Oneiroscope on 7/2/2006 at 04:58
Okay. Well, the thing is that I personally do not really care that much that the Seahawks lost. Or at least wouldn't if it had been simply down to the Seahawks losing because of the way they played. Even Matt Hasselbeck says they did not play their best football. But then neither did the Steelers. But that the game was so drastically affected by piss-poor officiating truly rankles me. In my mind, it is simply that it is not clear that the best team on that particular day won. The referees botched the game. And because it happened at the Super Bowl, and on the Seahawk's very first visit, I am doubly irritated.
Whining? Well, maybe. But if somebody stole something precious to you, would you not complain? The officials stole something from Seahawk fans. A fair chance to win.
/whine
Lhet on 7/2/2006 at 05:22
How often do teams go to the superbowl twice in a row?
Gingerbread Man on 7/2/2006 at 05:51
Probably more often than you'd think. Buffalo had four in a row, two of which were consecutive losses to Dallas.
1967 / 1968 Green Bay
1971 / 1972 Dallas
1972 / 1973 / 1974 Miami
1974 / 1975 Minnesota
1975 / 1976 Pittsburgh
1978 / 1979 Dallas
1979 / 1980 Pittsburgh
1983 / 1984 Washington
1987 / 1988 Denver
1989 / 1990 San Francisco
1991 / 1992 / 1993 / 1994 Buffalo
1993 / 1994 Dallas
1997 / 1998 Green Bay
1998 / 1999 Denver
Rug Burn Junky on 7/2/2006 at 15:31
However, most of those were the winning teams the first time they went. And only two (Dallas and Miami in the '70s) lost a Super Bowl and came back to win it the following year. More often than not, the losing team tends to nosedive the following season. The past five years or so, the losing team in the Super Bowl doesn't even have a winning season the next year.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the refs go, Oneiro, you need to stop being so hyperbolic, because it's just coming off as sour grapes. They didn't steal anything from you. If the team had played even marginally decently, they should have been able to overcome any of those calls.
Besides which, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE CALLS COULD HAVE GONE EITHER WAY. If the refs had allowed the TD on the offensive pass interference, or called Roethlisberger's TD a tackle (and who really thinks that the Steelers wouldn't have punched it in on 4th and inches?) the Steelers fans would have had a rightful gripe as well, but it would have been just as bad an example of poor sportsmanship.
Not one of those calls were so cut and dry that an objective person could look at them and say "Hey, they can't go any other way." Every single one of them could be disagreed upon by objective people watching the same play.
If you want to say that it detracts somewhat from the Steelers win? Yeah, I agree. I think they're at best the least impressive champs I've seen since the first Patriots title. But to say that if it weren't for the refs, the 'hawks would have won is just an irrational fan talking.
It's a fact of life in sports. It happens, ya gotta get over it and move on.
Paz on 7/2/2006 at 15:45
Don't want to derail this with LOL BRIT FOOTY chat, but I'm interested that even with stoppages and replay technology in the sport, it seems that refereeing decisions still remain debatable and potentially controversial.
I only mention this, because there's an irritating faction (hi, Sky Sports!) in British football who keep mentioning the use of replays as some kind of panacea for questionable officiating. I've never believed this to be the case, simply because .. well, it's blatantly not true, but also due to the fact that even when games are shown on tv, there are plenty of incidents that even a fully trained panel of experts would give mixed responses to.
How often are fans left bemoaning various calls after American Football games? Does the dissatisfaction tend to reach similar levels as the general UK attitude toward referees? The majority of the time it seems to be a helpful way to complain about something without facing up to the obvious deficiencies of one's own team (hi, every Premiership manager ever!)
Carini on 7/2/2006 at 15:58
"Referee Pittman, I was just curious - what's in your head, you know, since there's no brain? I mean, is it empty, or is it filled with, say, human excrement?"
I would say that usually the "Replay" reveals the true "call". Every so often do you have where you just can't tell or the Ref truly fucks it up. I guess since the fuck ups are more rememberable that we forget all the times that Replay helped move the game along properly.
that and
Fucking Colts.
SD on 7/2/2006 at 17:50
Quote Posted by Paz
Don't want to derail this with LOL BRIT FOOTY chat, but I'm interested that even with stoppages and replay technology in the sport, it seems that refereeing decisions still remain debatable and potentially controversial.
Hmm, that's not quite the case though. In American Football, each team has two "challenges" allowed per game, with which they are permitted to challenge questionable decisions, and even then only certain kinds of decision. If the decision is not reversed, then the challenging team will forfeit a timeout.
So it's not a question of every refereeing decision being instantly reviewed on camera, just a very few per game. In fact, the system seems to work quite well. For example, on one play in the Superbowl, the Seahawks quarterback was deemed to have fumbled the football. The call was challenged and the decision reversed (even Stevie Wonder could see he had his knee down before he lost control of the ball). Nice and easy.
Quote:
I only mention this, because there's an irritating faction (hi, Sky Sports!) in British football who keep mentioning the use of replays as some kind of panacea for questionable officiating. I've never believed this to be the case, simply because .. well, it's blatantly not true, but also due to the fact that even when games are shown on tv, there are plenty of incidents that even a fully trained panel of experts would give mixed responses to.
The thing about these so-called experts is that generally they don't know shit. I wouldn't trust Ally McCoist, Andy Townsend, Peter Schmeichel, Garth Crooks or Charlie Nicholas to give me the correct time, never mind call an incident right. I remain a big fan of replay technology being used sparingly in (association) football.
Rug Burn Junky on 7/2/2006 at 18:22
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
The call was challenged and the decision reversed (even Stevie Wonder could see he had his knee down before he lost control of the ball). Nice and easy.
Of course, the fact that he had his knee down was never in question and wasn't what was being reviewed, but nice try anyway. ;)
Paz on 7/2/2006 at 19:42
I said fully trained panel of experts, not punditry clowns.
SD on 7/2/2006 at 19:51
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Of course, the fact that he had his knee down was never in question and wasn't what was being reviewed, but nice try anyway.
Well, no, it was a little more complex than that (to do with the linebacker making a tackle) but the pertinent point was that he had control of the ball when his knee hit the ground, in which case it couldn't be a fumble. I don't see how that contradicts what I wrote, really.
