Okay, those three plays from the Super Bowl....

[OverAndBack]

From this morning's Chicago Sun-Times (with my comments in italics):

Iffy officiating

February 6, 2006

The Seahawks were on the wrong end of most of the key calls Sunday. Here's a look at three that hurt Seattle most:

Score: 0-0.
Quarter: First.
Possession: Seahawks.

Situation: First-and-10 on Steelers' 16.

Call: After Matt Hasselbeck hits Darrell Jackson for an apparent touchdown, Jackson is called for pass interference. The Seahawks settle for a field goal.

Comment: The contact made you'll see on most passing plays in the NFL.

Okay, look at this sequence:



I don't think there's any question he got separation from the push. Look at the difference in where the defender's feet are in photo #2 versus photo #3. And that was right before the ball arrived (photo #4). And the brief (and I think negligible) contact by the defender just inside the goal line was before the pass was thrown, so if it was a call, it couldn't have been pass interference. I'm thinking the Back Judge either didn't see it or saw it and thought it was negligible. VIDEO CLIP

Score: Seahawks, 3-0.
Quarter: Second.
Possession: Steelers.

Situation: Third-and-one on Seahawks' 1.
Call: Ben Roethlisberger goes around the left side and dives for the goal line. The official on the line hesitates, then signals for a touchdown. Referee Bill Leavy upholds the call on replay.

Comment: The call on the field could have gone either way, and there was no conclusive evidence to overturn it, but what was with the hesitation?

I've looked at this over and over and then over some more. Here's a sequence:



In photo #2, the ball might be touching the inside plane of the goal line. Having looked at it over and over, I think that's the best still.

I think the key is that Roethlisberger gets hit and goes straight down and the ball isn't in when he lands. I don't think it hit the line and if it did, it was barely (which is, by rule, enough). But the Head Linesman first signals the play down and only signals touchdown well after Roethlisberger is down for a second or more. I agree the replay wasn't enough to overturn. And I don't think it would have been enough to overturn if the HL had called it down an inch away. VIDEO CLIP

Score: Steelers, 14-10.
Quarter: Fourth.
Possession: Seahawks.

Situation: First-and-10 on Steelers' 19.
Call: Hasselbeck connects with Jerramy Stevens at the Steelers' 1, but holding is called on right tackle Sean Locklear. Three plays later, Hasselbeck throws an interception that leads to a Steelers touchdown.

Comment: The apparent holding you'll see on most passing plays in the NFL.

Can't agree. I think it's a legit hold. You can actually see it better on the regular shot than you can on the replay, but I think the circled still on the replay shows #75's arm hooking the defender's arm. VIDEO CLIP



I think calls 1 and 3 are spot-on and that Leavy couldn't overturn #2 no matter how it was called based on the replays. The real controversy about the Roethlisberger call, to me, is the delay and the arm raised as if the HL was going to spot the ball.