OT The "Super"bowl?
- Thread starter NOHDjunkie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 3K
- Status
Where is this winning the turnover battle comming from? Pitt had 2 turnovers from Ben, the Seahawks had one turnover from hassleback, and 1 fumble Pitt recovered. Am I missing something here?
dragon002 said:
No worries here man! I am starting to think I really missed something here. In all the analysis I've read, and many posts here I keep seeing the hawks won time of possession, hawks won the turnover battle, frankly I'm tired of it. By my count the turnover battle was a draw (someone correct me if I am wrong), and as you already pointed out 
time of possession only matters if you have the lead.All that matters is who gets the W, and that my friend goes to Steeler Nation!
dragon002 said:
Great teams overcome 1 bad call, but even the best teams ever can't overcome several bad calls.
In the end the winner is the winner and you can't take that away from the Steelers, so my congrats to them. I really think the better team won anyway, but it's just a shame that the poor officiating outshone what could've been a great game.
I agree with the thread starter.
The best Fed Ex commercial of all time was the lowest cost commercial ever produced. It aired a few years ago during the Superbowl. It went like this-
Color bars witn Graphics stating the following. No sound, just silence for 30 seconds.
" The sponsor of the air time for this 30 second commercial failed to send his commercial to the network using Fed EX. He saved a dollar using the other guys"
The best Fed Ex commercial of all time was the lowest cost commercial ever produced. It aired a few years ago during the Superbowl. It went like this-
Color bars witn Graphics stating the following. No sound, just silence for 30 seconds.
" The sponsor of the air time for this 30 second commercial failed to send his commercial to the network using Fed EX. He saved a dollar using the other guys"
The one bad call I saw was Rothlesberger 0 line touchdown. The repeated camera angle showed the ball was down 6" outside the end zone yet the call on the field stood after review. I admit that and I was rooting for Steelers. The other calls I felt were close but good ones. Some didn't understand the receiver contact rules but the announcers explained those. Basically, the SB was boreing the whole first half. I watched it on time delay and skipped through the commercials and half time. If someone had posted something of interest, I have it on DVR to go back and check out. Love my DVR! 30 second commercial business model is DEAD!
BrianMis said:
Thanks, I didn't look at that but I'm sure the line judge did. Like others I only looked at the place where the ball first touched the ground. I may have to go back and see this for myself. If you are right, then IMO there were no bad calls, just ones that seem that way.
As far as the officiating goes, I'd call it par for the course. More and more NFL games are plagued by poor officiating. The NFL has to get a handle on this or the sport will suffer. Having said that, the officiating during the SB was much like the officiating during the Colts vs. Steelers game -- Bad, but fairly balanced. I don't think the crappy calling changed the outcome of either game but it does give people reason to complain. The NFL needs to have professional refs, not part timers.
Mario
Mario
Don Landis said:
At first I thought it wasn't any good, after the review and it wasn't overturned I was like damn I did not want the Steelers to win that way. The more I saw it on the replay I was like damn that just might have been in there. At halftime I watched it over and over and over again in slow motion when Ben was up in the air the ball crossed the line. As he was falling he tucked it in closer, that's why it wasn't in the endzone when he hit the ground.
In the end it doesn't really matter, if you take away that touchdown Pittsburgh still wins.
But if you put back in the BS "pushing off" touchdown from the first quarter that the zebras nullified than they wouldn't have.....
Strike 1 - Hawks TD nullified for pushing off (shouldn't the player actually move in the other direction when pushed?)
Strike 2 - Ben's coming up short of the goal but given the TD anyway.
Strike 3 - The ground causing a fumble by Hasselbeck when he is pushed to the ground. Oh wait, the replay officials bailed him out.
Strike 3 Part Deux - The most un-neutral neutral site causing numerous false start penalties for the Hawks.
Once again, I'm a Giants fan, and I was happy to see Bettis go out with a bang, (and I feel for Cowher who just punched his Hall of Fame ticket as well) but I wish it was more of a fair game. I can't remember a Super Bowl like this where I felt that the refs did such a lousy job and influenced the outcome as much as they did.
Strike 1 - Hawks TD nullified for pushing off (shouldn't the player actually move in the other direction when pushed?)
Strike 2 - Ben's coming up short of the goal but given the TD anyway.
Strike 3 - The ground causing a fumble by Hasselbeck when he is pushed to the ground. Oh wait, the replay officials bailed him out.
Strike 3 Part Deux - The most un-neutral neutral site causing numerous false start penalties for the Hawks.
Once again, I'm a Giants fan, and I was happy to see Bettis go out with a bang, (and I feel for Cowher who just punched his Hall of Fame ticket as well) but I wish it was more of a fair game. I can't remember a Super Bowl like this where I felt that the refs did such a lousy job and influenced the outcome as much as they did.
Were you guys watching the same game?
#1 Because of the push off (WR extened arm) the defender could no longer defend (move toward the WR) and in fact does stumble back a step. Extension of the WR's arm to gain ANY seperation will get the flag most of the time.
