Super Bowl XL?

[James Foote]

It'd be nice to be 'compensated handsomely', but I think you owe it to the fans and the league that made your name a household one to appear. Jerry Rice made time after all. Plus they got 2 tickets to the game. It's just another example of how $$ has 'tarnished' pro sports. You know guys like Gary Gait would come to the NLL Championship (if not involved with the game like now) for a couple free tickets to be recognized as one of the greatest players of all time. I mean, $100,000 just to be at the Super Bowl? Come on Joe.

I know Bradshaw and Pittsburgh don't get along too well, but come on. These are two guys that are heavilly respected for their accomplishments on the field. This isn't helping their reputation or Fox's pregame show.

Montana doesn't "owe anything to the fans or the league" at all and if he chooses to stay at home to attend his kid's games, then I don't understand why he should be criticized for putting his family first. He doesn't have a need to have his ego stroked by going to Detroit so he can wave at the fans for 5 seconds. I suspect that he asked for considerable compensation, knowing that he was going to be turned down, as a way of not attending. It's a personal choice, not a requirement.

I see what you're saying and agree. I guess I just see it as being the classy thing to do.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Interesting note... Darrell Jackson tied a SB record with 5 rec in the first quarter but he did not catch another ball the rest of the game.

This was a key reason why the Hawks lost in my opinion. I'm not sure D-Jack was even thrown to in the 2nd half, which is inexcusable. Clock mis-management hurt alot, but I also think that Holmgren was badly out-coached throughout the game. Pittsburgh made three big plays, including the 3 and 28 scramble by Big Ben that resulted in first and goal from the Seahawk 1 yd line. That was the ball game. Too many deep passes called for Hasselbeck, when we were still in the game and had time to run Alexander and call more west coast-type screens and short passes. The deep ball is just not Hasselbeck's strength, and there really wasn't the need to keep trying for the "home run" all the time. And I will never be convinced (sorry CATLAXMAN) that the refs didn't greatly influence the outcome with putrid, one-sided officiating.

[CATLAX MAN]

I wasn't going to say anything but lets recap... Phantom hold negates 1st and goal from the 1... Interception next, then add 15 yards for an illegal block by #8.... Trick play, TD.

...but I guess the officiating didn't affect the outcome of the game... Wait, that was only 2 minutes of game time!

I don't believe that the referees threw that interception. I would also be surprised to find out that the referees got the Seattle secondary to get faked out of their jocks on the flea flicker and to also over pursue on the Parker 75yd TD. But who knows, those referees are very tricky.

[Kyle Berggren]

The point was 1st and goal on the 1, or force them to throw a deep pass, hence the interception... leading to 21 total Pit points, and an 11 point lead... or the Hawks are up 3, and Pit is pinned in their own zone.

If you can't see that, there's no hope for you. That phantom call actually did affect the outcome of the game, because an INT is not thrown in a 3rd and long situation if its 1st and Goal on the 1....

Looks like those sneaky referees did manage to screw that one up pretty bad. But then again, I'm not trying to skew anything a direction, I'm not bringing up a TD that could have went either way, the push off, of some other things that boiled down to judgement calls. This was flat out the wrong call, as everyone except for you seems to agree (I'm sure we're all wrong). 3rd and long vs. 1st and goal on the 1 results in 2 different play calls... After the INT, #8 gets a 15 yard penalty for tackling someone, rediculous...

[CATLAX MAN]

You making a lot of assumptions there, but the facts are that holding was called (a judgement call). In the referee's opinion, it was holding. I saw it and I agree it was marginal, but it could be, and was, called holding. They didn't wait to see what the outcome of the play was before the flag was thrown. That's the breaks of the game. Penalty calls are a part of it.

You get no argument about the penalty called on the tackle. That was flat out wrong.

Bottom line is that Seattle did not execute when they needed to, they wasted time at the end of both halves, and had some very questionable play calling by their coaches. That's why they lost, not because of the referees.

[Kyle Berggren]

Okay RaiderFan, you win.

[CATLAX MAN]

Wouldn't watch a Raider game if you paid me. . . . unless it was to see them lose.

[bste_lax]

I'm with CATLAX on this one. Granted some calls didn't go there way, they should have played better so they didn't have to rely on the refs.

The refs didn't cause Seattle to drop all those catches, poor clock management, Matt Hassleback's horrible Brett Favre throw for an interception, and stop Pittburgh's big plays (the reverse pass and Big Ben's naked bootleg for a first down late in the game).

[Brent Burns]

Bottom line is that Seattle did not execute when they needed to, they wasted time at the end of both halves, and had some very questionable play calling by their coaches. That's why they lost, not because of the referees.

You brought up a key word- execution. Yesterday, someone was talking about Army sending a scout to check out Notre Dame's game against someone. Somehow, that scout missed his transportation; Knute Rockne heard about that. He sent the Notre Dame's playbook to that guy and wrote to that guy, "Here is the playbook that does not win games for your team, but executing the plays wins the games for your team." I took that story with grain of salt, but there is a point to that story. It goes back to what CATLAX MAN said about Seahawks did not execute the plays. Matt Hasselback was really off his passing game. I agree with most of what you said was that Seattle did not have good use of time management.

