[OverAndBack]

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
256 regular season games, <20 OPI calls, yet that same amount of contact happens on 90% of all pass plays.

Are those from the Department of Statistics I Just Made Up? Do you see 90% of all pass plays in the NFL?

How many plays with that contact happen right in front of the back judge in the end zone, with an unobstructed view, and separation after the contact, followed within a second by the catching of a touchdown pass?

Watch the video. The defender puts both hands on the receiver, and the receiver swats his arms off him.

You watch the video. Where's the receiver swat? I don't see a swat. I see a receiver cutting back and changing his pattern, and I don't see him swatting.

this proves my point. You're an official that has a power trip and wants to be bigger than the game.

See, here's where I know your point isn't being proven. Do you know Jeff Rutledge? I do. He's a lot of things, but someone who thinks he's bigger than the game? No way. If anything, he knows precisely how much bigger the game is than he, than me, than you, than all of us.

You're wrong. There were 10 fouls called. 1 of those was on Pittsburgh, aside from the 2 illegal procedures. 5 of the 7 against Seattle were controversial and on key plays, which greatly hurt their chances of scoring, thereby affecting the outcome of the game. Scandal? No... but still not an even playing field.

So....what are you saying? A conspiracy? Controversial doesn't mean conspiracy, and one man's controversy is not another one's. The OPI call, to me, is an OPI. No controversy. No controversy on the holding call. Roethlisberger, yes, there's a controversy and reasonable people can agree to disagree despite seeing the same things.

Originally posted by carolinaRRREF
If you look for proof to support the calls, you can find it. If you look for proof to refute the calls, you can find it. What people SHOULD be looking for, is what is correct.

You mean what they SHOULD be looking for, is what agrees with YOUR opinion, right?

This is why you are a poor excuse for an official. You have an idea and are unwilling to hear any other sides. You defend another official's work because everybody else in the world is coming down on them, and you get defensive.

The Super Bowl was officiated poorly. You think it wasn't because you're a poor excuse for an official.

Actually, Jeff's a very good official. But you wouldn't know that. And "everbody else in the world is coming down on them?" REALLY? Here I thought there was some difference of opinion - not everybody in the world on one side and one or two of us on the other side.

It's your OPINION that the Super Bowl was officiated poorly. How can you rip on someone for ripping you for having an opinion contrary to his, while at the same time ripping someone for having an opinion contrary to yours?