Questionable Calls Superbowl 43

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by fljet

Here are some of my questionable calls of the game, I and I think this the NFL is rigged for ratings!!

The football guys stuffed your rules' arguments.

Here is the list of the top 26 TV markets in the country.


New York City, New York
Los Angeles, California
Chicago, Illinois
San Francisco, California
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
Washington, District of Columbia
Boston, Massachusetts
Miami, Florida
Detroit, Michigan
Houston, Texas
Phoenix, Arizona
Seattle, Washington
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Cleveland, Ohio
Sacramento, California
San Diego, California
Denver, Colorado
Tampa, Florida
St. Louis, Missouri
Atlanta, Georgia
Baltimore, Maryland
Orlando, Florida
Indianapolis, Indiana
Portland, Oregon
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

If the Super Bowl was "rigged for ratings" the NFL could have done a lot better than Phoenix and Pittsburgh.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by fljet

you could see Wilson pull up, his stumbling momentum took him into the holder, if it was flagrant he would have "layed the wood"

In 23 years of watching multiple NFL games per week, I have never seen that call

Doesn't matter that he 'pulled up' as you put it. The holder is in a vulnerable position and can not be touched. Period.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by fljet

#3 Roughing the placeholder was uneccessary, you could see Wilson pull up and he barely made contact. Im sorry but you dont throw that flag in a superbowl game, maybe in the reg. season, maybe never.

This is about as dumb of a comment as you can make. Consistency is what everyone wants and deserves. A foul in the first game is still a foul in the last game.

[fljet]

whatever Im not a Cardinals or Steelers fan and I did not enjoy the game tonight as with the other 20 or so folks, due to the lopsided officiating, many were judgement calls but to average fans, and not trained officials the game was poorly officiated. We can argue about it all week but the bottom line is that the Cardinals got robbed.

If you can review the entire game film and still come to the same conclusion then you must be a Pittsburgh bandwagon fan, I guarantee that this crew will receive a less than perfect grade.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by fljet

whatever Im not a Cardinals or Steelers fan and I did not enjoy the game tonight as with the other 20 or so folks, due to the lopsided officiating, many were judgement calls but to average fans, and not trained officials the game was poorly officiated. We can argue about it all week but the bottom line is that the Cardinals got robbed.

If you can review the entire game film and still come to the same conclusion then you must be a Pittsburgh bandwagon fan, I guarantee that this crew will receive a less than perfect grade.

I had no rooting interest in the game.

I will agree, the crew will not receive a perfect score. Then again, I don't know many who have worked a perfect game. Saying that, I'll add, I bet they get very good marks but in the end it won't matter because you'll just say the NFL is covering up for them.

[3mnkys]

I have a question about the rule on a player landing inbounds after a legal catch...of course I am referring to Holmes catch at the end of the game. I have seen several still photo angles, and from the front, it looks like both feet hit the ground, while from the rear, it looks like the trail foot never hit the ground, and actually landed on the foot that was indeed on the ground. I am simply wanting to know what the definitive NFL rule for the play is...do both feet need to touch the ground, or is one on top of the other good enough. Not trying to start a controversy, because like many big plays, I think the only one who will truly ever know is Holmes himself...Thank you in advance for any replies

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fljet

whatever Im not a Cardinals or Steelers fan and I did not enjoy the game tonight as with the other 20 or so folks, due to the lopsided officiating, many were judgement calls but to average fans, and not trained officials the game was poorly officiated. We can argue about it all week but the bottom line is that the Cardinals got robbed.

Sorry, but most here do not care what fans think. Just like you said they do not know anything about officiating.

And I do not understand how the Cardinals got robbed. They scored with 2 plus minutes to go. The Steelers were called for a holding penalty to not only resulted in a safety, but the first play of the drive after the Cardinals scored their last TD, the Steelers were called for a holding penalty that put them deeper in their own territory.

Originally Posted by fljet

If you can review the entire game film and still come to the same conclusion then you must be a Pittsburgh bandwagon fan, I guarantee that this crew will receive a less than perfect grade.

