NFL Playoffs

[naiwf]

Ben is flat on his stomach, the ball was crooked in his arm when he hit the ground. The top picture you posted shows what he did when he extended the ball. Surely you can see the difference in the two pics you just posted.

You see space between the line and Ben's arm on the bottom, the ball is inside his arm, thus he didn't break the plane. Thanks for the help in proving it was a bad call.

[ACCBiggz]

Ben is flat on his stomach, the ball was crooked in his arm when he hit the ground. The top picture you posted shows what he did when he extended the ball. Surely you can see the difference in the two pics you just posted.

You see space between the line and Ben's arm on the bottom, the ball is inside his arm, thus he didn't break the plane. Thanks for the help in proving it was a bad call.

[oldskool]

The ref came running in, saw the ball across the goal line and called it a touchdown. The ref reviewed said call and didn't have enough, if any, evidence to overturn it. Picture after picture of the ball on the goal line aren't enough for you? Maybe he did come up short, but when the ref came over he wasn't short, he was in, and that's all that matters.

Maybe it's not a great call, but if they can't prove that it was wrong, then it's not wrong. They had more angles of view than we did, and so far they've had a better look at it than us thanks to a shitty job of getting out any good pictures of it. I also can't find any of Hasselbeck's "tackle", conveniently.

[DMN in the House]

Either way you look at it, Seattle didn't play well enough to win the game. The PI call was wrong, let them play football. Ben got in, IMO. It was a close call though, I thought he got in while airborne. A more decisive call would change opinions on that.

In the end, Seattle played like shit, and got outcoached.

[ACCBiggz]

Either way you look at it, Seattle didn't play well enough to win the game. The PI call was wrong, let them play football. Ben got in, IMO. It was a close call though, I thought he got in while airborne. A more decisive call would change opinions on that.

In the end, Seattle played like shit, and got outcoached.

[naiwf]

It was a close call though, I thought he got in while airborne.

[DMN in the House]

Blown calls happen all the time. If you played football, you'd understand (not saying you didn't/don't). The ref should have been more decisive, that would have changed the whole thing, IMO.

[naiwf]

Blown calls happen all the time. If you played football, you'd understand (not saying you didn't/don't). The ref should have been more decisive, that would have changed the whole thing, IMO.

[ACCBiggz]

You are throwing him under the bus because he ran in on the play like 80% of the same plays. As previously stated I have seen the majority of refs do that same type of run in, waiting to make a call.

The goal line cams, are not goal line cams. They are at an angle. Why? For TV purposes, although they need stationary cams at that goal line in my opinion.

[DFF]

Could someone explain something to me?

In most sports I watch (read, football (soccer), rugby, cricket, etc, etc) then, if there is a decision that the officials aren't 100% certain on in the first place, then they don't give it. For example, with soccer if the whole of the ball doesn't cross the whole of the line a goal isn't given. If the referee doesn't think it has crossed the whole of the line, or can't be certain of he, he can't, in theory, give it.

Another example would be cricket. If there's a close run out decision, and it's so close that the camera can't decide it, then the batsman can't be given out, because it isn't certain.

Now, my question with regards this game (having not seen it) - if, for a lot of these calls, it's 'uncallable' even with replays, how could a decision be given in the first place?

And another thing, just my view here, but from what I gather, the referee has to be certain with a replay that a call should be reversed, right? Well, if he's not certain after a replay, then surely the defensive team should get the benefit of the doubt - that's how almost all sports work.

[Lowerdeck]

I found this little bit interesting. I don't have any web links to back this up, but I do remember hearing this.

Around 5:30 or 6, before the game started, Sports Illustrated already had a webpage up for "Steelers Championship Package" at sisteelersoffer.com. Subscribe and you get a bunch of collectors items remembering the Steelers victory. As for the Seahawks, not only was there no offer for them, siseahawksoffer.com and siseattleoffer.com both ended up getting rediverted to the Steelers offer page.

Heard this on ESPN Radio, during the pre-game show.

[Jerichoholic23]

Everyone got what they wanted though. ABC wanted Pittsburgh to win too. All those pictures they showed before comercials was of different Steelers holding the Super Bowl trophy. Bettis never won before and it was in his home town. They gave it to him. The fix was in from the beginning.

[Clawson]

I hadn't seen the Commercials linked in here so with all the talk of conspriacy, I think my fellow Canadians who are denied the US commercials by "the Drunken Check Mark" (thank you Jay Onrait) will enjoy these as I hope I soon will. Here they are:

http://www.ifilm.com/superbowl?htv=12

Edited February 6, 2006 by Clawson

[ACCBiggz]

I saw many Seahawk's Lombardi Trophy segments. I think many people who dislike the Steeler's for any number of reasons are just looking for a conspiracy theory.

[Evil Chase K]

I saw many Seahawk's Lombardi Trophy segments. I think many people who dislike the Steeler's for any number of reasons are just looking for a conspiracy theory.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Well I stayed up until nearly 3am to watch the game out of the corner of my eye.

Now I'm no US Football specialist but it hardly seemed amazing.

Though the QB who took the run in the 4th quarter (I think) and grounded onto the ground before the ball popped of and was called a turnover....From what the commentators were saying that was a bad call.

The refereeing seemed pretty poor all the way through and I only marked out for the diagonal cross-field play (with a couple of dummies between players) and the 79 or so yard carry for the touchdown...In fact, that wasn't particularly great either...

[naiwf]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/13801320.htm

An excerpt, "The inevitable finally happened. A group of middle-aged executives trying to keep pace with a group of highly trained 20-something athletes destroyed America’s sports holiday.

Pittsburgh’s one-for-the-thumb Super Bowl will be remembered as the game when physically overmatched referees and heads-buried NFL executives flipped non-Steelers fans an XL middle finger."

Word.

[Clawson]

This happens in every sport when the most popular team in the league either wins or loses the championship. Conspiracies are thrown out of everywhere and somebody got screwed so Steeler's fans should just ignore it. I've seen it happen with the Yankees, Lakers and the Leafs (errrr.....or it will happen once we win, happens now when we lose alot).

I didn't think all of the calls were that bad. The Big Ben touchdown was the right call in my opinion because a) I thought it went over the goal-line and b) the evidence was conclusive enough. naiwf maybe you should stop complaining for a bit and look at the part of the rule book where a call cannont be overturned without conclusive evidence when arguing about that call.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Clawson

[Ananas]

I hadn't seen the Commercials linked in here so with all the talk of conspriacy, I think my fellow Canadians who are denied the US commercials by "the Drunken Check Mark" (thank you Jay Onrait) will enjoy these as I hope I soon will. Here they are:

http://www.ifilm.com/superbowl?htv=12

[ACCBiggz]

The commercials sucked... Burger King had a chance to steal the night with another old NFL-type, but they dancing buns and tomatoes... I will lose it if the Burger King ever does the Ray Lewis dance.