptYou said:


> I ****ing hate the steelers like you wouldn't believe.
> 
> That said, Seattle has no one to blame but them selves for this one.



How could you say that?

Everytime Seattle would gain some momentum the refs would take it away from them....

There was definitely a conspiracy there......How can all the bad calls (which there was a long list of) all go against Seattle and all in crucial moments of the game.....It just doesn't make sense and is uncalled for in a game of this magnitude when these refs are supposed "all stars" of the regular season....


Pittsburgh was a feel good story because of their history and the whole Jerome Bettis story and the refs ran with it....I don't blame anything that happened in this game on the team it lies in the refs hands......every time they would gain some momentum it would be taken from them.....whether it was a weak offensive pass interference, an obvious goal line miss call, a nice punt return that was called back, a cheap holding, an even worse call on the Hassellback tackle and I could go on and on.....I swear if they would have missed that Hasselbeck fumble call as well I would have sucked through that T.V. screen and ***** slapped the refs to no tomorrow.....

Whether its Duke, The Lakers of Shaq and Kobe, The Yankees, The old Cowboys or whoever, the horrible conspiracy in sports is disturbing....


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Pittsburgh benefited from several calls, but Seattle couldn't close the deal on their side of the field. Even if Ben didn't get in ( which was too close to call), I doubt Seattle stops Ben on a sneak on the 1 inch line, so that play isn't huge. The pass interference was pass interferance. Just because it is seldom called on offense doesn't mean he didn't push off. The Hassleback call was terrible. Not sure what the officials saw. The one thing that ended up being as close to true as I have even seen it was Porter calling Stephens soft. My god, the guy was hearing steps all day. Was it 4 or 5 dropped balls, plus the play early in the game was a bad call helping Seattle. If you watched the replay, Stephens caught the ball, took two steps, and then fumbled when he got hit. Anyway, Seattle didn't have anyone step up and play well on offense. The league MVP was shut down and Hassleback needed to close one of those drives with 7. Seattle still has some young talent. If they keep Alexander they have a good chance to try and return. Congrats to Pittsburgh.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

The block call was a terrible call, but didn't really effect the game that much it's not like it would have change TO.

The holding hurts because of it happening on a TD, but if the ref sees a holding it doesn't matter to him if it's a TD play or not and it shouldn't.

The ball broke the plane of the goal line in my opinion and if you have TIVO go back and just before they went to commercial they froze it right when the ball just barely broke the plane.

The receiver obviously pushed off, I don't think it had much effect on the defender, though when I seen it from the back of the end zone the defender was pushed just a hair, but the receiver was stupid to do it right in front of the ref. Can't really blame the ref on that.

No conspiracy, just a bad call and some questionable calls that could be argued either way.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> The pass interference was pass interferance. Just because it is seldom called on offense doesn't mean he didn't push off.


I disagree, he didn't push off. He extended his arm, but since there was already space between them, he didn't push the defender a bit. That kind of contact is standard and isn't pass interference.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Peaceman said:


> Pittsburgh benefited from several calls, but Seattle couldn't close the deal on their side of the field. Even if Ben didn't get in ( which was too close to call), I doubt Seattle stops Ben on a sneak on the 1 inch line, so that play isn't huge. The pass interference was pass interferance. Just because it is seldom called on offense doesn't mean he didn't push off. The Hassleback call was terrible. Not sure what the officials saw. The one thing that ended up being as close to true as I have even seen it was Porter calling Stephens soft. My god, the guy was hearing steps all day. Was it 4 or 5 dropped balls, plus the play early in the game was a bad call helping Seattle. If you watched the replay, Stephens caught the ball, took two steps, and then fumbled when he got hit. Anyway, Seattle didn't have anyone step up and play well on offense. The league MVP was shut down and Hassleback needed to close one of those drives with 7. Seattle still has some young talent. If they keep Alexander they have a good chance to try and return. Congrats to Pittsburgh.


I could have saved some typing if I had seen this before posting my last post.

Good call on the non fumble, that was a fumble.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

In the NFL history book, tonight's game will read as follows:

Superbowl fiXL: Pittsburgh Steelers*

-Pop


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I disagree, he didn't push off. He extended his arm, but since there was already space between them, he didn't push the defender a bit. That kind of contact is standard and isn't pass interference.


We'll have to disagree on this one. He fully extended his arm and push him just a lttle bit. It's like if you push someone in the back they are going to call a clip if it was effective or not. He never should have done it especially right in front of the ref. That's going to get called 99% if the ref sees it. And like I said, when I seen it from behind you could see the effect it had on the defender and the ref seen it from behind.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mgb said:


> Good call on the non fumble, that was a fumble.


But wasn't that ball going out of bounds anyway? If so, it would have actually been a Seattle first down.

Therefore, another way that the Seahawks got robbed by bad calls...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> In the NFL history book, tonight's game will read as follows:
> 
> Superbowl fiXL: Pittsburgh Steelers*
> 
> -Pop


That's a good one!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> But wasn't that ball going out of bounds anyway? If so, it would have actually been a Seattle first down.
> 
> Therefore, another way that the Seahawks got robbed by bad calls...


I don't think so,,,,actually the Steelers would have got the ball in worst position than they did from the punt if it's the one I'm thinking of.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Hands down this was the worst officiating I've ever seen in the NFL. Some of those calls were downright unbelieve. Seriously, I felt like I was watching a Blazer game.

I honestly believe that in a money making business like professional sports, it's to the NFL's (or NBA's) best interest to make sure the team that will make the most money for the league will win. It doesn't always work, but after years of following sports, there's no denying it happens more than an excusable amount.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

mgb said:


> We'll have to disagree on this one. He fully extended his arm and push him just a lttle bit. It's like if you push someone in the back they are going to call a clip if it was effective or not. He never should have done it especially right in front of the ref. That's going to get called 99% if the ref sees it. And like I said, when I seen it from behind you could see the effect it had on the defender and the ref seen it from behind.


