NFL 2008

[MasterOLightning]

The challenges are there for a reason. You can't always tell on the field what the right call is. I really don't think either of those original calls were poor calls despite being wrong. These people are human, and it's really fucking hard to make those calls in real time at a split second.

Agree. Those were by no means egregious calls. But having to challenge plays is risky, especially in the second half. Borderline calls seemed to be slanted one way in this game mostly, but I did find some of the holding calls on both sides to be iffy, including the one resulting in a safety.

Did he not do the penalty? And he actually trucked two players then, the other guy might have actually been the kicker. And the penalty turned out to be irrelevant anyway, aside from a minute more being gone from the clock.

That minute was relevant. He hit the dude, but I wasn't aware that hitting the holder was a 15 yard penalty. I don't recall the kicker being touched on that play.

I agree that it was borderline, but borderline means that it could be reasonably called either way, so you shouldn't be complaining about that. And they did show a thoroughly conclusive review about the intentional grounding. They even drew red lines on the field demonstrating where the pocket was and he was clearly over a foot beyond the margin. You must have missed this somehow.

Ok, I remember when they did the red lines, and this was not the same play that the roughing penalty was called on. The play I referred to was early in the drive. When they showed the lines, Pittsburgh was in the red zone or nearby. Different plays. I'm disappointed that NBC didn't show such a graphic earlier, because it certainly would have been close, and the graphic did settle any argument on that.

Refresh my memory. I don't recall the circumstances of that game.

I was referring to the Pittsburgh/Seattle Super Bowl, if that wasn't clear.
I can throw give examples if I go do a little research, but there was a bad offensive pass interference call that negated a Seattle touchdown, and other calls that made it very hard for them to win. When a QB posts a 22.1 rating, or whatever, and that team still wins, they had some help.

 

[skeptik]

Are you saying there was an intentional grounding on the same same play as the roughing the passer call? The only ball that I thought might have been intentional grounding was the one that they analyzed.

When a QB posts a 22.1 rating, or whatever, and that team still wins, they had some help.

Yeah, the longest rushing touchdown in Super Bowl history, A wide receiver throwing a touchdown pass, and Roethlisberger running one in himself. He knows better than you or anyone else that he played a crappy game, but the rest of his team didn't, and I think it's ridiculous to suggest that they wouldn't have won if it wasn't for officiating calls.

EDIT:

This is blatantly pass interference.



This is pretty clearly holding.



This is an incredibly ambiguous call. You can't see where the ball actually is, but it was tucked under his right arm, and his right shoulder was definitely further ahead than his left side. He may have crossed the plane, but I agree that this is a close call.

[youtube]N93VaUytd4w&NR=1[/youtube]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2002795956_theplays10.html

Explanations of six key plays

The play: Darrell Jackson is called for offensive pass interference, nullifying a 16-yard touchdown catch with 2:08 left in the first quarter.

The gripe: The general consensus is that, while Jackson touched safety Chris Hope, it shouldn't have been pass interference.

Conclusion: NFL rules state: "Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off, thus creating a separation" is grounds for pass interference. Replays show contact with Jackson extending his arm, and, as former NFL official Jim Tunney explains, "There was contact, and it looked like the defender took a step backwards. He [Hope] is closing, and all of a sudden he stops. From the standpoint of the back judge, he sees that separation and makes the call."

The play: Jerramy Stevens drops a pass from Matt Hasselbeck early in the second quarter that would have given the Seahawks a first down. Replays show that Stevens might actually have made a catch then fumbled.

The gripe: Was that a catch and fumble? And if so can the Seahawks challenge and keep the ball, since it went out of bounds?

Conclusion: Because the play was ruled incomplete and blown dead, it cannot be reviewed. Had the play been ruled a fumble, Steelers linebacker James Farrior would almost certainly have recovered the ball.

The play: Late in the second quarter, Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger dives for the end zone and is met at the goal line by Seahawks linebacker D.D. Lewis. After a brief hesitation, head linesman Mark Hittner signals touchdown.

