NFL 2008

[Mort Divine]

Another thing that pissed me off was how Harrison was not ejected from the game after PUNCHING a downed special teams player, throwing him to the ground as he tried to get up, further throwing him down after he attempted to get up again and when he finally did manage to get up charging right over to him.

That was beyond a personal foul penalty, that was ejection worthy.

 

[seedofvengeance]

No one can complain about referees except...
The San Diego Chargers
The 2003 Sacramento Kings
The 2006 Dallas Mavericks
The 2007 Phoenix Suns
and The 1985 St. Louis Cardinals.
In every other case, the calls were balanced, or could have been overcome.
Bitching about refs is the ultimate cop out.

 

[AchrisK]

Another thing that pissed me off was how Harrison was not ejected from the game after PUNCHING a downed special teams player, throwing him to the ground as he tried to get up, further throwing him down after he attempted to get up again and when he finally did manage to get up charging right over to him.

That was beyond a personal foul penalty, that was ejection worthy.

Totally. What a baby! He deserved to lose for that.

 

[Dak]

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.

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.

Thanks for the video link, now I am positive you are wrong about this. There was a half a second between release and the hit, and like I mentioned earlier, how is Dansby supposed to know whether it was a pump fake or not? Also, Ben is the same size as Dansby, if Dansby wasn't going that hard , and Ben had just pump faked, he probably could have pulled out of the sack.
Your claim on this one is so Steeler biased-blind it is rediculous. I won't even go into it could have been intentional grounding instead.
As far as roughing the holder, I retract on this one. Good call.

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.

Your opinions on this board are you, and you always deliver them with a self righteous attitude that seperates you from some the majority of opinionated posters. Other posters just prefer to use the term "asshole" when describing you.

I am not attempting to delegitimize the Super Bowl win. The Cardinals had a chance to win and didn't capitalize. I am just saying that the roughing the passer call was bullshit.

 

[SweptbackFlame]

No one can complain about referees except...
The San Diego Chargers
The 2003 Sacramento Kings
The 2006 Dallas Mavericks
The 2007 Phoenix Suns
and The 1985 St. Louis Cardinals.
In every other case, the calls were balanced, or could have been overcome.
Bitching about refs is the ultimate cop out.

Your forgetting the 1999 Buffalo Sabres

 

[seedofvengeance]

No,the puck entered the crease before the skate... it was a goal.
Not to mention, Buffalo was already down 3-2 in the series and would have had to go to Dallas and win a game 7, that even saying they could end up winning that game.

edit: and we have this stupid debate once a month.
Buffalo just needs to realize that they are physically unable to win a championship game/series... especially when that game/series is against a team from Dallas.

 

[SweptbackFlame]

No,the puck entered the crease before the skate... it was a goal.
Not to mention, Buffalo was already down 3-2 in the series and would have had to go to Dallas and win a game 7, that even saying they could end up winning that game.

edit: and we have this stupid debate once a month.
Buffalo just needs to realize that they are physically unable to win a championship game/series... especially when that game/series is against a team from Dallas.

The puck left the crease before it went it. he kicked it with his skate to bring it up to his stick, as he regained control, it was outside the crease, when he was going for the shot, his skate went through the crease just before he shot the puck as well as the shot itself.

Whatever I don't really care. Buffalo sucks anyways.

 

[King Richard]

I'm not joining the bitchfest that is going on but I will say there were a few bullshit calls during that game. This year has been the worst year of officiating ever.

The roughing the holder call was laughable, and the roughing the pass call was ticky-tacky imo.

The Holmes td was indeed a td.

I wish Peyton Manning could move like Ben, my god that guy is amazing to watch when he scrambles.

 

[Matt]

The 100 yard td was not a touchdown. That one call lost the game for the Cards.

It's almost dismaying to watch games anymore. It's like the league has a predetermined victor in mind and the refs decide the outcome of the game. They have way to much influence

 

[Mort Divine]

It WAS a TD but it should've been called back due to blocks in the back by Steelers defenders that were not called.

