Oneiroscope on 9/2/2006 at 20:42
Maybe I need to restate my position. Losing a clean game, where the game was determined solely or at least primarily by the way the two teams played is no big deal to me. Sure I would have been disappointed, but I would have figured at least they took their shot.
The way the Super Bowl was officiated, though, took that away. It was NOT a clean loss. At do NOT try to tell me that the officiating didn't vastly affect the game. I don't know that the Seahawks would have won if a few of those "either way" calls had gone their way. But at least I could have said to myself "well, they took their shot and it didnt work out". Instead of "Holy Shit, the refs never gave them a chance".
You yourself, RBJ, admitted that the officiating was lousy. My friend at work, a hardcore Steelers fan all his life, ALSO admitted the officiating was lousy (though he also said he didn't care because 'by hook or by crook the Lombardi trophy is in Pittsburg'). MY gripe, is that it happened at the Super Bowl, the most important game in football, and on my team's very first and possibly last appearance for the forseeable future. How can I not be pissed that their first Super Bowl was turned into a complete clusterfuck by the referees?
You could say that much like the championship in boxing, you have to achieve a knockout to take the title. That the Seahawks should have been able to beat both the Steelers and the refs by, I dunno, scoring on every single drive. Seems to me that's setting the bar rather high, though.
Irrational fan talk? I don't think so. Irrational fan talk would be to say "they should replay the Super Bowl" or "the NFL should overturn the calls and re-score the game as played", or "declare war on Pittsburg" or "invoke RICO and Antitrust on the NFL". I think my position is entirely rational. The Super Bowl was decided by the refs, and it should have been decided by the Steelers and the Seahawks.
Naartjie on 9/2/2006 at 21:04
Quote:
Thank you for that newsflash.
Any time, big boy.
Rug Burn Junky on 9/2/2006 at 21:12
I never once said that the officiating was lousy, and I have no idea where the hell you got that idea. In fact, I think they did a very good job, and there's only one call that I think they got wrong (the Hasselback illegal block penalty). They were CLOSE calls, that COULD have been decided the other way and been forgivable, but that doesn't mean that they were wrong as decided.
In fact, most objective observers think that the officiating was pretty good as well. Check out last night's Inside the NFL where they go through each questionable play and point out why the officials called them correctly. Peter King also said the same thing, as have most other nationally respected football writers I've seen.
So yeah, to the extent that you're claiming that they were <s>deciding</s>vastly affecting the game, it is totally irrational.
demagogue on 9/2/2006 at 21:34
That's the same thing I noticed from just about every objective commentator I read/saw ... Each call appeared safely in the boundaries of the refs' discretion, except the holding call. Either consensus is running against you ... or, to be fair, it could be a conspiracy: the establishment has to protect the institution by fabricating these "it's always fair" stories rather than face the awful prospect that Superbowl games aren't fair, sort of like believers in a religion or a politician go out of their way to whitewash the obvious truth so they can still respect the thing they most love.*
* Truth be told, though, while I said that *conspiracy* bit sarcastically, I was still half-serious. It is interesting to note how passionately commentators have come to the referee's defense ... and I bet this reason has more than a little to do with it, as well as their professional opinion.
Oneiroscope on 10/2/2006 at 07:08
My apologies RBJ, I did in fact make a mistake. It was Stitch who said
Quote:
Agreed on the questionable calls
. For some reason I guess I thought it was you.:o
However, you can quote semi-reputable sources and agree with Paul Tagliaboo (or however the fuck you spell his name) all you want. I still say the refereeing sucked balls.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/2/2006 at 15:19
More power to ya.
I'm still waiting for the NFL to overturn the horrible offensive pass interference & unsportsmanlike conduct penalties on Mark Duper that prevented the 'phins comeback in the '85 AFC Championship Game and kept them from their rightful place of destiny in beating the Chicago Bears AGAIN that year.
Doesn't mean either of us is being very rational.
That Miserable Thief on 11/2/2006 at 16:11
The "questionable" penalty calls in the Super Bowl were all correct by the rules. All of this whining is done by people who had an emotional (or monetary) stake in the game (rooting for the Seahawks or against the Steelers), or who are simply ignorant of the rules of the game. And the Steelers fans "admitting" there were bad calls fall into the latter category.
Case in point.
Quote:
Worst. Refereeing. Ever.
If I was a Seahawks fan, I'd be checking the game officials' bank accounts for suspicious transactions. There were some calls there that were just so spectacularly poor that even Ray Charles could have called them better. From his grave.
Best team lost IMO.
Quote:
I always thought that the ground couldn't cause a fumble, and that as soon as your knee hits the deck, the play is over and the ball is dead. I guess I understood wrong. Forgive me for not knowing the rules of a game that is alien to me inside out!
This is the reason for all of the uproar. Even many Americans that claim to love the game don't know the rules well enough to make an objective critique of the officiating in this game.
Both teams' offenses played poorly, and it seems that played into all of the unwarranted criticism of the officiating.