To me, the refs had nothing to do with the Steelers nor the Seahawks. Yes, the Steelers won an ugly game, and they would gladly take the win.

[Kyle Berggren]

This article sums up my exact take on the game, I won't play devils advocate with you guys anymore, but I do believe you are seeing things in a very short sighted view. Kind of like, "It happened, oh well, must not have affected anything." The bottom line is that it did, and everyone in the national media is talking about it, including Pit fans, & Big Ben.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192

That's my final word, take it for what it is, it seems to be much more clear coming from someone else that isn't just a little bitter with the game and people from this board's opinions.

[Sonny]

I thought the same things....

So, Paul Tagliabue, how does a team lose when it outgains an opponent by 57 yards, controls time of possession and wins the turnover battle?

Like a crazed CIA analyst running through the halls of Langley screaming into open offices about some impending calamity, I've been shrieking hysterically about the terrible officiating in the NFL and warning that some day the brutal calls were going to affect the outcome of the Super Bowl.

That some day was Sunday.

Every single questionable, marginal or outright bad call went against the Seahawks.

Their first three big plays were all wiped out by penalty calls. On their second drive, Darrell Jackson caught an 18-yard pass on 3rd-and-6 that would have given Seattle a first down at the 23. But Chris Gray was called for holding James Farrior. When Farrior pushed upfield, Gray did hook him with his right arm, and Farrior went down. When referee Bill Leavy flagged Gray, it was a bad omen for the Seahawks. Instead of being on the edge of the red zone, they came away without any points.

On their third drive, the Seahawks looked to take a 7-0 lead when Jackson separated from Chris Hope in the end zone and Matt Hasselbeck delivered a perfect strike to his outside shoulder. The back judge looked uncertain — sound familiar, Patriots fans? — then finally jerked his flag out and called offensive pass interference to wipe out the touchdown. The replay showed receiver and defender hand-fighting, with Jackson getting the slightest push into Hope's chest before turning to catch the ball. ABC's John Madden thought the call was dubious. FOX analyst and all-time great offensive lineman Brian Baldinger had no doubts, calling it "absolutely horrendous" on his FOXSports.com Super Bowl Instant Analysis. ESPN's Steve Young and Michael Irvin also had no uncertainty, dismissing the call as ticky-tack and insisting the Seahawks got robbed of a TD.

Then came a huge call on the first play of the second quarter. Peter Warrick ripped off a 33-yard punt return to give Seattle the ball at the Steelers 46. But Etric Pruitt was called for holding. How clear was it? Well, Madden thought the call was for Pruitt holding the gunner at the beginning of the play. It wasn't. The flag came in during the runback and it looked pretty minor. Another example of an official searching to make a call.

[tamu33]

All this bickering brings up the question of should the NFL hire "professional" refs? Most of us know that baseball umps are full time employees during the season. Alot of talk has been thrown around about football following suit. I personally think that with how much is at stake each sunday; reffing should be a full time gig during the season. Heck even in the off season, refs are in demand at practices, scrimages and training camps. Why not pay these guys a little more to see better results on the field.

[CATLAX MAN]

Here is an opposing view that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle this morning and, not surprisingly, mirrors my view:

Officials cost Seattle the game? Whatever


So the Seahawks got jobbed, did they? Cheated by the evil Zebras of Death, was it? Denied their destiny by seven men in ghastly shirts and knickers, you think?

OK, fine. I mean, you're wrong, but don't let that get in the way of your good time.

First, a quick review: The pass-interference call on Darrell Jackson that nullified Seattle's first score was borderline -- a little chintzy, but hardly without supporting evidence. The Ben Roethlisberger touchdown was just a difficult call, is all. It looked, according to the best angle offered the television audience, as if the ball might have dented the plane of the goal line, but it didn't help that the head linesman raised one hand in the air to kill the play before converting into two hands and a touchdown. And the holding call on Sean Locklear in the fourth quarter ... well, John Madden didn't like it much, and he's a Hall of Famer, so we'll give you that one.

That all three calls went against the Seahawks kind of stinks for them. It certainly made Mike Holmgren look a little more like Doctor Zoidberg, the mutant lobster/scientist from "Futurama," than he already does, but it isn't the same as proof that the Seahawks would have won the game otherwise.

But as we said, you've got your theory, and you should go with it. You certainly shouldn't feel any urge to send an e-mail to anyone who doesn't buy your premise, because the chances are it'll be ruthlessly deleted. I mean, customer service is fine in theory and all, yet ...

No, let's stop right there. What we have heard, above and beyond the "The stripes were on the take" argument, is that the NFL should have full-time officials so that things like this won't happen again. This is, of course, idiocy of the first magnitude, but let us explain.

For the rest of the article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/07/SPG9IH42C91.DTL

[KnoxVegas]

I sat next to the replay official on the flight home yesterday morning from Detroit. He is a former NFL player and was nice enough to chat with me about the game. Since I had to work the whole time, I did not know about any of the questionable calls 'cept for the Rothliesberger "TD" but the angle was sort of hard.

What you have to keep in mind is that the officails only have the angles that the network cameras provide them. The NFL does not set up its own cameras just for replays.

Anyhow, I found it interesting to speak with a man whose job is so important to guiding the outcome of the game.

[Danny Hogan]

he must have been drinking heavily. probably on the plane too.