Yeah, we'll have to disagree because in the numerous replays, it seemed to have zero effect. It didn't even straighten the defender up, let alone push him back. That kind of contact, as I said, exists on virtually every play and is not considered offensive or defensive pass interference.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I forgot about the alleged Seattle catch & fumble that was called as an incomplete pass. That was a pretty close one, and honestly, I could have seen it go either way. The rule I've heard is that a player needs to catch the ball, land (if he's in the air), and make a "football move." As I recall, Stevens appeared to catch it and was in the act of turning up field when it flew out of his hands. That's not a complete "football move" and was probably best left an incomplete pass. So, while it was somewhat close, I think the refs probably made the right call. 

On the offensive pass interference call - that was RIDICULOUS. At half-time you had all three analysts - two offensive HOF'ers and a defensive HOF'er - who all agreed that it was a phantom call. Contact like that happens all time. You don't see calls like that in the middle of the field during the regular season - why on earth would you see it in the end zone during the Super Bowl? Seattle scores there, and the game is four points closer throughout. 

On the Roethlisberger "touchdown" - he did NOT break the plane. The line judge had it right when he kept his hands at his sides as he approached the scrum at the goal line. Mike Holmgren told Suzy Kolber at halftime (reportedly) that a ref basically confirmed that to him, but he says the officials were too chicken - since it was such a close call - to overrule. Refs had no balls, simple as that. Had Big Ben failed to make that TD, it would have brought up a fourth and goal, that Cowher could have gone for - and could have missed, considering on second and goal, Bettis lost a yard. Or, Cowher could have kicked a field goal - a potential difference of four to seven points. 

I can't think of anything on the Seattle side - apart from the very close fumble/incomplete pass call - that would have had nearly the impact on the game that the calls going the other way had. Just disappointing to see in the biggest football game of the year.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Ben was probably less than 3" short of the goal line while in the air. Refs miss spots by as much as a yard, so for them to miss something that can't even be over-turned by review doesn't upset me that much.

The chop-block after the INT, now that's a different story.

Overall, it was a very boring Super Bowl.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Ya, we got screwed on some bad calls, but the Steelers made the big plays, we didnt. 

GO SEAHAWKS!!... we'll be back next year!


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

My wife... who knows nothing of football... made the comment... 'why do do they call a penalty any time Seattle does something good?' 3 ****sburg penalties against the self described man-handlers. Give me a break. I'm not a huge football fan... but it sure seemed like Seattle was the better team.

I will add though... that 90% of the people could give a rip... they wanted the Steelers to win and I bet think the game was called very even. Professional sports are turning into professional wrestling.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Ya, we got screwed on some bad calls, but the Steelers made the big plays, we didnt.
> 
> GO SEAHAWKS!!... we'll be back next year!


I was just talking to my sister and I said just that, the Steelers made the big plays to win the game.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

Peaceman said:


> Pittsburgh benefited from several calls, but Seattle couldn't close the deal on their side of the field.



Now how the hell are you going to gain momentum when you have to punt and get your defense on the field???

This is a sport with 40-45 playes /offense. You lost 5-6 of it to the refs. Big ones on phantom holds or inteference. The knew if Seattle goes up 10-0 and Pittsburgh have to throw it is over. This was bull from the begining. VL couldn't win his trophy back under this conditions :wink: 

And I hate football.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

One of the biggest plays was the sack on Hasselbeck on their second to the last drive. If that doesn't happen even if they don't make the first down they probably would have went on fourth, but after that sack they had to punt.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

And what about the phantom holding call on the pass caught inside the five? I just keep remembering the bad calls, like foul-tasting burps repeating on me after a particularly nasty homebrew. Ugh.

But BEER & BASKETBALL is right - the Steelers made a couple of really big plays without the help of the refs and the Seahawks didn't... and that made as much of a difference as the half-dozen terrible calls. 

Oh, and yeah, this game was pretty boring compared to the exciting New England championships, to say nothing of that Rams-Titans nailbiter a few years back (and as much as I hated it, the refs made the right call in that one by not awarding the touchdown as time expired...). Back to the days of old: when the best games were in the playoffs before the big game.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> But BEER & BASKETBALL is right - the Steelers made a couple of really big plays without the help of the refs and the Seahawks didn't... and that made as much of a difference as the half-dozen terrible calls.


They did, but when Seattle makes a great drive and its all taken away because of horrible officiating its a kick in the gut and only gives momentum to the other teams....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

TradeShareefNow said:


> Hands down this was the worst officiating I've ever seen in the NFL. Some of those calls were downright unbelieve. Seriously, I felt like I was watching a Blazer game.
> 
> I honestly believe that in a money making business like professional sports, it's to the NFL's (or NBA's) best interest to make sure the team that will make the most money for the league will win. It doesn't always work, but after years of following sports, there's no denying it happens more than an excusable amount.



It's painfully obvious....

Did anyone watch the Steelers/Colts game earlier in the playoffs? when Indianapolis was getting each and every one of the calls and the whole Polamalu interception incident and a couple of other obviously botched calls, Pittsburgh and especially Joey Porter was crying foul because the NFL wanted the Colts to win because of "Peyton Manning and the whole golden boy image" along with the Dungee story...

Well the NFL and the referee's quickly changed their tune to which team they wanted to win this one and they helped them win it....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the NFL (and other pro sports) slights which ever team they want to win....our very own Blazers can attest to this theory..

this along with the ego's is why I prefer college athletics...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Here is a great article from an unbiased Kansas City writer about the horrible officiating...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/football/13801313.htm

another good one from foxsports.net

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Neither team played that well regardless of the officiating. I blame it on the two weeks off. I think both teams would have played much better with only a week between games.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I don't claim to be a football expert - it's a low 4th place on sports I watch - but frankly, I'd never even heard of offensive pass interference. Defensive, yes, that's pretty common. But about 10 years ago I used to faithfully watch the SF team on TV every Sunday and I don't recall ever seeing an offensive pass interference call. 
Sure, the P team (if I type in the city I get those damn links) made some plays, notably on 3rd and 24 (I think it was 24) getting a first and 3, that was an incredible play. But the S team kept getting its plays taken away. 
I wonder if the NFL would even exist had this type of refereeing been seen in the past? It's considered a truism that Super Bowl III was a prime mover for the AFL/NFL merger. The Jets were 19 point underdogs, the Colts not only favored but sentimental favorites ... what kind of calls would the Jets (even though they are a NY team) get today? 
Or, for that matter, the 1977 Blazers with "hippie" Walton against the loved 76ers?


