OT: Holy Terrible Super Bowl Officiating!

[Shield]

You know Chuck's counted to infinity - twice.

 

Seriously, I thought the officiating sucked. It just made for abysmal Sunday football for myself and my wife. I don't think there was a wide-spread conspiracy and the Steelers do deserve the title. That is all for me on this topic.

 

And you are wrong on all counts:

• You thought the officiating was as perfect as a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
  
• It was a fine Sunday; particularly earlier in the day when you caught the end of "Delta Force" on cable.
  
• You believe in the conspiracy and you think it was actually perpetrated by the same people who set Paula Abdul up for a fall last year.
  
• That is all for you on this topic.
  

Okay, I guess you got ONE right.

 

You missed one. I caught the end of "Code of Silence" where the guy Chuck round-house kicked into the deep well opened his eyes at the end. Not enough Chuck chest hair shots for my wife, else we'd have Tivo'd it.

[Rob]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2322300

 

"The signs are very clever (Refs 21, Seahawks 10 ... or, Pittsburgh's 12th Man: The Refs), but they're bogus. It's how sore losers rationalize a final score. Worse yet, it's crying. And there's no crying in football..."

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Two can play that game:

 

10 Worst Officiating Calls from the Post-season (Fox Sports)

[FlamingCarrot]

Are you back to crying about the pushoff? I thought you gave up on that. I thought we established d.jackson DID push off and he DID create seperation from the defender, even though, the dummy didn't need to do so in order to catch the touchdown.

 

It's Tuesday. The Steelers held their little parade today.

 

It's OVER! Give it up already!!

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Are you back to crying about the pushoff? I thought you gave up on that. I thought we established d.jackson DID push off and he DID create seperation from the defender, even though, the dummy didn't need to do so in order to catch the touchdown.

 

It's Tuesday. The Steelers held their little parade today.

 

It's OVER! Give it up already!!

 

All I did was post an article, because its obvious that the media is as split as the general public over the matter.

 

Why you feel a need to insult me for doing so is beyond me.

[Ringfinger]

Are you back to crying about the pushoff? I thought you gave up on that. I thought we established d.jackson DID push off and he DID create seperation from the defender, even though, the dummy didn't need to do so in order to catch the touchdown.

 

It's Tuesday. The Steelers held their little parade today.

 

It's OVER! Give it up already!!

 

The Bus should have stayed in fantasy land instead of Disney land. That was no win, it was an officiating shambles.

[FlamingCarrot]

NFL- Seahawks won everything but the game

 

Kevin Hench / FOXSports.com

Posted: 12 hours ago

 

 

 

In case the football fans of the Pacific Northwest aren't sick enough in the aftermath of the big game, they may want to know that no Super Bowl loser has ever dominated a title game like the Seahawks did on Sunday.

 

I was so sure that Seattle's edge in total yards, time of possession and takeaways in a losing effort was unprecedented that I scoured all 39 previous Super Bowl box scores to prove it. Yep, just as I suspected, no losing team had ever matched the Seahawks' trifecta. Quite a few teams had won the time of possession battle and lost. A handful had put up more total yards and lost. And a couple had even won the turnover battle and lost. But no team had ever done all three and come away with an L.

 

 

Not until Sunday. Not until the Seahawks outplayed the Steelers on the vast majority of plays and still lost, thanks largely to two dubious penalty calls that cost Seattle a TD and a first-and-goal at the 1.

 

This was a historic, first-of-its-kind Super Bowl loss. I don't want to take anything away from the Steelers, except, of course, the Lombardi Trophy.

 

Seattle outgained Pittsburgh 396 yards to 339. Only five times in Super Bowl history had the loser gained more yards than the victor. And only twice — in Joe Montana's first win over the Bengals and Tom Brady's first win over the Rams — had a team been outgained as badly as the Steelers and won. (I guess this bodes well for Ben Roethlisberger.) But in both those victories, the Niners and Patriots had been +3 in the turnover battle. Pittsburgh was -1. More on that later.

 

Seattle had the ball for over 33 minutes, building a large time of possession edge as Pittsburgh failed to get a first down in the game's opening 19 minutes. While 10 teams have won the time-of-possession battle and lost the Super Bowl, only four losers surpassed the Seahawks' 6:04 edge in possession. And only twice in the history of the big game had a team gained more yards and led in time of possession and lost. Brady's Patriots were not only outgained by the Rams, but Kurt Warner's quick-strike attack actually held the ball for seven more minutes than New England. The lone other time this statistical quirk occurred was when Pittsburgh lost to Dallas in Super Bowl XXX. So maybe Sunday was a kind of karmic payback for the Steelers, who outgained the Cowboys 310-254 and held the ball for 7:38 more than Dallas in 1996.