The gripe: There were two on the play. One, that Roethlisberger didn't break the plane of the goal line, and two, that Hittner signaled the quarterback down and appeared to be spotting the ball before he ruled touchdown.

Conclusion: According to both NFL spokesman Greg Aiello and Tunney, Hittner's initial one-handed signal did not indicate fourth down, but rather that the play was over. As for whether Roethlisberger scored, that was a judgment call and replays did not provide enough incontrovertible evidence to overturn the ruling.

The play: In the final minute of the first half, Jackson catches a long pass but gets only one foot in bounds before stepping out of the end zone.

advertising
The gripe: Some fans wondered if getting one foot in while kicking the pylon with the other constitutes possession.

Conclusion: While replays seem to indicate that Jackson kicked the pylon with his right foot, that alone does not establish possession. "A completed pass is having both feet on the ground," Tunney said. "He came from the air, caught the ball, and the second foot knocked over the pylon. He has to hit the second foot down to be a catch."

The play: Early in the fourth quarter, right tackle Sean Locklear is flagged for holding linebacker Clark Haggans, negating a Stevens catch to the 1-yard line.

The gripe: Fans, writers and broadcasters all seem to agree that there was no hold on the play. Also, there was a question of whether Haggans was offsides on the play. Hasselbeck said he thought he had a free play because Haggans had jumped early.

Conclusion: Haggans seemed to have the snap count figured out that drive, as he timed several plays to get a head start on Locklear. In slow motion, it looks like he crossed the line right at the snap, not early. As for the hold, NFL rules state that "hands or arms that encircle a defender — i.e., hook an opponent — are to be considered illegal." It was borderline whether Locklear hooked his arm around Haggans, and certainly similar plays frequently go uncalled, but Locklear did appear to briefly get his right arm around Haggans' neck.

"I would need to see it from where the umpire was standing. But if he sees him [Locklear] restricting that player from getting to the quarterback with his arm wrapped around him, then he can call a hold," Tunney said. "As I remember the play, he got his arm around the neck, so by the letter of the law that's restricting, and it's a hold."

The play: Three plays after Locklear's questionable hold, Hasselbeck throws an interception to Ike Taylor. On the return, Hasselbeck takes out Taylor by diving in front of him, and is flagged for a 15-yard illegal block.

The gripe: How can a tackler be penalized for an illegal block?

Conclusion: The official who threw the flag did so because he thought Hasselbeck was going low to take out a blocker, which is a penalty on returns. Every replay, however, seems to show Hasselbeck missing lead blocker Deshea Townsend and touching only Taylor.

Even Aiello left the door open when asked about this play. "If Hasselbeck did not make contact with the blocker, then a flag should not have been thrown."

 

[Cythraul]

My team FUCKING LOST but you know what that shit was the best superbowl I've seen in probably my whole life. My cardinals played a good fucking game and I thought some of those penalties were just bullshit but you know what that was a good fucking game. GOD DAMNIT WHY CAN'T WE WIN FOR ONCE GODDAMNIT!

 

[MasterOLightning]

Are you saying there was an intentional grounding on the same same play as the roughing the passer call? The only ball that I thought might have been intentional grounding was the one that they analyzed.

Yeah, it looked that way to me. Not sure I can provide evidence at this moment, and maybe he was just outside the pocket, as on the other play where he was a yard or less out, but there was not at all a nearby receiver on that play. That play was weak as far as roughing the passer goes. If you're going to crack down, then some guys on the Steelers should have been booted for punching the Cards on a few plays.

Regarding those clips, the holding seemed fair. Holding sucks, because you really can find it on every 2-3 plays, and the NFL doesn't want that. It didn't look like he scored on the scramble. If the original judgment was "no score" then I think that holds up. I couldn't view that 3 second interference video on my awful computer, which showed me about 3 frames.