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

This game was the WORST officiated game in history..

1. DJ's Phantom PI call

2. Ben's TD

3. Sean Locklears phantom holding call

4. Matts chop block (which is absurd), but yet Ben did it on there gadget play but no call.

5. On the Steelers Gadget play lineman were illegally down the field which wasn't called.

6. Uncalled Horse collar on Porter on Alexander

Those are 4 HUGE calls and everyone one of them benefited the Steelers, I mean the Seahawks moved up and down the field pretty much at will but yet as soon as they would get in scoring position somehow a penalty flag would be used to take momentum away.

Also people are saying in the 4TH quarter that Mr. Commish Paul was wearing a Bettis jersey, if true what a disgrace to the NFL.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Here is another take, again from a neutral source

http://www.outsports.com/nfl/2005/superbowl.htm


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)




----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Blazerfan024 said:


>


Nice!

PBF


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Shouldn't this be called the "Sore loser" thread?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I am not a fan of either team, but come on....

Seattle has no one to blame but themselves...

They displayed absolutely HORRIBLE composure\clock management towards the end of the 1st half and towards the end of the game...

Jeramy Stevens should just shut his mouth next time, b\c he was horrible...Such a big threat who severly choked and dropped how many? big passes...He was consistently open too...

What was up with SEA running the ball at the end of the 1/2...right before Hasselback's complete mind blank on how much time they had left (TWO audibles?)? That was a bad play call...

As for Roethelsberger's (sp?) TD run...all the ball had to do is break the plane, and I didn't see any conclusive evidence to the contrary, and niether did the ref apparently...And Holmgren was STILL fuming about that, when he SHOULD have been more upset about the horrible clock mgmt at the end of the 1/2 that cost SEA pts IMO...

The pass interference call was a ticky tack call IMO, but if you push off RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE REF you greatly increase the risk of it being called....the sad part was he didn't need to do that...they call those "mental" mistakes, and that one cost SEA dearly...

Yeah the refs missed a few calls, but SEA benefited too...There was a fumble by SEA (Stevens if I recall) that the refs blew as incomplete, when he clearly took 2 steps...The call on Hasselback was a strange one, but I don't think it was a "crucial" bad call or had a large effect on the outcome of the game...

The bottom line is PIT made the big plays and SEA choked when they had opportunities...The 75-run and Randle El's TD pass were the difference...Where was SEA "big" play? An INT return of of a bad Roethelsberger pass.....that was it. that isn't enough if you want to win the Super Bowl..

SEA needed to do more and didn't...anmd that is really all there is to it...I have to say though, that it doesn't surprise me that SEA fans are whining now....They have always been good at doing that...


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I won't go so far as to say Seattle was robbed of the win, but I will say the refs are the ones that dictated the game. Not the players. And that really, really stings. I would have rather the Steelers come out and just beat us. But they didn't. This is more heartbreaking than an out-and-out defeat.

Additionally, the NFL has lost a lot of credibility this season. It wasn't just the Super Bowl that had horrible officiating (though it was the worst officiated game in Super Bowl history). They ****ed up all season long, and ****ed up HUGE throughout the entire playoffs. The NFL is starting to reach NBA status with me. And that sucks. I liked being able to rely on the NFL as the one true honest major american sport. The sport where anyone had a chance to win. As a Seahawk fan I've had to hold on to that hope my whole life. It was taken from me yesterday. I don't think I'll ever invest my every thing into the NFL again.

Sucks. Go Seahawks!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Shouldn't this be called the "Sore loser" thread?


I'm not a Seattle fan in the least, but even I can see the Seahawks got the brunt of the bad calls in that game. 

You weren't saying 'sore loser' when Steve Smith got hacked by Shaquille O'Neal and there was no call, were you?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Fork said:


> I'm not a Seattle fan in the least, but even I can see the Seahawks got the brunt of the bad calls in that game.
> 
> You weren't saying 'sore loser' when Steve Smith got hacked by Shaquille O'Neal and there was no call, were you?



No, but I wasn't crying like a little girl either.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

I guess we'll never know. Perhaps, had the refs got those calls "right", then the Steelers would have sucked it up and won the game anyway.

As aforementioned, we'll never, ever know.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

The first article makes a good point. NFL referees are too old. They can't keep up with the pace of the game. Look at NBA referees...they probably average 40-45 years of age. They're all in great shape. Most NFL ref's are 55-60 and look like they just got back from buying an adjustable bed and some Ensure. They can't keep up.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Fork said:


> I'm not a Seattle fan in the least, but even I can see the Seahawks got the brunt of the bad calls in that game.
> 
> You weren't saying 'sore loser' when Steve Smith got hacked by Shaquille O'Neal and there was no call, were you?


No kidding. Great point.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> You weren't saying 'sore loser' when Steve Smith got hacked by Shaquille O'Neal and there was no call, were you?


I sure wasn't...I was fuming over POR COMPLETE AND UTTER COLLAPSE...errr Choke job....

You ARE a whiner if you were complaining over that one no-call as the reason POR lost that game....


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Wow. This reminds me of how the NBA gift wrapped two of the Lakers' three titles, then tried like hell to gift wrap a fourth. The public outcry had to get pretty loud before the NBA backed off and decided annual Laker titles wasn't as good a marketing ploy as they thought. I hope the NFL doesn't think the NBA model is a good one, because it isn't. I hope this was just ineptitude and bad luck.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> I sure wasn't...I was fuming over POR COMPLETE AND UTTER COLLAPSE...errr Choke job....
> 
> You ARE a whiner if you were complaining over that one no-call as the reason POR lost that game....


Well, that was one epic, obvious, blatant, unfathomable, biased non-call. One for the ages, really, especially when you watch the ref watch Shaq crush him to the floor. And it wasn't the only biased call during the turnaround. And that layup or the free throws could have, in fact, been the difference in the game. I agree, though, that Portland didn't handle the pressure of playing 5 on 8 very well in that tragic fourth quarter. 

