Huum

[JasonTX]

What makes me sick is the only plays that people are being critical of are those that made the replays by Madden. J. Rutledge pointed out a few of those that could have certainly gone against the Seahawks. On the Int return by the Seahawks Ben was clearly pushed in the back to the ground. No call was made on that and Seattle went on to score a TD. Perhaps if a flag was thrown that would have taken away the momentum of Seattle and kept them from scoring. It's quite possible that without those missed calls that the score could have easily been 21 to 0. So everyone says that Ben didn't break the plane. I thought he was in but just to make it even you can have those seven points. Score now 21-7. And just to be generous the no-call on a hold that just so happened to allow the Seahawks to get into field goal position gave them 3 more points they shouldn't have got. Final score 21-10. By my calculations Seattle benefited a great deal more than Pittsburgh on some judgment calls.

[cmathews]

When I first saw the int return, I thought Ben was blocked in the back as well...on the replay it clearly shows the blocker had a hand on Ben's shoulder and in his ribs...The philosophies I have heard are that the contact needs to be squarley in the back...so I think no call...and an overall good job by the crew

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I'll add my own two cents. I thought the OPI was a good (maybe "great") call. What made it so good was the timing. As JRutledge pointed out, the extended arm froze the defender in his tracks. Then the ball arrived about a half-second later. It wasn't so much a push-off as it was a hold-off. So it didn't have the blatant look of a push to create separation, but it created that separation nonetheless. Did the receiver gain an advantage by his actions? Not that much. But did the hold-off put the defender at a disadvantage? Most certainly. That's why there was a flag. If the ball had arrived a few seconds later after the arm was down and the defender was back in a position to be able to make a play on the ball, you most likely wouldn't have seen a flag. And if the arm hadn't kept the defender from moving toward the receiver, you probably also wouldn't have seen the flag.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I'll add my own two cents. I thought the OPI was a good (maybe "great") call. What made it so good was the timing. As JRutledge pointed out, the extended arm froze the defender in his tracks. Then the ball arrived about a half-second later. It wasn't so much a push-off as it was a hold-off. So it didn't have the blatant look of a push to create separation, but it created that separation nonetheless. Did the receiver gain an advantage by his actions? Not that much. But did the hold-off put the defender at a disadvantage? Most certainly. That's why there was a flag. If the ball had arrived a few seconds later after the arm was down and the defender was back in a position to be able to make a play on the ball, you most likely wouldn't have seen a flag. And if the arm hadn't kept the defender from moving toward the receiver, you probably also wouldn't have seen the flag.

EXCELLENT explanation, Bob!

[OverAndBack]

Agree with Bob.

It was push (or nudge) and catch bang-bang. Seemed to me (and the BJ couldn't have asked for better position) that the push led directly to the necessary space. I'd have flagged it. Hopefully I'd have gotten the actual flag out instead of the beanbag first, but I consider myself fortunate if I go to blow the whistle and it's actually in my mouth first, so I'm not one to talk.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I'll add my own two cents. I thought the OPI was a good (maybe "great") call. What made it so good was the timing. As JRutledge pointed out, the extended arm froze the defender in his tracks. Then the ball arrived about a half-second later. It wasn't so much a push-off as it was a hold-off. So it didn't have the blatant look of a push to create separation, but it created that separation nonetheless. Did the receiver gain an advantage by his actions? Not that much. But did the hold-off put the defender at a disadvantage? Most certainly. That's why there was a flag. If the ball had arrived a few seconds later after the arm was down and the defender was back in a position to be able to make a play on the ball, you most likely wouldn't have seen a flag. And if the arm hadn't kept the defender from moving toward the receiver, you probably also wouldn't have seen the flag.

Excellent explanation - thanks. But a question...two steps prior to Jackson turning and "holding off", the defender put both hands on Jackson - one on shoulder pad, one on back - and shoved Jackson and Jackson was thrown off stride...if you let that illegal contact go, why would you flag what Jackson did?

[rulesmaven]

On the offensive pass interference, the same exact play and call was made in superbowl 38. Carolina had just tied the game with about a minute left, but their kicker kicked the ball OOB. Patriots took over on the 40.

What many people forget is that early in that drive, Troy Brown was called for OPI. Same exact play -- very modest push in the chest that put the defender on his heels for a split second and allowed the catch.

The difference of course was that on the next play or maybe one play later, Brown made an impossible grab for a 15 yard gain, the Patriots made a first down, overcame the 1st and 20, and won the game. So nobody talks about it. Same play, both were the correct call, and the only difference is that Seattle had trouble overcoming their own mistakes in this game.

That said, I thought the holding call was marginal and the illegal block call was positively horrible. Otherwise, I thought the crew did a decent job of letting the players decide the game. Seattle made more mistakes, was bad on special teams, had a coach that looked not ready for prime time, and Pittsburgh made more big plays.

One thing I think is kind of funny about people criticizing the officiating is that every assumes that if the Roth TD was overturned on replay, that one of the best red zone teams in the league wouldn't have found a way to get one inch on 4th and goal to score the touchdown anyway. Yet the very same people all assume that but for the the holding call, Seattle would have scored a touchdown from the 3 yard line.

You see what you want to see, I guess. Seattle made too many mistakes to win a big game against a good opponent, and that's not the officials' fault.

[mcrowder]

Guys, let's face it. Our brethren in stripes completely botched this game. If they had been doing their jobs, the Seattle safety wouldn't have bit on the run-left that turned into an option pass TD for Pittsburgh. If they had been doing their jobs, they could have helped Seattle manage the clock better at the ends of BOTH halves. If they had been doing their jobs, Hasselbeck wouldn't have thrown that crucial interception down by 11 midway through the 3rd quarter as they were about to score. If they had been doing their jobs, Fast Willie Parker wouldn't have run through, and then around, the entire Seattle defense for a record-breaking run.