I'm not just pulling criticism out of thin air. That game was rather notorious for bad calls. Here's a wiki page, of all things, but there were plenty of people who didn't like the calls. The illegal block on Hasselbeck was awful. It's on . Just abysmal. He made the tackle. It's the Super Bowl, there shouldn't be so many bad calls. I'd prefer things to go the NHL route, where you only call very obvious penalties in the playoffs. Although this isn't even the case, as in the play the Ravens ran about 2 full seconds after the play clock ran out against the Titans. That was horrible.

You still can't deny that NFL officials have had a very bad year. They aren't at NBA level of suspicion, but they just make too many mistakes, and it's been apparent in almost every game. For what it's worth, MLB umps seem to do the best job of all officials.

 

[skeptik]

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e84f48

FUMBLE.

His arm was coming up into a throwing position. It was not going forward. When his arm was going forward, the ball was already out. The ball only advanced because Warner's arm continue the forward motion with the ball in that trajectory. He did not have possession of the ball, and thus was not a pass, but a fumble. I agree that it should have been reviewed, but it would have been called a fumble. I'm confident that this call would have even been overturned if it was originally called an incomplete pass.

Fuck this bullshit controversy. The Steelers won, and they deserved to win.

 

[skeptik]

The illegal block on Hasselbeck was awful. It's on this clip. Just abysmal.

I do agree with this one. But, it turned out not to matter anyway, as nothing came of that drive, and all the penalty did was advance the ball 15 yards, it wouldn't have changed possession or anything and certainly didn't cause the Seahawks to lose. There were also bad calls against the Steelers, as that same wikipedia page notes.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The poor quality of officiating is something the NFL should be worried about. I mean, the SB is supposed to be their best crew, and they're making rather bad errors. I think they need to go to a league-wide office for review like the NHL and MLB do. Rarely in other sports do you see a call that's blatantly wrong. Some of that is the nature of those sports, but they tend to not embarrass themselves over the course of 82 or 162 games, and the NFL is only 16 games. Review rules should favor the coaches more as well. Maybe give a risk-free first review. Another problem is that refs tend to err on the side of "fumble" because whatever happens after an "incompletion" is not reviewable. So they favor the "fumble" outcome, knowing that it can be overturned. Unfortunately, the rule requires indisputable evidence, which favors fumbles.

@Dodens: I do think the Steelers were just better than Seattle anyway, but that doesn't keep it from being a poorly officiated game. This game was pretty bad as well, which hurts, because this was a more even matchup. Arizona likely wins, if they at worst convert a FG at the end of the first half, or if they caught another call or two.

 

[skeptik]

Please explain to me how these two games were so absolutely horribly egregiously officiated when I've addressed very nearly every instance of penalty that has occurred in both games and only one of the calls has turned out to be bad (a call which had no bearing on the final result of the game). I didn't even bother to bring up the myriad blatant holding calls that Harrison suffered throughout the entire game (entire playoffs, really). Obviously holding calls are missed all the time, but the systematic and constant holding of this one player is a more egregious non-call than any of the calls made against the Seahawks or the Cardinals.

So let's review:

James Harrison touchdown: was a touchdown
Roughing the passer call: could have fairly gone either way
Intentional grounding call: was not
Roughing the holder: was accurate
Fumble at the end of the game: was a fumble
Safety: was a safety
Two calls overturned: were accurately overturned

I would like to say "you certainly can't claim that the referees weren't consistent," but I already said that they missed several severe holding calls on Harrison, so I can't. The only call they missed against the Steelers was a personal foul on Harrison. EDIT: correction, he was flagged.

Super Bowl XL:

Offensive pass interference: was
Roethlisberger touchdown: more likely was than was not, and was upheld by review
Haggans hold: was a hold
Stevens dropped pass: I couldn't find a video from this, but from the description of the play from this Seattle paper suggests that it was better to have been called an incomplete pass since the Steelers would have recovered a fumble, so this is actually a poor call against the Steelers
Jackson deep pass: Again, based on the description, he didn't have possession and both feet on the ground, and thus didn't make the catch
Hasselbeck illegal block: was a poor call, but effected nothing

This is not even to mention the two blown calls against the Steelers addressed on the wikipedia page.