Actually, the reffing in that game didn't upset me as much as the one in Portland (it may have been game 4, I'm not sure). That one was grand theft Lakers officials, start to finish, in a tight game, but everyone forgets about it because of the famous collapse.

The team that really got stroked by the refs time and again when they went up against the Lakers during those years, and even worse than the Blazers, is the Kings. Sucked to be them.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I am n ot saying that was a terrible non-call b\c I agree it certainly was...But it wasn't the reason POR lost the game....

That same point applies to the Seahawks...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I am neither a Seahawks nor a Steelers fan, just a fan of football.

Here's the way I look at it. Wether the Seahawks failed to put the ball in the endzone, wether they missed FG's it doesn't matter. I saw at least 2 drives (one a TD taken away, the other a pass inside the 5 called back) that were successful and on no fault of the Hawks the score was altered due to the Officials inaccurate call on the field. 

Poor calles that swayed the momentum also changed the playcalling the Hawks caled. Instead of simply playing conservative football to stay ahead they were forced to have to scramble to try and play catchup.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I am neither a Seahawks nor a Steelers fan, just a fan of football.
> 
> Here's the way I look at it. Wether the Seahawks failed to put the ball in the endzone, wether they missed FG's it doesn't matter. I saw at least 2 drives (one a TD taken away, the other a pass inside the 5 called back) that were successful and on no fault of the Hawks the score was altered due to the Officials inaccurate call on the field.
> 
> Poor calles that swayed the momentum also changed the playcalling the Hawks caled. Instead of simply playing conservative football to stay ahead they were forced to have to scramble to try and play catchup.


Well, I am a Steelers fan and of the two plays that you mentioned I agree with one and the one I don't. 

The one that I don't agree on is the touchdown pass in which the Seattle player clearly pushed off (however lightly) to create space, which IMO he didn't even have to do. He did it right in front of the ref who threw the flag.

The call that I do agree with is the holding call on Seattle that took away first and goal inside the Pittsburgh 5. I have watched that play over and over and don't see the Seattle player doing anything wrong.

Personally I was disappointed by both teams in this Super Bowl. I really thought that it was going to be a lot more fun to watch. These two teams IMO were pretty evenly matched up and it should have been one of the best Super Bowls in recent history, but it didn't play out that way which is to bad.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ben had a off game, at least throwing the ball, and the Steelers still won. If he didn't throw a terrible pass the Steelers would have been up 21-3 and it would probably ended up a big blow out. Especially considering the interception set up Seattle's only TD.

Seattle did have some questionable calls go against them but they also played terrible. They had really bad field position management. Both of the FGs they missed probably should have been punts trying to pin the Steelers deep in their territory, but instead misses giving Pittsburgh great field position. When they did punt the kicker always punted it so it went into the endzone, again a attempt could have been made to pin Pittsburgh close to their goal line instead of starting at the 20 every time. This is besides everything other people mention, drop passes, passes out of bounds, very bad clock management. Seattle lost this game and it's a shame that the Steelers victory is going to be tainted by the bad calls. 

I really think the two weeks off hurt both teams. They should do away with the extra week.

Btw, I am fairly unbiased, I really didn't want the Steelers to win though I thought they would.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Jeramy Stevens should just shut his mouth next time, b\c he was horrible...Such a big threat who severly choked and dropped how many? big passes...He was consistently open too...


If I remember right Stevens made a TD catch and would have had a HUGE catch on the 2 except well the Refs called a BS holding call. Yea he dropped a couple but he also made some big ones and for some reason a few of those were takin away.




> As for Roethelsberger's (sp?) TD run...all the ball had to do is break the plane, and I didn't see any conclusive evidence to the contrary, and niether did the ref apparently...And Holmgren was STILL fuming about that, when he SHOULD have been more upset about the horrible clock mgmt at the end of the 1/2 that cost SEA pts IMO...


The ball never crossed the plain, how can the analysts see it didnt cross and most of america can see it didnt cross but yet the ref cant make the right call when he has all angles. Check out the message boards all over, all teams on espn and scout. Not only are Seahawk fans are upset but fans of other teams are to. 



> The pass interference call was a ticky tack call IMO, but if you push off RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE REF you greatly increase the risk of it being called....the sad part was he didn't need to do that...they call those "mental" mistakes, and that one cost SEA dearly...


Why didnt they call a PI on the defender, he pushed Jackson first which should have been an immediate PI call especially since it was after 5 yards. Right in front of the ref.



> Yeah the refs missed a few calls, but SEA benefited too...There was a fumble by SEA (Stevens if I recall) that the refs blew as incomplete, when he clearly took 2 steps...The call on Hasselback was a strange one, but I don't think it was a "crucial" bad call or had a large effect on the outcome of the game...


To call a fumble the player must catch the ball, have FULL possession and run forward. Stevens did not have full possession and was hit before he fully turned around.

The hasselbeck call was right on, he ws touched by the defender while he was falling and hit knees then elbows first and the ground caused the fumble, he was down by contact.



> The bottom line is PIT made the big plays and SEA choked when they had opportunities...The 75-run and Randle El's TD pass were the difference...Where was SEA "big" play? An INT return of of a bad Roethelsberger pass.....that was it. that isn't enough if you want to win the Super Bowl..


How did Sea choke when everytime they got close to the end zone there was a Penalty called? Randle el's td was BS not only did Ben do the same crap Hasselbeck got called for a chop block, there were illegal lineman down the field blocking. 

Actually Seattle made big plays, Stevens at the 2 yard line, Jacksons foot hitting the pylon is questionable because only the ball has to pass the lineand the pylon is considered inbounds. Jacksons BS PI call that was another TD. Give me a break.



> SEA needed to do more and didn't...anmd that is really all there is to it...I have to say though, that it doesn't surprise me that SEA fans are whining now....They have always been good at doing that...


This quote is ignorant when considering not only is the media saying this is the worst officated game EVER in super bowl history but fans across the boards are calling the NFL out on this fraud of a game. 

