POLL: NFL - Contender or Pretender?

Remove all ads!

Them be fighting words

In Brady we trust.

 

Well at least you got one thing right snook...Brady not Belichek

He seriously acted like a b*tch after the pats handed that game to the donkeys. He answered with 1 word when possible, was a complete dick to everyone. He should take a lesson from his QB, who acted like a man after the game.


As for the NFC if the players association doesn't come to another agreement soon then the NFC won't suck much longer. There will be no salary cap, and San Fransicso and Dallas have already said that should that happen they will pay off all debts and then start offering big money for players.

 

Ohhhhhh...just like the New York Yankees

 

It goes in cycles. Remember from the mid 80s to the mid 90s when the NFC won EVERY Super Bowl? I think it was something like 11 or 12 in a row. Before that, from the early 70s to the early 80s, the dominant teams were the Steelers, Dolfins and Raiders, and the AFC won almost every Super Bowl in those times. No need to get teams to switch conferences - the pendulum will swing back on its own accord.

 

Nobody will ever convince me that this wasn't the poorest ever when it came to officiating. So many games with so many bad calls. How was Seattle supposed to win when they were playing 11 on 14 (the three men in stripes)?

 

You have a point, but also consider that the NFC's dominance (especially in the early 90s) was largely a result of what we'd view as "powergaming", without the restrictions of salary caps so that Dallas or San Francisco could buy every skilled lineman, receiver, cornerback, halfback, and quarterback they wanted. But, I'm young yet, and I've only had the pleasure of mentally recording 15 football seasons firsthand (I don't remember much of anything from the first 5 years of my life), so I'm sure your words are even more true than I can imagine. I just want to see some more competitive Super Bowls, some real thrills... and I tend to like games where more than 31 points are scored (hence why I still watch NO Ain'ts games at times...they'll ALWAYS be outscored by at least 50 million points. Yes, I love my home state and its utter suckiness for professional sports... but I'll be damned if our college teams aren't awesome)

Blame my love of high scores on that old crappy SNES game "Troy Aikman Football", back when I delighted in scoring, umm, 250ish points. Although honestly, any football game ever published is better than those freakin' Madden games. I hate John Madden.

...and when I don't get enough sleep, I ramble on and on about barely tangential subjects on SP... hmm. Sleep does sound good...

 

What happened to the other 2 officials?

Zenastin,

While I am older than you, my memories prior to Super Bowl X are pretty fuzzy as well, and obviosuly, I was not born yet for the first few Super Bowls. I just did a little bit of research to show you what I mean.

The NFC won the first two Super Bowls, but starting in SB3 and continuing through SB15, the AFC won 11 of 13. Immediately following that, from SB16 through SB31, the NFC won 15 of 16. After that, the current trend is back with the AFC, who won 7 of the 9 contests in SB32 through SB40. The conference record is almost dead even, with the NFC having a slight lead, 21-19.

Still despite being young there have been several "good" SBs in the past few years, although I admit not all of them were very high scoring. To wit, you should check out 32, 34, 36, and 38 - and last year's 39 wasn't bad either although the final score made the game look closer than it really was.

 

There were seven officials.

A team should never allow itself to be in the position where a bad call can decide the game. Granted, three questionable calls is quite a bit (21 points), but Seattle still should have been able to win. They dominated the line of scrimmage and still managed to lose the game. This is a case where Seattle snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Seattle lost that game, Pittsburgh certainly didn't play well enough to win it without help from Seattle (et.al).

 

They had been kidnapped and held at gunpoint in a small cell below Ford Field to insure the remaining officials cooperated with the League's decree that Pittsburgh MUST win. Then, in order to cover it up, the League replaced the two officials with perfectly cloned, programmed replicas. In fact, the cloned officials continue to impersonate the kidnapped pair and no one is certain of their exact whereabouts.

Quick! Call Mike Holmgren!
Heck with that...call Jack Bauer!

 

^^ lol: ^^
Better yet, call CSI's Horatio!!

I see that nobody saw that in the second interception to Roethlisberger, he was pushed in the back while running to catch the guy who made the interception and the official was 2 mts behind the play and saw nothing, finally, thanks to that play, Seahawks scored the touchdown.
I think that there were bad calls on both sides but none of them decided the final score. Seattle didn't take the opportunities they had to score, even when they got that call about the 'nipple touch', that was first down, so they had 3 more chances to score...

 

OK I watched NFL Tonight on HBO and they went over all the controversial plays. This is an HBO program so it's safe to say they are an impartial source. I don't necessarily trust the NFL network reviews of all plays, because they are funded through the NFL, and obviously they aren't going to slam their own employees.

It turns out that the announcers agreed with me on almost everything I said. They agreed the only call was the illegal block on the interception return, and they agree with all of the other ones.

In fact, they can't get over the stink the Seahawks made about the pass interference in the endzone. They said it was almost a textbook case of offensive pass interference. Officials are told to look for a receiver extending his arm into a defender, and when that happens, he's pushing off and so you throw the flag. They granted it was not a hard push, but not only was it blantant, but they did it right in front of the official. It really was a no brainer.

For the Roethlisberger touchdown, they showed an angle I hadn't seen previously, and it appeared that the nose of the football did cross the line when Roethlisberger was still in the air. You can't tell for sure because you can't see the tip of the football, but judging by his elbow which crossed the line entirely, it appears that the nose certainly had to at least touch the line, which is all you need. Remember, you don't have to get the whole football into the endzone - if as little as one molecule of that ball gets in, it's a touchdown.

