Posted on 02/05/2006 7:24:00 PM PST by serendepitylives
Then you're just about the only person in America who didn't.
If they called holding on that play, they would have to call it on every other down, that was lame, give me a break.
It stopped the defender from getting to the QB. That's generally the line, everyone knows that holding happens by both teams on almost every play, the question is did it effect the play, and giving the QB an extra half second to make the throw is definitely effecting the play. It's the right call, no break for you.
I disagree completely. Let them play, if you call that one you have to call it 25 times a game. It's unfortunate calls like that one and the ghost push-off that affect the outcome of game.
What's so hard to believe there, especially with Young? Sorry, he was a great player, but as a talking head, he is sad. And if Madden were a ref, there would never be a holding call, but in his defense, he is consistent.
Actually I just got back from lunch and had the opportunities to watch the reruns again in slow motion. On Ben's TD, the ball was without question directly above the goal line before he got pushed back. The officials have nothing to apologize for on that call.
On the holding call, I would say I think I now see what the official saw. While the camera angle didn't show the offensive lineman's left hand, the way the pass rusher's right shoulder was quickly yanked back and downward would lead one to think that the O-lineman may have had a handful of shirt. That is what the official may have seen but the camera didn't. You'll note that there wasn't a protest from the lineman who was flagged.
WOO HOO!!!
It's a matter of it effecting the play, the defender almost got Matt inspite of the hold dragging him down, no hold that's a sack not a completion to the 1, that has GOT to be called. And the push off wasn't ghost, the defender was leaning forward and might have been able to make a play, but the push stopped his momentum and left him standing there watching the play, again it effect the play so it MUST be called.
True, the defender acted as if it was an incomplete pass...
Just checked an unscientific poll on Sports Illustrated online....pretty funny. Question: Who was the biggest goat of the Superbowl? 56 % - The Refs, lol
Absolutely not. No hold and Matt still gets that pass off, I disagree completely. And if they call that a push-off in the playoffs, you got to call that 10 times a game. Give me a break. In the playoffs, let them play. This isn't Week 3, this was the Superbowl.
Actually, check out some of the sports websites, SI.com, Sporsline.com, etc. and they have columns up all over the place saying the refs became a factor in the game. Sad.
Not at all, with the hold and being dragged away from Matt the defender got within two feet of Matt. No hold and Matt eats it, at the very least he's being hit while making the pass and it's not as accurate.
They should use the exact same rule interpretation in the playoffs the use in the regular season, and in the regular season that push-off is interference every single time it's done by a receiver or defender so it should be intereference in the SB, which it was. He pushed, that's against the rules, no reception.
Seattle blew plenty of stuff on their own. They pretty much did what they wanted to on offense all night. Had they really just overwhelmed PITT, they would have overcome the officiating like PITT did with INDY. But can you imagine the outrage in PITT if the INDY game had gone the other way after the blown call on the interception? PITT fans everywhere would have been call the game rigged. And they would have been pretty much justified.
Getting the pass off in time has nothing to do with it. When the ref sees the hold, he reaches for his flag. He's not trying to decide "if" the guy being held could get into the play or not. He has no way on knowing that.
And if they call that a push-off in the playoffs, you got to call that 10 times a game. Give me a break. In the playoffs, let them play. This isn't Week 3, this was the Superbowl.
It would be called 10 times a game if they saw it every time. The problem is they don't. Each official can only watch for one thing at a time. Same with holding on the line. It does not happen "every play" like Madden says, but it happens far more than it is called. Why? There are two officials watching for holding on the interior line --- the Referee and the Umpire They can't follow every block and they are often screened by these giants, so they do miss holding, offensive and defensive, many times. But when they see it, they call it and it does not matter diddly squat if it "changed" the outcome of the play.
As to "letting them play", doesn't that go both ways? On that end zone play, if the Steeler had pushed off and made the interception, would you say "let them play?"
