Posted on 02/06/2006 6:50:28 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
Which officiating "title" did that guy have -- i.e., back judge, umpire, etc.? How long has he been in the league?
Except that it wasn't. See #191.
Did you see that commericial with the touch-football game and HUGE tackle on the girl?! I missed the Fed Ex commercial, but heard that one was good too.
You can be sure that every replay crew from that point forward knew exactly how to make that call correctly.
LOL
that one was great.
Did you see the Bud Light one with the "Magic" fridge?
That was the commercial of the night LOL
If this were the rule, LOTS of games would have ended differently this year. I have never seen or heard of the game being called that way.
Worst officiated game I've ever watched. It's a shame the better team wasn't allowed to win the game.
No one is harping on the kicker because those represented 6 points in an 11 point differential. The difference was the bad calls, not the missed field goals. If the bad calls hadn't been made, and were the Seahawks to have lost by less than 6 then you certainly would hear about those 2 field goals.
I just saw that one over here: http://video.google.com/superbowl.html
There's another thread talking about the commericals too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1572612/posts?page=84#84
Incidental contact is NEVER called. If its incidental, it isn't a foul. Now, some calls might be made that were based on what YOU thought was incidental contact (and the officials ruled differently), but to get a better idea of your qualifications and quality of opinion, how many years have you officiated basketball?
Its hilarious reading a thread where supposedly smart people don't have a freakin' clue. There's no one on here that knows NFL rules well enough to give a truly constructive comment on the quality of the officiating. There may be a few plays that were missed, but if there were, the NFL will be on top of it. Most of the complaint is likely about calls that weren't missed. For example, some guy on another board was complaining about the holding call on Seattle that wiped out the pass play down well inside the 5. The problem is, the call was CORRECT! I saw the holding, and having actually officiated football, I think I can intelligently comment. It was a great call, but unfortunately, the angle ABC replayed it, it didn't show, and John Madden said, "I don't see holding there."
I didn't see it on the replay either, but I did see it on the play and wondered out loud if the R was going to call it. He did.
I agree here...but what doesn't make sense then is why the ref standing on the goal line signaled it short and 4th down changed his call as he ran closer to the pile, which is when Roethlisberger shoved the ball over the line while he was laying on the ground? The call wasn't made because the ref saw the ball cross the plane, he made the call because he saw the ball over the line AFTER the play.
The Steelers would still have punched it in for a TD on fourth-and-half-an-inch even if it was overturned.
They hadn't gotten it over the line in the 3 tries from the 1, you shouldn't be so sure they'd have scored a TD. In fact, they likely would have kicked the field goal to put points on the board.
I guess you missed the offsides on the play that only you and the ref saw the holding.
The game I saw was Seahawks 16, Stealers 14.
The calls sucked, the fix was in big time.
Pittsburgh would not have come close to winning without their zebra buddies.
They took 14 points from Seattle, assuming they scored from the 1 yard line. The offensive pass interference was very questionable at best and a late call. The holding call wasn't questionable: it was simply wrong. And also a late call. Do we see a pattern here?
They gave Pittsburgh either 7, 3 or no points depending on what Pittsburgh did from the 2 inch line. The Bus would have put it in for sure...or maybe not, but we'll never know. Why run a bothersome play when your ref buddy can change his mind while running in to mark the ball?
Let's factor in the correct calls and see how the score and game would have progressed following that first legitimate Seahawks touchdown.
I really, really hope these teams play next season.
So you mean to tell me in the last two minutes, there's not a huge difference between being down 21-10, and being down only 21-16?
You argue like a liberal. That isn't what I said at all. There is no difference in losing 21-16 and 21-10...both are losses. The loss wasn't because of the missed field goals, the loss was because of the refs. It's clear that you're unwilling to admit the truth, and that's fine. enjoy the faux trophy. The Seahawks outplayed the Steelers, and by enough to have won the game were it not for the refs. That doesn't mean the Seahawks played a perfect game, they didn't. They played far below what they're capable of, and some of that can be attributed to the Steeler defense, and some of it can be attributed to the refs.
What number was offsides? Which team? Please don't make things up.
I don't think the NFL really cares that YOU didn't see the holding. It was there and the call will grade out well.
The game everybody else saw was Pittsburgh 21, Whiners 10.
Man that was bad. If ABC had any sense they would have had KISS - Detriot Rock City, and Ted Nugent - The Motor City Madman, for the half time show. That would have brought down the house! Only problem is, that would have upstaged the game. The Stones were as hard to watch as the game was.
The left defensive end for Pittsburgh was clearly offside, if he was lined up on the line of scrimmage because he had already taken a step forward.
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.