Here's an alternative analysis to the penalty conspiracy as to why the Seahawks lost:

Seattle Analysis : My, the Seattle clock management was weird at the end of both halves, culminating with the score 21-10, the Hawks facing third-and-10 on the Steelers 27 with 27 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter and throwing a rinky-dinky flat pass to Jerramy Stevens, who was tackled in bounds, all but officially ending the game. A flat pass to the tight end with 27 seconds remaining? This was the last of many mental errors by Seattle coaches and players on a day when the Seahawks mostly played well, but sure didn't think well.

Seattle did not have anything distinctive in its game plan. Through the playoffs, Pittsburgh had run different looks on offense and defense each week -- New England also varies tremendously from week to week -- while having at least a few special plays for each game. The Seahawks seemed to run their usual stuff, and though they run their usual stuff well, deprived themselves of the extra edge of game planning. The Hawks attempted no reverses or end-arounds on offense (coaches did call a punt-return reverse that could not be executed, owing to a high Pittsburgh punt) and called no flea flicker or other gadget play: Pittsburgh ran three plays in this category, resulting in two first downs and one touchdown. Seneca Wallace made only a brief appearance -- because what, coaches were saving him for next week? Lack of forethought was shown on defense, too. The Hawks defense played well, considering losing three defensive starters: Seattle held Roethlisberger to a net of 123 yards passing on 21 attempts, picking him off twice. Reader Jim Hickey of Andover, Mass., notes Roethlisberger's 22.6 passer rating was lower than his age of 23. But on the game-icing touchdown, Randle El to Ward, the Seattle secondary was fooled, though during the regular season Randle El threw off that action three times. And it wasn't just the backups who were fooled; megabucks corner Marcus Trufant is the one who let Ward go. The five dropped passes? Any team can drop one in a game -- Ward had a bad drop, but went onto to become MVP. Five drops shows lack of concentration; one of the drops would have put Seattle in a goal-to-go. Consider Matt Hasselbeck finished 29 for 46 for 273 and had five dropped. If those five were caught, Monday morning people might have been talking about Hasselbeck's MVP award.

The game's two critical moments for Seattle were coaching mistakes. The Blue Men lead 3-0 midway through the second quarter, faced fourth and the length of a football on their own 26. Aaaaaiiiiiiiyyyyyyeeeee! I cried aloud to the football gods as Mike Holmgren sent in the punter. Sure it's your own territory in a close contest. But you have the league's leading rusher; he averages 5.1 yards a carry. Shaun Alexander has been stopped on a third-and-1 or fourth-and-1 only once all season. And it's the Super Bowl, don't mince around, go win the game! I scarcely need tell you the Steelers soon passed the point where the ball would have been had the Seahawks gone for it and missed. Holmgren's fraidy-cat punt brought Pittsburgh to life. To the moment of the punt, the Steelers had 44 net yards and one first down; on the possession following the punt they gained 69 yards and scored a touchdown. Endlessly, Tuesday Morning Quarterback reiterates that when a coach goes for it in a situation like this, he sends his players the message he is challenging them to win the game. When a coach punts in a situation like this, he sends his players the message he is afraid of losing. Seeing this punt boom, Pittsburgh sensed fear and immediately pounced.

Now it's Steelers 21, Seahawks 10 with 6:28 remaining in the game, Seattle facing fourth-and-13 at midfield. I could not believe my peepers when Holmgren again sent in the punter. Sure fourth-and-13 is a long down, but this is the Super Bowl, there is no tomorrow! Down by two scores late in the fourth quarter you must, absolutely must, go for it. Punt and even if you force a three-and-out the clock situation is nearly impossible. Plus, at that point, three of Seattle's defensive starters were sidelined with injuries, greatly reducing the chance of a three-and-out. Pittsburgh converted two first downs and held the ball until the two-minute warning, at which point Seattle's goose was cooked. As the punt boomed, you know what words I wrote in my notebook: GAME OVER. Bad enough when coaches quit on a regular-season game; with 6:28 remaining, Mike Holmgren quit on the Super Bowl! It's hard not to suspect he was more concerned with holding down the margin of defeat than going all-out to try for victory.