As to pushing off in that situation, the receiver was stupid. First, he probably didn't have to push, and second, he knows, or should know that the Back Judge is stationed 10 feet behind him right on the end line and couldn't possibly miss the push. That's sort of like speeding past the police station.
It was a good call on a stupid foul, but don't blame the official --- he was doing his job and letting the defensive player "play too.'
It's amazing how having 32 cameras at the game and talking heads in the booth with the luxury of instant replay and the job requirement to "say something -- anything" has convinced people that officiating in the NFL has gone down hill. It hasn't. It's about the same as it's always been and always will be. Imperfect --- just like the players.
In this game, there was a 13th man, the ref # 127
My point is, they let more stuff go in the playoffs, whether it be hockey, basketball or football. But for some reason, the refs were calling ticky tack fouls, as Michael Irvin said. I'm not changing my mind on the hold, it was a very questionable call. As was the push-off. I'm not the only one who thinks it either. And the Hasselbeck call for "blocking" below the knees? LOL. That was called a tackle, LOL - SI.com, Sportsline.com and Espn.com have polls that say the refs were the biggest goat of the game. Don't tell me the Seahawks fans are piling on here. It seems to me there are more Steelers fans out there. So something is definately up. BTW, I'm a big Steelers fan from the 70s, too. It's just too bad there were so many bad calls in this game.
Overall, it was a poorly played game. And Seattle made plenty of mistakes on their own. That's for sure. But the refs became an issue in the game. And that spoils the entire affair. Take the refs out of the game and it will still go down as a bad game.
Let's suppose for a moment that on that play, Hasselbeck can't find a receiver and puts the ball in the cheep seats. At the same time, there's a flag on the ground for one of his linemen for holding. Now the TV coverage is "great" but neither you, nor I can see the play from the same angle as the ref say the play. We have no idea if the O-line guy had a handful of shirt. Would the flag be questionable then?
Michael Irvin didn't see anything more than you or I saw. None of us could see what the ref saw which I suspect was a handful of Steeler jersey in the lineman's hand.
My point is that the officials can't make their decision based on the outcome of the play. They can only make it on what they saw happening, and I can only assume that the ref saw holding, and holding happens inside the both inside red zone and deep in a teams own territory more often than not in the average game when the linemen are desperate to prevent sacks. (Do a sanity check --- how many times this season have you seen a team in the Red Zone get pushed back for holding? Holding is is the most common reason for not scoring when inside the red zone, and Seattle had a not so great red zone scoring percent going into the game.
Let's say the play was a bust and Seattle go a 10 yard step-off. Would anyone be bitching now? The point is, when the flag came out of the belt, no one knew if it were a big play, or a bust. It's only hindsight that makes it controversial. Seattle needed to overcome that setback, and didn't.
As was the push-off. I'm not the only one who thinks it either.
Ther's a lot of people who think Gore won the election too. What people "think" is not important. If that catch had been at the Seattle 30 yeard line, would their be all this wailing and knashing of teeth? As I pointed out earlier, would you be ok if the D-back had done the exact same thing to make an INT? According to the rules, both the offensive receiver and defensive back have identical rights to the ball. Pushing off happens all the time, and it's not often detected by the refs. But if that wasn't a push-off, they need to eliminate the rule. IMHO, it was unnecessary, and even beyond that, it was a dumb play --- a receiver has to know damn well at that point on the field, he's going to get flagged for that play. A blind Zebra would have seen it. I'd give the receiver another flag for stupidity.
And the Hasselbeck call for "blocking" below the knees? LOL.
I agree that it's was a bad call --- he never touched the blocker and made a good tackle. I have to admit, I don't know the rule --- it's apparently a new thing, but it was still the Steeler's ball either way. You can not say that it was a "game changer."
Let me know 'bout the ping list(I'm kind of unsure how the pings work though. Maybe you can explain it to me). I've been wanting to get a hold of some Blackwell stuff.
I see he named his running mate today. Great choice!!
THANKS!!!!
Absolutely right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.