#2 Its where the ball is (breaking the goal line) at any time during the play; it does appear that while in the air, before hitting the ground, that the tip of the ball does cross. He is then hit going to the ground and the ball rolls into his stomach; then he moves the ball forward, but contrary to popular belief, its not where the player is or where either end up when the whistle blows, but the relationship of the ball to the goal at any time. Replay was non-conclusive, so the on-field call stands.
#3 Hasselbeck was lucky (call favors Hawks) he was already on the way down without being pushed, the touch came way beforehand and he lost the ball trying to keep from falling; as he needed more yards. He alone hits the ground and the ball is out; even he scurries to get up and get the ball back; HE KNEW!
#4 False starts are false starts, regardless of location, they are pros; they should get over that. Do they get to complain and blame the refs about it on the road during the regular season? NO
The rest: what about the Hawks interception and all the drops during 3rd down or the endzone that KILLED drives and steps out of bounds that killed drives? Two missed long FGs? Letting Parker go for a 70+ yard TD run?
It was an UGLY game, but their mistakes did more harm than any "IFY" calls. Only kids whine about calls, and thats what the Hawks are looking like at this point. Holmgren has ALWAYS been like that.
#1 Because of the push off (WR extened arm) the defender could no longer defend (move toward the WR) and in fact does stumble back a step. Extension of the WR's arm to gain ANY seperation will get the flag most of the time.
#2 Its where the ball is (breaking the goal line) at any time during the play; it does appear that while in the air, before hitting the ground, that the tip of the ball does cross. He is then hit going to the ground and the ball rolls into his stomach; then he moves the ball forward, but contrary to popular belief, its not where the player is or where either end up when the whistle blows, but the relationship of the ball to the goal at any time. Replay was non-conclusive, so the on-field call stands.
#3 Hasselbeck was lucky (call favors Hawks) he was already on the way down without being pushed, the touch came way beforehand and he lost the ball trying to keep from falling; as he needed more yards. He alone hits the ground and the ball is out; even he scurries to get up and get the ball back; HE KNEW!
#4 False starts are false starts, regardless of location, they are pros; they should get over that. Do they get to complain and blame the refs about it on the road during the regular season? NO
The rest: what about the Hawks interception and all the drops during 3rd down or the endzone that KILLED drives and steps out of bounds that killed drives? Two missed long FGs? Letting Parker go for a 70+ yard TD run?
It was an UGLY game, but their mistakes did more harm than any "IFY" calls. Only kids whine about calls, and thats what the Hawks are looking like at this point. Holmgren has ALWAYS been like that.
Last edited:
AND before anyone claims my comments above are those are the comments of a Steeler fan, I have no problem admitting that I am a Raider fan since birth and after seeing where my team was headed between wk2 and wk4 I began following the Steelers and picked them to win.
Heres hoping Ken Wisenhut takes our job; thank God Martz didn't get offered the job, he cried all the way home once he found out Al only wanted him for our OC job; maybe he will wise up and take that; he is NO head coach. He and Wisenhut (as a team) might be able to get something out of Collins & Moss; with some OL picks!
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2322300
Heres hoping Ken Wisenhut takes our job; thank God Martz didn't get offered the job, he cried all the way home once he found out Al only wanted him for our OC job; maybe he will wise up and take that; he is NO head coach. He and Wisenhut (as a team) might be able to get something out of Collins & Moss; with some OL picks!
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2322300
Last edited:
I agree with you charper1, Martz is not a good head coach. I'm a Rams fan and I'm glad to see him go. I'm also glad that Jerome went out with a ring. I still think the offensive pass interference should have been a no call. They both had hands on each other before the ball got there. I do feel the Steelers wanted the game more and deserved the win.
The call in the end zone wasn't offensive pass interference. The defender wasn't playing the ball, just the receiver. The contact was incidental. This wouldn't have been flagged in 9 out of 10 games and shouldn't have been in the SB. In fact, the penalty should have been defensive contact more than 5 yards from scrimmage based on the replay and the contact that occured prior to the mythical push-off.
Interesting that the buzz on the bad officiating has been so strong nationwide that the NFL saw fit to issue an official statement on it. Of course they defended their officials, which they almost always do. I think this SB gets an asterisk (Zebra Bowl) in the record book.
Interesting that the buzz on the bad officiating has been so strong nationwide that the NFL saw fit to issue an official statement on it. Of course they defended their officials, which they almost always do. I think this SB gets an asterisk (Zebra Bowl) in the record book.
Last edited:
Carl B said:
Did you mean you think it WASN'T as opposed to WAS?
Anyway, the DEF couldn't play the WR or the ball (LOL) as he was stiff-armed away from the play. You are right that it wouldn't get called in 9 out of 10 in the reg season, but that just makes the wrong then, not now.
Last edited:
Carl B said:
I made this point days ago, there is no way that contact was incidental. What happened on that play was OPI, just because it does not get called alot doesn't mean anything, it is still against the rules and the receiver got flagged for it. How was this a bad call?
- Status