And here's an analysis from the same source for the officiating:

Zebra Critique: Four of the six big officiating decisions went against Seattle. Does this mean a pro-Steelers bias, as some in the sports yak world are saying, or perhaps a slap at Mike Holmgren by the officiating guild? (Holmgren ripped the officials after the Giants-Seahawks contest; conspiracy theory says the zebras were seeking vengeance.) The two decisions that favored the Hawks were the fourth-quarter replay reversal that gave possession, initially awarded to Pittsburgh, back to Seattle; and the no-call of a block in the back by Seattle during Kelly Herndon's record interception return. Of the four big decisions that favored the Steelers, two seemed correct to me. On the offensive pass interference nullifying Seattle's first touchdown, Darrell Jackson pushed off with the ball in the air and gained advantage by doing so. Had the physics of the play been exactly the same, except Jackson a defender, television announcers would have been screaming, "Interference!" It's true, as some said, that Michael Irvin often got away with push-offs -- but he shouldn't have. And when Roethlisberger dove for Pittsburgh's first touchdown, at game speed I thought, "He didn't make it." But replays showed the tip of the ball above the goal line, and Rule 3, Section 38 reads, "A touchdown is the situation is which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, in on, above, or behind an opponent's goal line."

On the flip side, the holding penalty against Sean Locklear, nullifying what would have been a Seahawks' first-and-goal on the Pittsburgh 1 in the fourth quarter, seemed a bad call. On almost every Pittsburgh offensive play, a Steelers blocker grabbed as briefly as Locklear grabbed on the down in question; if it was illegal for one team, it should have been illegal for both teams. Owing to the dubious penalty, instead of first-and-goal, Seattle ended up throwing an interception on third-and-long. That interception undid the Seahawks, as they staged a 13-play, 81-yard drive that ended in no points, and undid the Super Bowl itself, converting what might have been a fabulous ending into a lackluster fourth quarter. Seattle faithful also have a legitimate complaint that the fourth-quarter 15-yard penalty on Hasselbeck for "low block" was inexplicable. The rulebook states that during a turnover, neither team may block below the waist. But Hasselbeck wasn't blocking -- he was making the tackle. Check the official Game Book, at 10:54 of the fourth quarter. The league's own Game Book credits Hasselbeck with the tackle on a play where the penalty could be valid only if Hasselbeck was not making a tackle!

Note that you acknowledge that Haggans was held, and note also that I acknowledge the Hasselbeck call was poor. Note, finally, that nobody ever cares, ever, when the Steelers are short-changed on calls. It's always the Steelers who are horrible people and are favored by the referees, even when the other team is performing obvious penalties.

 

[Dak]

So let's review:

James Harrison touchdown: was a touchdown
Roughing the passer call: could have fairly gone either way
Intentional grounding call: was not
Roughing the holder: was accurate
Fumble at the end of the game: was a fumble
Safety: was a safety
Two calls overturned: were accurately overturned

You can tell a it's a Steelers fan with those 2 opinions. In both of those situations, the collisions were unavoidable.

 

[skeptik]

Normally I wouldn't bother to click 'view post,' but I knew it would be a stupid response.

You really, seriously need to watch that roughing the holder call again if you think that was unavoidable. It was blatant as fuck. Not to mention that he ran over TWO people, not one. As for the roughing the passer, contact was unavoidable, but he continued to go full force at him when he didn't have to. I've seen lesser things called and more severe things not called. Things like these a judgment calls based on the officiating staff and they generally played the entire game fairly strictly.

As for the whole "I've never even heard of roughing the holder omg omg," I don't think the call was actually "roughing the holder." That was the explanation of the penalty, which was unnecessary roughness.