Seattle dominated in every aspect of the game from yards to time of possession, and every other aspect, yet whenever Seattle was in scoring position they were called ffor BS calls. Im sorry but if Pitt would have won fair and square then no complaint here but after last nights debacle the NFL is looking alot like the NBA.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> # A player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. For example, a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds.


Link


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Something else I haven't seen mentioned is on the Randel El play. Even if the Seahawks don't score on that drive, without the calls to move the ball up to midfield you don't even see that play called. There's no way that play's called if they have the ball deeper in their territory.

On the Big Ben diving TD. I don't have a problem with it. After watching it several times it's very arguable that the ball indeed touched the endzone on Ben's way down. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't but To give him the TD was a legitimate judgement call - even after review.

Offensive PI is a horrid call to make. First off you rarely see it called period. Second, that wasn't even PI as the receiver by almost everyones account didn't gain any advantage. Just because I stick my arm out but don't actually push anyone, that doesn't mean it's PI. Sort of like in basketball - just because I swipe at a ball going by but miss it and the offensive player with the ball doesn't mean it's a foul. The fact that it happened right in front of the officials just makes it worse.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

At least one other guy thought the officiating was pretty horrid:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2320683

Should be interesting to see the fallout from this.

-Pop


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

trifecta said:


> On the Big Ben diving TD. I don't have a problem with it. After watching it several times it's very arguable that the ball indeed touched the endzone on Ben's way down. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't but To give him the TD was a legitimate judgement call - even after review.


I agree. The ref though first raised is right arm and not his left until he ran down and look and seen the ball was across the goal line where Ben put it after he was down then he raised his left arm signaling a TD. He got it right, but for the wrong reason. If the ref had called it short most likely it wouldn't have been turn over because it was so close, but you never know.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Horrible calls from Super Bowl 40 (IMO):

1. Seahawks' reception down to somewhere around the Steelers' 20 in late 1st quarter, nullified by offensive holding call and dropping the Seahawks back on the penalty.

2. Roethlisberger's "TD". The ref came running in with his hand raised indicating down and short (of the goal line). Then, when Roethlisberger wiggled the ball over the goal line, the ref put the other hand up to signal TD. The call on the field stood ONLY because there was insufficient video evidence to overturn it - NOT because it was clear that Roethlisberger had punched it in. Had it been overturned, the Steelers would have had 4th and goal. You can assume all you want, but you simply can not KNOW how that would have played out.

3. The phantom holding call on the 2nd quarter punt return. This, again, took the Seahawks out of Steeler's territory.

4. Seahawk's reception at the Steeler's 2 or 1, nullified by offensive holding call and dropping the Seahawks for a loss on the penalty.

5. Block below the waist call on Hasselbeck, who was tacking the *runner*. The additional yardage on this one set up the Steeler's final TD.

6. Granting the Steelers their time-out after the play clock reached zero.

The only "horrible call" that I hear people complaining about that I don't agree was a bad call was Jackson's offensive pass interference call in the end-zone. He stuck his hand into his defender's chest, right in front of the ref. Watching the replay (yep, got it on TiVo), the ref started reaching into his pocket almost immediately. (And it's easy to see because the camera is right behind the ref and you can see his hand start to reach for his pocket right after the contact.) It was a pretty easy call to make, and it doesn't appear to me that the ref took any time thinking about whether to throw the flag or not. The contact may have been minor, it's not a commonly-made call, and Jackson probably would have caught the ball without extending his arm to his defender anyway. But none of that changes the offensive pass interference rule.

But put all the others together, and:

1) The Seahawks got robbed of 11-14 potential additional points. It all depends on whether that first deep reception that got called back happened on the drive that they eventually scored the field goal (and I can't remember if that one happened on that drive or not). If it did, then that field goal could potentially have been a TD (net gain of 4). If it didn't (if it was a different drive), then it was 7 potential additional points. Add to that the TD they likely would have gotten had the 1-yard-line reception been allowed to stand.

2) The Steelers were given 7-14 points they may not have gotten otherwise. Roethlisberger's "TD" being one, and the flea-flicker TD they scored on the additional field position they got from Hasselbeck's "block below the waist" call.

That's an 18-28 point swing right there on the back of questionable to outright bad calls - all going against the Seahawks. For as many mistakes as the Seahawks made, they played well enough to win this game going away had it not been for the officiating.

PBF


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Blazerfan024 said:


> To call a fumble the player must catch the ball, have FULL possession and run forward. Stevens did not have full possession and was hit before he fully turned around.


Stephens caught the ball and took two full steps turned and got blasted. I'm sorry but he was making his third step with the ball and that makes it a fumble. The steelers clearly got the benefit of the calls, but come on Seattle fans. We look bitter if we don't admit we got a break on that. Both announcer's thought Seattle got a break. Pittsburgh would have got the ball and who knows if that would have changes the game momentum. Clearly the chop block and holding call looked bad. Holding calls look bad usually about 25% of the time anyway. The pass interferance was pass interferance, whether seldom called or not. Doesn anyone really think Seattle would have stoped a QB sneak on the 1 inch line? Maybe, but I doubt a 250 pound QB behind a all pro guard and center doesn't get 1 inch, but there always is a chance.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

trifecta said:


> Offensive PI is a horrid call to make. First off you rarely see it called period. Second, that wasn't even PI as the receiver by almost everyones account didn't gain any advantage. Just because I stick my arm out but don't actually push anyone, that doesn't mean it's PI. Sort of like in basketball - just because I swipe at a ball going by but miss it and the offensive player with the ball doesn't mean it's a foul. The fact that it happened right in front of the officials just makes it worse.


9 out of 10 times when the defender is between the push off and the ref this isn't called, but not when it's right in front of him. I didn't think it was much of a push off and may have had no effect(when I seen a replay later though it did back off the defender just a little and might have been enough to keep him from staying with him and slapping down the pass), but I liken it to a face mask, it doesn't matter if you grab it hard or release it right off with no effect, it's going to get called(one does carry a heftier penalty). Same with a clip, if someone push someone in the back right in front of the ref it's going to get called even if it's a effective clip or not. It was a obvious push off if anything the receiver should be blamed for doing it when he probably didn't need to. I do think he might have not called it if the pass wasn't caught, which is NBAish, but sometimes it takes a sec to register and that might have been all it was.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Blazerfan024 said:


>


Did you see that play where the ref piled on on top of the Seahawk players as if to tackle them? 