 

[King Richard]

 

[skeptik]

The roughing the holder call was laughable, and the roughing the pass call was ticky-tacky imo.

The roughing the holder call was undoubtedly the easiest of all the 'controversial' calls that were made throughout the entire game. So say amateur footballing referees on refereeing forums.

The 100 yard td was not a touchdown. That one call lost the game for the Cards.

It WAS a TD but it should've been called back due to blocks in the back by Steelers defenders that were not called.

HOW? First of all, to say that that call LOST THEM THE GAME when THEY WERE WINNING with 42 seconds to go in the game is completely retarded. Secondly, I already explained how those blocks were interpreted by actual referees. You have to keep in mind that such calls are ALWAYS judgment calls based on the individual officiating crew, just as the strike zone is interpreted differently by every umpire in baseball. There is no absolute formula for determining what is a hold or roughing or not. There is always grey area. And you can bitch and moan about your favored spectrum in the grey area, but you'd be stupid to say that those were poor calls. The Townsend shirt tug was irrelevant to the actual block because it didn't impede Warner's ability to make a play if he was in the range to make a play, which he was not. He was not turned or moved due to the fact that his shirt was held on to, but because he was being blocked. There's a distinction. LaMarr Woodley's near block in the back was initiated at the right shoulder, and according to referees, it is where the engagement is initiated which determines whether or not a block is illegal. Bitch and moan all you want, these are the facts.

If you want to talk about bad calls, talk about the nearly half dozen blatant holding calls on Harrison that were worse than any other holds that were actually called or Santonio Holmes not being penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct after his touchdown celebration, using the ball as a prop. Was the game perfect? No. Was it skewed toward one team? Yes. Was this unfairly done? No. The Cardinals commited more penalties. Did the penalties effect the outcome of the game? Don't they always? But did they cause one team to lose? No.

I'm getting sick of this, really. It seems like any time the Steelers achieve a significant win, people have to look for excuses to make sure that the achievement was not deserved. I explained every single penalty that was brought up and added more of my own already.

 

[skeptik]

Thanks for the video link, now I am positive you are wrong about this. There was a half a second between release and the hit, and like I mentioned earlier, how is Dansby supposed to know whether it was a pump fake or not? Also, Ben is the same size as Dansby, if Dansby wasn't going that hard , and Ben had just pump faked, he probably could have pulled out of the sack.
Your claim on this one is so Steeler biased-blind it is rediculous. I won't even go into it could have been intentional grounding instead.

I am not attempting to delegitimize the Super Bowl win. The Cardinals had a chance to win and didn't capitalize. I am just saying that the roughing the passer call was bullshit.

I already acknowledged that there was a clear intentional grounding missed there (the left tackle was even standing to his left). What you continue to fail to acknowledge is that there is no scientific formula for concluding what is roughing and what isn't, and what YOU think amounts to roughing is irrelevant to what the officiating staff thinks amounts to roughing, and that, furthermore, it's fucking annoying when people attribute a disparity between what they think is the right call and what the officials think is the right call to favoritism.

For the last time, by the definition of the rule, that roughing the passer call could have been legitimately made. In this case it was. The game was officiated consistently as to what constitutes roughing and unsportsmanlike penalties (i.e. liberally), so you shouldn't be complaining, since both teams were subject to the same standard of officiating. The fact of the matter is that the defender had enough time to react in a less physical way than he did, and that's why it was called roughing. Half a second is a hell of a lot of time, and I see this called all the time, even when the defender is impeded on his way to the quarterback, which wasn't even the case here. I'm done arguing this. The best case you have is that the call could have reasonably gone either way, and ultimately the play should have resulted in offsetting penalties. Actually, in that instance I think the intentional grounding might have been enforced first and then the roughing the passer would have been enforced since it happened 'after the play.'