 

[skeptik]

I don't feel like reading through the thread so I'll make two quick points. I was shocked that they didn't review the Warner fumble at the end. That was certainly close enough to review. If they used replay to "correct" a call that doesn't even affect the outcome of a game, (Steelers-Chargers this year) how the fuck do they not review what is the game clinching play in the Super Bowl? My second point is those championship hats are ugly as hell. I guess the NFL thought the Seahawks were gonna win the Super Bowl this year.

While it was not officially "reviewed," I'm sure that the booth looked at the play and would have overturned the call if they thought it was a forward pass. I posted a link on the previous page that shows pretty clearly that it was a fumble. His arm was horizontal and the ball was knocked out as he was raising his arm into a vertical, throwing position. The ball had a forward projection because his arm hit the ball while he continued what would have been his throwing motion if he had not already lost possession. As I already said, I agree that the play should have been "officially" reviewed (i.e. had the whole song and dance "official booth review" screen display and everything), but in the end, it was a fumble after all and they made the right call.

Now, in an effort of full disclosure, I will bring up two points that nobody even mentioned, and this involves the James Harrison play.

Deshea Townsend seems to hold Kurt Warner by the jersey. The marginal grabbing of the jersey was incidental and did not amount to a hold, as it did not prevent Warner from making a play if he was in a position to do so, which he wasn't, because he was being blocked.

LaMarr Woodley seems to have an illegal block in the back when viewed in real time. When viewed on the replay, the block was clearly initiated at the right shoulder, and where the initiation begins is what determines the distinction between a legal and an illegal block, so the no-call was the correct call in this instance.

These two explanations were provided by actual amateur football officials.

And to further prove that I'm clearly the single most unbiased fan in the history of the world, I think Holmes could have reasonably been penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct for his touchdown celebration seen at the 2:15 mark.

 

[AchrisK]

I wonder why officiating seems so crap this season. Is that just a perception we hold because it is the season we are in? Or has it really been bad?

I say get the refs off the field, except one to put the ball at the right spot for the next play. All officiating should be done from some sort of booths with all camera angles available. Multiple booths with teams of refs. Whistle sounds and all official ref talk coming over the sound system.

 

[AchrisK]

Normally I wouldn't bother to click 'view post,'...

Do you seriously have Dakryn on ignore?

 

[skeptik]

I wonder why officiating seems so crap this season. Is that just a perception we hold because it is the season we are in? Or has it really been bad?

I say get the refs off the field, except one to put the ball at the right spot for the next play. All officiating should be done from some sort of booths with all camera angles available. Multiple booths with teams of refs. Whistle sounds and all official ref talk coming over the sound system.

You're nuts. That would kill the game. And human error is just a part of the game. No game will ever be officiated 100% perfectly. Every team in the league has to accept this. In some games a majority of errors may favor one team over another, but that is not nearly enough to say that an officiating staff was intentionally biased (not accusing you of that). Besides, if they were biased, do you think they would have called the safety when nobody seemed to notice it? And then on the first play of the game winning drive they call a marginal holding call to make sure they start 10 yards even further? If they were biased, they wouldn't have made these calls, even though they were the right calls.

Do you seriously have Dakryn on ignore? I am a bit disappointed.

I'm not. It's been great, actually.

 

[Dak]

Normally I wouldn't bother to click 'view post,' but I knew it would be a stupid response.

You really, seriously need to watch that roughing the holder call again if you think that was unavoidable. It was blatant as fuck. Not to mention that he ran over TWO people, not one. As for the roughing the passer, contact was unavoidable, but he continued to go full force at him when he didn't have to. I've seen lesser things called and more severe things not called. Things like these a judgment calls based on the officiating staff and they generally played the entire game fairly strictly.

As for the whole "I've never even heard of roughing the holder omg omg," I don't think the call was actually "roughing the holder." That was the explanation of the penalty, which was unnecessary roughness.