Every fan should be disgusted with the officiating. Would Seattle have won? I don't know. But we were all cheated out of an exciting Super Bowl finish. There is no doubt that the Seahawks were the better team yesterday. Pittsburgh made three incredible plays and that was it. Seattle had more big plays that inevitibly were called back by penalty. In the 4th quarter there were at least two obvious offsides calls against Pittsburgh that went uncalled. Bettis was being shoved down our throats with his "hot" mike, his commercials, and the refs went out of their way not to cheat the Steelers. We were all cheated out of a great finish that could have gone either way.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> The only "horrible call" that I hear people complaining about that I don't agree was a bad call was Jackson's offensive pass interference call in the end-zone. He stuck his hand into his defender's chest, right in front of the ref. Watching the replay (yep, got it on TiVo), the ref started reaching into his pocket almost immediately. *(And it's easy to see because the camera is right behind the ref and you can see his hand start to reach for his pocket right after the contact.)* It was a pretty easy call to make, and it doesn't appear to me that the ref took any time thinking about whether to throw the flag or not. The contact may have been minor, it's not a commonly-made call, and Jackson probably would have caught the ball without extending his arm to his defender anyway. But none of that changes the offensive pass interference rule.


No it wasn't....I have it TiVo'd and clearly the ref didn't even think about pulling the flag until the defender started complaining to him...It is so obvious....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Michael Irvin was talking about the offensive pass interference play on TV last night and saying that it was a good call and both Steve Young and Jackson disagreed with him....


Earth to Michael:

You made your career off of doing that little push off!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Michael Irvin was talking about the offensive pass interference play on TV last night and saying that it was a good call and both Steve Young and Jackson disagreed with him....
> 
> 
> Earth to Michael:
> ...


That's true, and I'm a die hard Cowboy fan, but he did it a lot more subtly. There was nothing subtle about what that receiver did!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> No it wasn't....I have it TiVo'd and clearly the ref didn't even think about pulling the flag until the defender started complaining to him...It is so obvious....


Doesn't matter. Offensive pass interference is offensive pass interference, and that's what Jackson did.

PBF


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> Doesn't matter. Offensive pass interference is offensive pass interference, and that's what Jackson did.
> 
> PBF


If a referee calls 5 times out of 100 during a season.....

Then why call it on a crucial play in such a crucial game....

I'm an avid football fan and I *never* see that called....for them to call it there was asinine...


and its funny that 90% of the analysts/announcers agree with me...


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

GO STEELERS! woohoo!!!

Viva La Conspiracy!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

All the whining in the world isn't going to give Seattle the Super Bowl win....

The bottom line is PIT made the big plays and SEA did not...



> Seattle dominated in every aspect of the game from yards to time of possession, and every other aspect, yet whenever Seattle was in scoring position they were called ffor BS calls.


Yeah...and POR lead DEN leading into the 4th quarter and lost...the scoreboard is all that matters, not how many categories you dominated in.....


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> If a referee calls 5 times out of 100 during a season.....
> 
> Then why call it on a crucial play in such a crucial game....
> 
> ...


Because that would have been called most of the time. He extended his arm fully pushing him. Though it may not have had a big effect that is going to get called most of the time. It was a stupid thing for him to do, he didn't need to do it. Blame him if you want to blame someone.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Peaceman said:


> Stephens caught the ball and took two full steps turned and got blasted. I'm sorry but he was making his third step with the ball and that makes it a fumble. The steelers clearly got the benefit of the calls, but come on Seattle fans. We look bitter if we don't admit we got a break on that. Both announcer's thought Seattle got a break. Pittsburgh would have got the ball and who knows if that would have changes the game momentum. Clearly the chop block and holding call looked bad. Holding calls look bad usually about 25% of the time anyway. The pass interferance was pass interferance, whether seldom called or not. Doesn anyone really think Seattle would have stoped a QB sneak on the 1 inch line? Maybe, but I doubt a 250 pound QB behind a all pro guard and center doesn't get 1 inch, but there always is a chance.


Stevens NEVER had complete control of the ball period, I just watched it again on DVR and when he made the catch it was starting to pop out right when he turned then he was hit, NEVER did he have full possession!


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> All the whining in the world isn't going to give Seattle the Super Bowl win....
> 
> The bottom line is PIT made the big plays and SEA did not...
> 
> ...


Thats because in both games THE REFS dictated the game...but in one the Super Bowl they ran the WHOLE game.

How the hell did Seattle NOT make big plays????? We scored TWICE and both were called back on BS penaltys. The game was slanted from the get go.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Peaceman... I thought that should have been a fumble... but didn't the ball fly down to about the 5 yard line... which would have been better than the 20 yard line where Pitt got the ball after the punt into the end zone.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Paxil said:


> Peaceman... I thought that should have been a fumble... but didn't the ball fly down to about the 5 yard line... which would have been better than the 20 yard line where Pitt got the ball after the punt into the end zone.


I don't think it went that far down field, but if you look at the play the Steelers were going to get the ball and I didn't see any Seattle player near by. Would they return it 1 yard or 50. I have no idea, but it COULD have been a big play for the Steelers if it was allowed to continue. I actually think it had the potential to be a bigger play then the Steeler QB sneak. Seattle has a good defense, but I would vote for Big Ben on 4th down at the 2 inch line behind the best guard in football and a great center. Could Seattle stop him, yes, but that would be a slim chance. 

All I'm saying is the officials stunk, but as Seattle fans it sounds so whimpy to blame the whole game on that. How about Stevens get some stones and quit hearing some steps. 4-5 dropped balls is horrible. Porter was right on calling him being soft.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Peaceman said:


> .
> 
> All I'm saying is the officials stunk, but as Seattle fans it sounds so whimpy to blame the whole game on that. How about Stevens get some stones and quit hearing some steps. 4-5 dropped balls is horrible. Porter was right on calling him being soft.


