Questionable Calls Superbowl 43

[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...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 3mnkys

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...

I believe the specific penalty was called unnecessary roughness. I saw nothing that was deemed as flagrant.

Peace