Face it - they blew this game.

(The above written by someone who was SOLIDLY rooting for the Seahawks)

[BigGref]

I love sarcasm I think?!?

If you have watched much media coverage today it seemed to be bashing the officials pretty bad, especially on Cold Pizza. As an Umpire I thought the controversial hold call was a good-great call. O lineman got beat, reached out and with the right hand from behind got a handful of jersey, enough to knock him down enough to not sack number 8. The one replay they keep showing supposedly shows a "phantom foul" but apparently they are not looking where I'm looking.

And as for the OPI, great call. Simply put receiver puts hands on defender, extends arms enough to displace defender, goes opposite way for the catch, and 5 feet from BJ, easy call. As for the possible illegal contact I think no call was correct, I heard a sportscaster make a good point (it does happen occasionaly) that the reciever was in scramble mode at that point and was not really running his route therefore the pattycake hands were alright as no advantage occured until there was clear seperation toward the ball.

And I love that people are calling these "ticky tak" fouls. What the Heck is a ticky tak foul anyway, an infraction that by the letter of the rule is illegal, but not "big" enough!?! You do something that is not legal by rule + you gain an advantage = infraction. Just because the defender isn't Vlade Divac'd 12 feet the other way doesn't mean you don't call it.

As for the block below the waist...bad call. They're human!

[hooper]

The officials blew it, plain and simple. It happens sometimes. Most of the time it won't affect the outcome of the game, but there were so many bad calls in this game against one team, it's undeniable that it impacted the outcome of the game. Yes, Seattle made mistakes, but the officals made enough too, at critical times, that it impacted the flow and scoring of the game.

It happens. We don't all have to defend all officials all the time. Everyone has bad days.

The real question is what will happen in the future to correct these errors. Off-field officials looking at the replays. More camera angles from above the field. More officials on the field. Different training. Something else?

Originally posted by JRutledge
I must also state that there was only 10 fouls called the entire game.

Seattle had 7-70 yards.

Pittsburgh had 3-20 yards.

I guess it was the official's fault that Seattle gave up a Super Bowl record run by Pittsburgh on the second play of the second half.

Peace

I must note there were two bad holding calls made against Seattle. No holding at all....the other calls I agree were there...

Originally posted by JRutledge
Let me say this, I hated the illegal block call against Hassleback. I thought that was the worst call of the game. Also remember that a call was overturned that originally was ruled a fumble in the favor of Pittsburgh. What did Seattle do on that drive? There was a play that was ruled an incomplete pass that was thrown to Jeramay Stevens that you could make a case that was a fumble (it was really close). Seattle got a chance to keep the ball and what did they do on that drive? I have no problem to be critical of officials for the right reasons, but do not tell me just because some calls did not go the way of one team it cost them the game. If Jeramay Stevens could catch a cold, they might have been in a better position to win the game. It also did not help when Hassleback threw a big interception deep in Pittsburg territory.

BTW, I will disclose that I had a cousin that played and started in the game for Seattle.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Feb 6th, 2006 at 07:38 AM]

I don't think the officiating was very good, not for the NFL. I don't think that cost them the game. Seattle lost the game and it wasn't the officials fault but I do think the officiating was sub-par for and NFL crew.

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I'll add my own two cents. I thought the OPI was a good (maybe "great") call. What made it so good was the timing. As JRutledge pointed out, the extended arm froze the defender in his tracks. Then the ball arrived about a half-second later. It wasn't so much a push-off as it was a hold-off. So it didn't have the blatant look of a push to create separation, but it created that separation nonetheless. Did the receiver gain an advantage by his actions? Not that much. But did the hold-off put the defender at a disadvantage? Most certainly. That's why there was a flag. If the ball had arrived a few seconds later after the arm was down and the defender was back in a position to be able to make a play on the ball, you most likely wouldn't have seen a flag. And if the arm hadn't kept the defender from moving toward the receiver, you probably also wouldn't have seen the flag.

Bob,
my one cent, I agree with what you are saying but I would like to see that called every week. Many WRs have made a living doing that and never being called for it(Moss, Irvin)....

[Pats4Life]

Well I Guess That Being a Football Fan who isn't for either team, and someone who is well versed in the game of football and Not a Blind Zebra Makes The Facts inadmissable. Its Better for The Officials to sit up on their pedestal like nothing happened.

Think about this instead of the Talk being the Wonderful Story of Pittsburgs Championship, We're talking about wether or not the officials had influence in the game.

For you to discount my opinions, and thats what the are, on the basis of my official or nonofficial status is Pompas and what is wrong with Sports today.

If you delete this than thats your rite, but it is also my rite to voice them.

A knowledgable football fan.

Dave Laliberte
Fort Pierce, Florida

Originally posted by rulesmaven
That said, I thought the holding call was marginal and the illegal block call was positively horrible. Otherwise, I thought the crew did a decent job of letting the players decide the game. Seattle made more mistakes, was bad on special teams, had a coach that looked not ready for prime time, and Pittsburgh made more big plays.

One thing I think is kind of funny about people criticizing the officiating is that every assumes that if the Roth TD was overturned on replay, that one of the best red zone teams in the league wouldn't have found a way to get one inch on 4th and goal to score the touchdown anyway. Yet the very same people all assume that but for the the holding call, Seattle would have scored a touchdown from the 3 yard line.

You see what you want to see, I guess. Seattle made too many mistakes to win a big game against a good opponent, and that's not the officials' fault.

rulesmaven,
I agree with you that Seattle lost the game but I was disappointed with the overall performance of the crew.....