He hit him immediately following the pass, and with the way Ben was moving around and it being the Super Bowl, Dansby is a big man moving fast - You can't stop 250 lbs on a dime. You have seen Ben pumpfake with full velocity. When Dansby saw him wind up he doesn't know if it's a pumpfake or the real deal, so he isn't going to even consider slowing down until the ball is gone.
The fact that he merely made contact as opposed to wrapping him up - and it was by no means a blatantly late hit - should be enough grounds to call bullshit.

As far as roughing the holder, the guy tripped over the blocker, and then stumbled into the holder. Hardly "roughing".

I am not arguing the refs handed the Steelers the game, just that these two calls were bad. Lose your pretentiousness, it negates any decent arguement you might make.

 

[AchrisK]

...I don't see where all the hatred of the Steelers is coming from aside from jealousy from Cowboys fans and annoyance that they are a successful team, both of which are absurd reasons to hate a team.

I, as one who dislikes the outcome of this game, do not hate the Steelers. For one thing, I have a minor is AZ Cardinal fandom because I have lived here for like 23+ years. Also the annoyance is just seeing one of the same old teams that have won it (many times) before, win it again. I know it's nobody's fault. All teams want to win, and I know that teams are made of different people than they were when they won it in the past. Still, it's annoying and anti-climactic.

 

[AchrisK]

You're nuts. That would kill the game. And human error is just a part of the game. No game will ever be officiated 100% perfectly. Every team in the league has to accept this. In some games a majority of errors may favor one team over another, but that is not nearly enough to say that an officiating staff was intentionally biased (not accusing you of that). Besides, if they were biased, do you think they would have called the safety when nobody seemed to notice it? And then on the first play of the game winning drive they call a marginal holding call to make sure they start 10 yards even further? If they were biased, they wouldn't have made these calls, even though they were the right calls.

Maybe I am nuts, and I really haven't thought it all through to even know if it is a valid idea. But understand that my comments have nothing to do with this game, necessarily. I am not throwing up any huge arguments about it. But I did see a lot of bad officiating this season. If my idea could work, then resistance to it could be similar to all the resistance that is always normal whenever things like instant replay are proposed. I was not aware of the issue when football started doing it, so I don't know how it was received, but I assume there was resistance. I know baseball was very resistant to it (did they institute it?). It's seems like a logical step to me. Why perpetuate a flawed system if a less flawed system could replace it? Why should it just be "part of the game" to have a team treated unfairly?

I'm not. It's been great, actually.

I changed my post. I didn't like my second comment.

It just surprises me because he's not a belligerent (no offense, B) idiot who doesn't think. He just has opinions that oppose yours (and the majority here), and he stands by them.

 

[skeptik]

He hit him immediately following the pass, and with the way Ben was moving around and it being the Super Bowl, Dansby is a big man moving fast - You can't stop 250 lbs on a dime. You have seen Ben pumpfake with full velocity. When Dansby saw him wind up he doesn't know if it's a pumpfake or the real deal, so he isn't going to even consider slowing down until the ball is gone.
The fact that he merely made contact as opposed to wrapping him up - and it was by no means a blatantly late hit - should be enough grounds to call bullshit.

As far as roughing the holder, the guy tripped over the blocker, and then stumbled into the holder. Hardly "roughing".

I am not arguing the refs handed the Steelers the game, just that these two calls were bad. Lose your pretentiousness, it negates any decent arguement you might make.

You obviously don't even fucking know what the word 'pretentious' means, since it doesn't apply here at all. I really wish I could find video of either of these plays to show you that you're wrong.

Whether or not he wrapped him up is about as far from irrelevant as anything can possibly be. You don't even have to necessarily flagrantly hit a quarterback in order to trigger a roughing the passer call by the definition of the rule. He definitely hit him a full moment after the ball was already released. As I already said, he didn't slow down, and many lesser penalties have been called. It COULD have been let go, but the grounds for throwing the flag were there, so you can't complain about it. There was a worse roughing the passer against Roethlisberger that WASN'T called against the Ravens which seriously injured his back (the same injury which prompted him to get x rays this past Wednesday).