There was a split decision on the holding penalty that negated the pass to Stevens at the one yard line. Two thought it was the right call, and two thought it wasn't. They all agreed it was a judgement call. The lineman definitely hooked the linebacker's arm, but that isn't enough to call holding. It's whether or not the linebacker's progress was impeded because of the hold. Immediately after he gets past the lineman, he falls down. They said it's impossible to tell if he fell because of his forward momentum, or if it was because his arm was being held.

Finally, they looked at the corner pass to Jackson at the end of the first half, where he got his foot in, and his second foot landed out of bounds after hitting the pilon. They said that was the easiest call of them all. It is true that if you are inbounds with two feet and then hit the pilon, it's a touchdown. However, you need to have two feet down first. The pilon means nothing if you don't get two feet in bounds first. They said the only way that could have been ruled a touchdown is if the defender pushed him out of bounds while he was in the air. Since the contact was minimal, the referee correctly determined that it wasn't the defender that caused him to go out of bounds. Chris Carter actually ripped into Jackson for his effort on the play. He noted that every received should know that you catch that ball over your right shoulder. You don't wait for it to come all the way to your body, and catch it with your body. If he had used proper technique, he would have been in bounds easily.

 

Impartiality does not mean the reviewers had a clue. Were they former players (like Michael Irwin who said the interference call was bogus)? Were they former officials? Coaches? Monday morning quarterbacks? Or just reporters who have never even played the game and just read up on the rules?

The question is not whether the calls were 'by-the-book.' They were. The real issue is what is normally enforced in the league -- 99% of the time the calls in question are ignored by the officials. However, the Seahawk players should have adjusted once they realized the officials were calling 'ticky-tack' penalties.

 

You make it sound like none of these options are acceptable sources - who would you prefer if we aren't supposed to think these people are reputable sources? Anyway, the people on the show are a combination of what's listed above. There are former players, reporters, and football analysts. The typical cast contains Dan Marino, Chis Carter, Chis Collinsworth, (so three former players) Peter King, (reporter) Brian Gumble and Bob Costas (analysts/reporters). So I think that represents a fairly good cross-section of people knowledgable about football.

Umm.. like which one? When a receiver blantantly pushes off, offensive pass interference is what is "noramlly enforced". When the ball appears to cross the goal line, touchdown is the normal call, when a player only gets one foot down in bounds, the normal call is incomplete. The only ones that you can take issue with is the low block on Hasselbeck (because when you make the tackle, a low block is not "normally enforced"), and the holding call because that always comes down to the referee's discretion, unless the lineman tackles the defender.

 

Exactly. It's called being penalized for stupid; one of the reasons that I adore football so much. If you're going to be stupid (or just unaware) enough to commit a textbook penalty right in front of an official, you shouldn't be surprised when the flag hits you in the balls.

 

There were only three calls I took exception to.

It was a great open field tackle (almost as good as Big Ben's in the Colt game).

That 'push-off' would normally be considered incidental contact. The receiver had the defender beat -- flat out. Both had their hands on each other.

The holding call was poor. No wrap up, no gripping the jersey. The defender broke away and fell on his ass -- grace is not the strength of a defensive lineman.

If there was no holding call, Seattle would have won. Period. They still could have won, but chose to give up after the interception. Seattle lost the game, but the officials certainly help push them down.

 

Pass Interference was enforced after Irving retired. It was created because of him, he has no clue what they call and what they don't on it;so I'll Take Cris Carter's opinion, since he actually played with the rule.

and watching on inside the NFL, it was a holding penalty. the guy gets the inside of Haggans arm and falls down with it. Thats what I got from their explanation of it anyway.

 

Bottom line...
If the Hawks had come with their "A" game, they'd have won (maybe even their "B" game). It was entirely within their hands to win or lose this game, regardless of any calls by the officials. Truth is, they didn't play very well, Holmgren and staff didn't coach very well, and the Steelers made enough big plays to win.

The Hawks need to take a big ole look in the mirror if they want to find the cause of their defeat.

There was one bad call in the game and that was the clip...which in the end only caused a change in field position, not in score.

I've seen all the Seahawks fans whining and complaining on sports bulletin boards all over the net, and they just need to man-up and face the fact that the Hawks gave the game away.

 

And they don't even have to be particularly "manly" about that either. Laeven knows I b**** enough about how the Packers are giving away the team on a yearly basis, not to mention all the games that they could have won (even with the deficient team they're building) if they had just tried a bit harder. And I know I'm not the least bit dignified about it either. These people just have to face the ugly truth, and if they still want to b****, then at least they can be b*****ing about the right thing.

 

No matter how little or insignificant a controversial call in a game is, the fans of the losing team always will complain, is part of the game, I just don't believe in blaming officials for losing a game, a team that just do that, don't deserve to win, besides, officials are humans, and surely they won't make so many mistakes that a team lose a game for that.

 

This is actually a great argument for why a lot of people didn't enjoy the Super Bowl this year. Neither team played well at all. In fact, if one of the teams had actually played well, the game would have been a blow-out. The main difference in the game is that the Steelers made a few plays. Overall the effort was poor, but they showed a few flashes of brilliance.

On the other hand, Seattle made no big plays. The receivers dropped more passes than they made catches - especially Stevens. The NFL MVP and record holder for touchdowns in a single season was pretty much a non-factor. He finished with 90 something rushing yards, but there were no big gains there. I can't recall a single rush for more than 10 yards.

Pretty much the only player on Seattle who can hold his head up high after this game is Hasselbeck. With the exception of one errant throw, he played a solid game. If his receivers even played average games, he would have finished with about 350 yards passing and 2-3 TDs and been a no-brainer for the MVP.

It's fun to blame the refs because it deflects criticism from your own players, but the point is the calls wouldn't have made a bit of difference if the Seahawks had not played so poorly. The number of points that penalties cost them was small compared to the number they cost themselves by dropping passes, botched plays and horrific clock management at the end of both halves.