Actually I am a Rams fan and I have great respect for Kurt Warner that he brought the only Super Bowl title to my home team. I also have a lot of respect for Mike Tomlin and I really did not have much of a rooting interest in this game at all. Not all of us care who wins. I would have been satisfied with either team winning. But I have been officiating for over 10 years and I look at the game through the eyes of an official and look to see if plays would have been the same way I would have called them if in a similar situation.

Peace

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by 3mnkys

I have a question about the rule on a player landing inbounds after a legal catch...of course I am referring to Holmes catch at the end of the game. I have seen several still photo angles, and from the front, it looks like both feet hit the ground, while from the rear, it looks like the trail foot never hit the ground, and actually landed on the foot that was indeed on the ground. I am simply wanting to know what the definitive NFL rule for the play is...do both feet need to touch the ground, or is one on top of the other good enough. Not trying to start a controversy, because like many big plays, I think the only one who will truly ever know is Holmes himself...Thank you in advance for any replies

Both feet have to touch the ground. I didn't think there was any doubt that this was a TD. The field judge was the first to go up with the hands and he had the best view of the play. He was right on the sideline looking at Homles' feet.

[3mnkys]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Both feet have to touch the ground. I didn't think there was any doubt that this was a TD. The field judge was the first to go up with the hands and he had the best view of the play. He was right on the sideline looking at Homles' feet.

thanks, I am a Cardinal AND Steeler fan (born in Pitt, raised in AZ)...so I wanted to simply see a good game, and it certainly was...you'll see the photos probably over the next few days, but I also think he clearly had both feet on the ground and was in control of the ball...

one other comment though, on the Harrison personal foul penalty, he did punch the player at least once before they seperated and then he proceeded to flagrantly push the Cardinal player down. Whether that warrants an ejection is open for debate, but there was at least one punch thrown that was captured by NBC cameras and shown in the extended replay.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by waltjp

This is about as dumb of a comment as you can make. Consistency is what everyone wants and deserves. A foul in the first game is still a foul in the last game.

Exaclty. Mike Pereira has even said as much. He wants Week 1 and teh SB to be indistinguishable when it comes to the officiating. Otherwise, he said, how do the players know what is and what is not a foul?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The worse no-call on the 100 yard return was the blatant block in the back at about the 10 or 15 yard line.

The block was by #56 on #34, The intiial contact was on #34's right shoulder. He turned and the contact continued on the back. Since initial contact determines whether a block is legal or not, this block is legal.

You repeatedly show your ignorance regarding football officiating and football rules on this board. You should really stay on the basketball board where you not quite as clueless.

As for the original poster, he's a total idiot, so I'm not even going to respond to his stupidity.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jaybird

I will not respond further as JRut did a fine job of addressing and answering each of these.

Ditto to that. Hey Rut, when are you eligible to work another state final?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Ditto to that. Hey Rut, when are you eligible to work another state final?

LOL!!!

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by fljet

whatever Im not a Cardinals or Steelers fan and I did not enjoy the game tonight ... due to the lopsided officiating

I know I am probably tilting at windmills here but I have to ask. Did it occur to you that Arizona had more fouls called on them because they committed more fouls? Before you mention it, I do not have a rooting interest in either team.

Originally Posted by 3mnkys

one other comment though, on the Harrison personal foul penalty, he did punch the player at least once before they seperated and then he proceeded to flagrantly push the Cardinal player down. Whether that warrants an ejection is open for debate, but there was at least one punch thrown that was captured by NBC cameras and shown in the extended replay.

In high school, I can definitely see the blow being considered flagarant and the player disqualified. The push after that did not rise to the level of being flagarant, which by rule, requires an ejection.

[3mnkys]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I know I am probably tilting at windmills here but I have to ask. Did it occur to you that Arizona had more fouls called on them because they committed more fouls? Before you mention it, I do not have a rooting interest in either team.



In high school, I can definitely see the blow being considered flagarant and the player disqualified. The push after that did not rise to the level of being flagarant, which by rule, requires an ejection.

thanks, I mis-typed, the push was not flagrant, the punch sure seemed to be, as it was done from a superior position to a player on the ground in a position where he looked like he was not defending himself...anyway, thanks for a response...I just joined tonight, am an umpire and HS admin...so football is not something I would comment on, just ask questions on...