With the other call, again, the contact does not need to be flagrant or anything of the sort. And kickers and holders are protected even more than quarterbacks because they're even more defenseless. He completely bowled the holder over. If you do that, you committed a penalty. This was pretty much the single most clear-cut call of the entire game. Just because you've never seen the penalty called before doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And you've never seen it called before because most NFL players aren't stupid enough to demolish a holder after the ball was already kicked. And ONCE AGAIN, even so, the penalty turned out to mean nothing in the end.

 

[Dak]

I am trying to figure out why you keep referencing "never having seen 'roughing the holder' before" when replying to me. I never said anything like that.

I watched the replays of those two penalty plays multiple times from multiple angles in High Def on a 52 inch screen. Seeing it again isn't going to assist you in making your point. I can at least see why the refs called roughing the holder, since all they probably caught was the actual contect, and the preceding block/stumble involving the penalized player. Refs of course don't benefit from replay on penalties or widescreen high def/multi camera angles. AchrisK's suggestion has plenty of merit.

Roughing the Passer: It could have been let go, and should have been. Just because there have been "lesser" ("other bad" can be substituted here) calls, that doesn't justify this bad call.
Roughing the Holder: I am not arguing that he didn't contact the holder, I am saying it was pretty unavoidable unless the Cardinals player had just flopped after being blocked. So the penalty turned out to lead to nothing extra anyway, that is beside the point.






Main Entry: pre·ten·tious
Pronunciation: \pri-ˈten(t)-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French prétentieux, from prétention pretension, from Medieval Latin pretention-, pretentio, from Latin praetendere
Date: 1832
1: characterized by pretension: as a: making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) <the pretentious fraud who assumes a love of culture that is alien to him &#8212; Richard Watts> b: expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature

Pretentious people usually don't consider themselves pretentious.

 

[skeptik]

Roughing the Holder: I am not arguing that he didn't contact the holder, I am saying it was pretty unavoidable unless the Cardinals player had just flopped after being blocked. So the penalty turned out to lead to nothing extra anyway, that is beside the point.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e86d72

Try again. You can't tell me Dansby couldn't stop himself. Fast forward to the 4 minute mark. Not only did he not even try to stop, but he continued to run through the entire motion. There's no possible way that this would not have been called.

Roughing the Passer: It could have been let go, and should have been. Just because there have been "lesser" ("other bad" can be substituted here) calls, that doesn't justify this bad call.

It's not a bad call if it fits the textbook definition of the rule. Whether or not you think it's a severe call is just about as irrelevant as anything could possibly be. I watched this play again on this video (it's right before the roughing the holder call), and it does seem that there should have been offsetting penalties on this play, as Roethlisberger did intentionally ground (I missed this on live tv and concede the point). But to argue that that is not a roughing the passer call is ridiculous. He not only blindsided him, but he was unimpeded on his route to the passer. He may or may not have been able to completely avoid contact, but the hit that he put on him was excessive given the length of time from the time the ball was released and the time he made contact. Again, you can't call it a bad call if it meets the criteria for the call, whether or not it sometimes isn't called.

Main Entry: pre·ten·tious
Pronunciation: pri-&#712;ten(t)-sh&#601;s
Function: adjective
Etymology: French prétentieux, from prétention pretension, from Medieval Latin pretention-, pretentio, from Latin praetendere
Date: 1832
1: characterized by pretension: as a: making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing) <the pretentious fraud who assumes a love of culture that is alien to him — Richard Watts> b: expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature

Pretentious people usually don't consider themselves pretentious.

If I'm expressing any sort of importance, it's not unwarranted. I'm responding to claims that are attempting to delegitimize a Super Bowl victory because of what some people view as poor calls. That's rather important. I'm not putting the importance on myself, but rather the attacks, so no, you're not using the word pretentious correctly.