Hmm..its not only Seattle fans calling the Game Absurd..Look around all media outlets are calling the game biased. This coming from media people who said Seattle had no chance. 

No matter how you look at it Seattle was robbed 14pts. Im sorry you feel we are whimpy because are team was screwed, but if a fair game would have been called then you would not hear a complaint from me.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)




----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazerfan024 said:


> Hmm..its not only Seattle fans calling the Game Absurd..Look around all media outlets are calling the game biased. This coming from media people who said Seattle had no chance.
> 
> No matter how you look at it Seattle was robbed 14pts. Im sorry you feel we are whimpy because are team was screwed, but if a fair game would have been called then you would not hear a complaint from me.


Seattle did get some questionable calls, but Hasselbeck did throw a interception when they could have still got points and when it was short of the goal but called back there is no guarantee that they would have scored just like there was no guarantee Pittsburgh would have still scored if the ref didn't call the TD which though you can't say for sure it was a TD the same is true about not saying for sure it wasn't a TD. Those are the breaks. Seattle still had many opportunities to change the out come and didn't. It does suck, don't get me wrong, but Seattle can't blame the loss all on some questionable calls.

Btw, the NFL held up the calls and they usually admit when the refs get calls wrong.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I don't think the NFL would publicly admit calls were wrong in a Super Bowl, especially when they might have changed the outcome. They admitted error in a playoff game in a call against the Steelers, but the Steelers won anyway so no real harm was done.
There is no alternate universe. Had all the calls been correctly made, Pittsburgh might still have won the game. And in that case it would clearly be the better team winning. What is painful, really for both teams, is that we'll never know. And a championship should not have a asterisk by it.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

But it seems odd that every single call against Seattle is suppose to be bad. Come on, I know the timing was bad for Seattle but that doesn't make it any less reason to call a pentalty when there is one and no way all of them was wrong. I do agree it's a shame that this SB will probably be mostly remember by the officiating.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> The bottom line is PIT made the big plays and SEA did not...



Yeah, the Steelers made three big plays: 1) Converting 3rd and 28; that was unforgivable 2) The 75 yard TD run and 3) the Randle El touchdown throw.... but I doubt the Steelers would have called that play if the ball was inside the 15 yard line like it should have been.

HOWEVER, those pale in comparison to what the Seahawks had taken away from them: 1) DJack's TD; that was NOT pass interference 2) Rothelisberger's phantom touchdown; I might understand if the ref called TD immediately but he waited and couldn't have missed watching Roth slide the ball over the goal line after he was down 3) The holding call on Warrick's punt return was ridiculous 4) The penalty taking away the Stevens catch witch had us down to the 2 yard line and would have led to us going up 17-14 5) How in the hell does Hasslebeck get called for a penalty in making a tackle on an interception? That's when I knew it was over. 

There's no doubt we made mistakes 1)Bad clock management at the end of both halves, 2) Jerramy freaking Stevens dropping balls 3) Not a mistake but just a bad break were the injuries, Boulware took a bad angle on the 75 yard TD run but our 3rd string safety didn't move over to cut off the lane.

I was listening to Cowherd yesterday morning and he said tell me the last time you saw a game where one team had over 400 yards of total offense, won the time of possession battle, won the turnover battle, the quarterback outplayed the other quarterback, and that team lost? He said, "you won't, it's never happened". I really think I can be objective and not just sound like a sore looser; for god's sake we're Seahawks fans--we know how to deal with loosing since we've done it for 30 years.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Another big play by the Steelers was the Sack on Hasselbeck in their second to last downs, that ended any chances that Seattle would come back and win it.

Btw, I seen Ben on the Letterman show last nite and he said he told his coach that he didn't make it in on the TD. I still think the ball broke the plane, but it was so close and I agree the ref didn't signal it until after Ben moved the ball over.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Yeah, the Steelers made three big plays: 1) Converting 3rd and 28; that was unforgivable 2) The 75 yard TD run and 3) the Randle El touchdown throw.... but I doubt the Steelers would have called that play if the ball was inside the 15 yard line like it should have been.
> 
> HOWEVER, those pale in comparison to what the Seahawks had taken away from them: 1) DJack's TD; that was NOT pass interference 2) Rothelisberger's phantom touchdown; I might understand if the ref called TD immediately but he waited and couldn't have missed watching Roth slide the ball over the goal line after he was down 3) The holding call on Warrick's punt return was ridiculous 4) The penalty taking away the Stevens catch witch had us down to the 2 yard line and would have led to us going up 17-14 5) How in the hell does Hasslebeck get called for a penalty in making a tackle on an interception? That's when I knew it was over.
> 
> ...



The ball barely broke the plane -- Touchdown 'nuff said
DJACK's play WAS PI, plain and simple.
Just because you think the holding was rediculous, doesnt change the fact it was holding.

All in all, the only play I think was bunk, was the chop block on HasselB.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> The bottom line is PIT made the big plays and SEA did not...


No, the bottom line is the game was taken out of the hands of the players by the officials at multiple key points in time.

PBF


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

blue32 said:


> The ball barely broke the plane -- Touchdown 'nuff said
> DJACK's play WAS PI, plain and simple.
> Just because you think the holding was rediculous, doesnt change the fact it was holding.
> 
> All in all, the only play I think was bunk, was the chop block on HasselB.


The ball did not break the plane, Even Ben said it himself the guy who RAN it. 

Djacks play was not PI, the defender had his hands on DJ's back first so the refs were allowing contact or should have until DJ put out his arm which in no way did he push off on the player. The defender could have still made a play on the ball but stopped. If they are going to call a BS penalty on DJ then make the same call on Pitt.

Also on the chopblock why didnt Ben get it called on him when they did there Gadget play? He did the same exact thing except he was actually blocking on the line of scrimmage but did not get called for it?