If, if, if. If Seatte hadn't broken the rules, they wouldn't have been penalized. The calls were right, so get over it. No one can debate that the rules were broken on the calls in question. The only thing I keep seeing from reasonably informed fans is, "Yeah, but it shouldn't have been called." What? How does that uphold the integrity of the game?
BTW, Strontium Dog, did you know Seattle had the easiest regular season schedule of any team in the NFL this season? They only beat two teams with winning records in the 16-game regular season. They got a week off in the playoffs for being the top seed in the NFC, then proceeded to beat the Redskins (in Seattle) - who barely made the playoffs, and the Panthers (in Seattle) - who started their 3rd string RB due to injuries to the two in front of him, and he ended up going down to injury early in that game. So, all year, Seattle beat 4 team with winning records. Pittsburgh beat 4 teams with winning records in the playoffs alone. Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Denver all were are beaten soundly by Pittsburgh - in their home stadiums! If not for the poor play by both teams in the Super Bowl, the Steelers would be trumpeted as the team with the greatest Playoff run in the history of NFL football.
"The better team lost." Please. The NFC was so weak this year that the five teams that made the playoffs behind Seattle would've had no chance to make them in the AFC, and Seattle would've been hard-pressed to be a fifth or sixth seed.
Stick to what you know.
DarkViper on 11/2/2006 at 16:20
Quote Posted by That Miserable Thief
All of this whining is done by people who had an emotional (or monetary) stake in the game (rooting for the Seahawks or against the Steelers), or who are simply ignorant of the rules of the game. And the Steelers fans "admitting" there were bad calls fall into the latter category.
I still hear a few Steelers fans claiming they didn't feel their win was as spectacular as it could have been, and were more than just a little disappointed in the calls. They felt that sans the "questionable" calls that the Steelers would have been much more highly regarded as being the better team.
paloalto on 11/2/2006 at 19:17
Three controversial calls on three touchdowns,a possible swing of 21 points.Pretty rare even for blown calls in a single game.And this in the Super Bowl.The fact that both teams played lousy made the calls even more important.Not to mention the late time out call by Ben R. which would have made it 3rd and 11 instead of 3rd and six on the Steelers late drive.At least those with Tivo claim it is so.More fuel to the fire.
That Miserable Thief on 11/2/2006 at 22:13
The Steelers played badly. I would've felt much better if they had played well. The point is, they scored more points, so they won.
Quote:
Three controversial calls on three touchdowns,a possible swing of 21 points.Pretty rare even for blown calls in a single game.And this in the Super Bowl.The fact that both teams played lousy made the calls even more important.Not to mention the late time out call by Ben R. which would have made it 3rd and 11 instead of 3rd and six on the Steelers late drive.At least those with Tivo claim it is so.More fuel to the fire.
First of all, you don't even know what you are talking about. The "controversial" holding call against Seattle negated a catch at the 1 or 2 yard line. For you and others that don't know, that would not have equalled a touchdown.
The offensive pass interference was blatant and right in front of the official. To not call it would have been unfair and wrong.
The holding call fit the criteria of holding perfectly. To not call it would have been unfair and wrong.
The QB run for a TD was reviewed. At game speed, you can't tell if the ball crossed the front plane of the goal line. On a DVR, you can. I have one. The officials had one. In addition, the call on the field was a TD. To over-rule the call on the field, clear contradictory evidence is necessary. None is. Even if there was evidence that the ball didn't cross the plain, the Steelers still have it on 4th and goal from the 1-inch line. I'd have rathered this to be the case, because the Steelers would've pounded it in, anyway, and it would've been one less call for the crybabies to point out.
These calls were not blown. You and anyone else stating so is ignorant of the rules, lying, blind, or don't think the rules should be enforced - at your discretion. The NFL has come out as recently as 3 weeks ago and admitted fault in an official's bad ruling (against the Steelers, BTW - funny, they fought through it and won). If any of these calls were bad, they would've done the same. Strange, but the NFL came out earlier this week and stated that the game was called correctly. Rules were broken and penalties were called. Anyone bitching about it isn't interested in the integrity of the game, only it's outcome.
As far as the "late" timeout goes, maybe it was late, I haven't reviewed it. But, the Steelers converted on 3rd and 28 in the game, so you are going to hang your hat on an uncalled, five yard penalty? Apparently you missed the block in the back of Ben R. after he threw his second INT and it was returned 76 yards - that wasn't called. That block occurred in Steelers territory. The penalty, if called, would've backed Seattle up 10 yards from the point of the foul, which would've put Seattle somewhere around mid-field. Seattle scored their only TD on that successive "drive".
See, the NFL only addresses calls that are made, not calls that are not made.
Seattle made more mistakes in this game. The officials had nothing to do with Seattle's mistakes. Their job was to call infractions when they saw them, and that's what they did.
Whiners, bitchers, liars, losers.........enjoy your sour grapes, if you can get them past your full-of-shit mouths.