Many bad calls caused Seattle to lost momentum, we had 2 TDs taken away, the DJ pass where his foot hits the pylon should have been reviewed but for some reason never was by the upstairs. The game was biased from the start, and to make things even better the judge who threw the flag on DJ is from Pitt.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

You also have to remember that the reason similar calls were NOT called on the Steelers should be explained. All you 'it was a penalty folks' have to remember that the similar things were NOT called on the Steelers. There was push offs by the passers on every play just about. There was a dropped pass in the end zone for Seattle where the defender jumped too early, started to fall right into the receiver knocking him off balance to no call. Etc... etc... It isn't like we were just seeing things. Take away Pittsburg 3 big plays with bogus penalties and who knows what would have happened.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Good article:

Commentary: Mistakes will haunt Seahawks


----------



## Captain Chaos (Dec 1, 2004)

Blazerfan024 said:


> The ball did not break the plane, Even Ben said it himself the guy who RAN it.
> 
> Djacks play was not PI, the defender had his hands on DJ's back first so the refs were allowing contact or should have until DJ put out his arm which in no way did he push off on the player. The defender could have still made a play on the ball but stopped. If they are going to call a BS penalty on DJ then make the same call on Pitt.
> 
> ...


Sounds like sour grapes to me. Ben's TD was too close to call. I don't see how anyone can say 100% either way. The call was made on the field and there was no conclusive evidence to over turn the play...case closed. Jackson's arms were extended and they called the interference. It was not much of a push off but having the arms extended like that makes it looks much worse than it was. The only BS play was the chopblock penalty. It's getting really old to hear the old bias BS. Seattle lost the game...the refs didn't lose it for Seattle. Opportunities were there for Seattle but dropped passes, bad coaching, and poor time management cost the Super Bowl. I'm not a big Seattle fan but I was hoping they would win. It's time to stop crying about it.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

The NFL backed all the made calls. Enough said. :biggrin:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Paxil said:


> You also have to remember that the reason similar calls were NOT called on the Steelers should be explained. All you 'it was a penalty folks' have to remember that the similar things were NOT called on the Steelers. There was push offs by the passers on every play just about. There was a dropped pass in the end zone for Seattle where the defender jumped too early, started to fall right into the receiver knocking him off balance to no call. Etc... etc... It isn't like we were just seeing things. Take away Pittsburg 3 big plays with bogus penalties and who knows what would have happened.


Exactly. The NFL can say all the calls were right, but they say nothing about why similar calls weren't made against the Steelers. Offensive holding can rationally be called on EVERY SINGLE PLAY in today's NFL, including against the Steelers in Super Bowl 40. But they weren't. In fact, the Steelers were called for only THREE penalties all game, and all of those occurred during the 1st quarter, and two of those occurred on the same drive. After that... not a damn thing.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

hasoos said:


> The NFL backed all the made calls.


But said nothing about any of the non-calls.

The game was NOT evenly officiated. Enough said.

PBF


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Captain Chaos said:


> Sounds like sour grapes to me. Ben's TD was too close to call. I don't see how anyone can say 100% either way. The call was made on the field and there was no conclusive evidence to over turn the play...case closed. Jackson's arms were extended and they called the interference. It was not much of a push off but having the arms extended like that makes it looks much worse than it was. The only BS play was the chopblock penalty. It's getting really old to hear the old bias BS. Seattle lost the game...the refs didn't lose it for Seattle. Opportunities were there for Seattle but dropped passes, bad coaching, and poor time management cost the Super Bowl. I'm not a big Seattle fan but I was hoping they would win. It's time to stop crying about it.


Funny when Ben himself says he did not get in, what makes it worse was the official was going to signal 4th down, but some reason gave him the TD. 


The defender touched Jackson first which is illegal contact, if they are not going to call that then no call should have been made, it was a petty call and the call should have never been made.

Seattle had 14pts taken away and penaly after penalty being pushed back every time they got a drive going if that is not the refs taking over than I have no idea what is.

Im sorry you feel like its whining but the fact of the matter is the Super bowl was ran by the refs, if the game would have been called fair there wouldn't be a complaint. The media and Millions of fans agree with me. The Super bowl was the worst officiated game ever.


Bad Calls :

Chop block on Ben on Gadget play
Offsides on Hasselbeck Sack in 4th
Playclock hit zero bens still gets TO 
Illegal contact on D on DJ jack 1st TD (NO CALL)
DJ's TD where he had one foot in bounds and one hit the pylon is a TD, NO REVIEW
Ben's pass to Ward to the 2, illegal men down field (NO CALL)
The flinch by Alexander was BS, A running back is allowed to move as long as he is set before ball is hiked
The holding on locklear is complete crap
The holding on Big Warrick's return was complete crap

This is just a few calls, and for some reason any Steeler penalty was not called, Thats wierd.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazerfan024 said:


> Funny when Ben himself says he did not get in, what makes it worse was the official was going to signal 4th down, but some reason gave him the TD.


He said he didn't THINK he got in, not that he didn't get in. I agree the ref didn't signal right off so he went by where he moved the ball to.

In my opinion over half the the calls you listed are legit calls and at least not enough to complain about.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> He said he didn't THINK he got in, not that he didn't get in. I agree the ref didn't signal right off so he went by where he moved the ball to.
> 
> In my opinion over half the the calls you listed are legit calls and at least not enough to complain about.



I have the game on Tivo and I watch that play over and over and I really am not sure he got in either. One camera angle it appears that he clearly doesn't get in. HOWEVER with the side camera view it does appear that the tip of the ball does break the goal line just as the Seahawk player hits Ben and drives him back.....so at that angle it would appear that forward progress has the ball breaking the goal line. 

Maybe the ref was looking at Ben and where he was holding the ball when he hit and was looking at his body when he was running towards him and made a judgement call from that? Yeah Ben did move the ball while on the ground, but his chest was over the goal line at that point.

It's hard to say either way, and Ben did say that if they hadn't made the TD they were going for it on 4th down. Who is to say that they couldn't move the ball 1 incn? This call is a moot point anyways. 

Hasselbacks tackle is something that was a horrid call if you want to keep talking about this or the holding call giving Seattle the ball at the 2. Those were the two calls that I would be upset about if I was a Hawk fan.


----------