 

Of course that loss was marked by the fact that Neil O'Donnell kept throwing the ball to Larry Brown. The Steelers were -3 in turnovers in that loss to the Cowboys, just as the Rams were against the Patriots.

 

Winning the turnover battle has been the single best harbinger of victory in Super Bowl history. Only twice prior to Sunday had a team given the ball away more than it had taken it away and yet still taken home the trophy.

 

In Super Bowl V — the ugliest Super Bowl of all time — the Cowboys managed to lose to the Colts despite a +3 edge in turnovers. The game featured a record 11 turnovers, an astounding seven by the somehow victorious Colts. Dallas also had a slight edge in possession (+2:46), but Baltimore had a substantial — 329-215 — edge in total yards.

 

The only other time the turnover winner had lost was in Super Bowl XIV when the Steelers overcame three Terry Bradshaw interceptions and a -2 turnover deficit to beat the Rams and win their fourth championship (one for the pinkie?). Despite the three picks, Bradshaw was named MVP because he threw for 309 yards as Pittsburgh compiled a 393-301 edge in total yards.

 

So the only two times a team had coughed the ball up more than its opponent and won the Super Bowl, it did so by handily outgaining the loser. But turning the ball over more while being outgained? Surely Roethlisberger's two interceptions to Matt Hasselbeck's one would sink the Steelers.

 

Not on Sunday. Super Bowl XL was the perfect storm for stormy Seattle. The Seahawks moved the ball better than the Steelers. They kept the ball longer than the Steelers. They held onto the ball more securely than the Steelers. They had six more first downs than the Steelers (20-14), a feat surpassed only twice by losing teams in SB history.

 

And yet the Seahawks lost.

 

Seattle fans have a right to feel sick. Their team just suffered the most unjust loss in Super Bowl history.

 

I'm guessing knowing that the previous 25 teams to gain more yards, keep the ball longer and not lose the turnover battle all won the Super Bowl won't make them feel any better.

 

Only a person that doesn't know a damn thing about football would bother copying/pasting such an article.

 

While time of possession is sometimes in important, it's totally irrelevant in this case, because Pittsburgh had two scoring drives that consumed a total of TWO MINUTES (Willie Parker's 75 yard run and Randle-El's touchdown pass to Ward).

 

Pointing out useless stats like Seattle had six more first downs than Pittsburgh? Are you kidding me? Can you not see the fallacy in such an argument?!

 

I'm being serious here. If you don't know a thing about football, stick to talking about comic books. Ask Jivemo. I bet you even he'd back away from citing such a weak article to argue the Seahawks somehow outplayed the Steelers.

[FlamingCarrot]

Are you back to crying about the pushoff? I thought you gave up on that. I thought we established d.jackson DID push off and he DID create seperation from the defender, even though, the dummy didn't need to do so in order to catch the touchdown.

 

It's Tuesday. The Steelers held their little parade today.

 

It's OVER! Give it up already!!

 

All I did was post an article, because its obvious that the media is as split as the general public over the matter.

 

Why you feel a need to insult me for doing so is beyond me.

 

I hardly think I'm trying to insult you. Heck, I thought you were beginning to at least accept the fact Pittsburgh outplayed Seattle until your last post.

 

Oh, by the way, before you watch the news and find out later, Roethlisberger is on Letterman tonight and told Dave he doesn't think he got into the endzone. He said they were ready to go for it on 4th down if the call was reversed. Do I think Pitt would've scored from one inch out? Yeah, I do.

 

But it all matters little now though, right? They're not going to replay the game and they're not going to change the results.

[mar-vell]

Are you back to crying about the pushoff? I thought you gave up on that. I thought we established d.jackson DID push off and he DID create seperation from the defender, even though, the dummy didn't need to do so in order to catch the touchdown.

 

It's Tuesday. The Steelers held their little parade today.

 

It's OVER! Give it up already!!

 

All I did was post an article, because its obvious that the media is as split as the general public over the matter.

 

Why you feel a need to insult me for doing so is beyond me.

 

I hardly think I'm trying to insult you. Heck, I thought you were beginning to at least accept the fact Pittsburgh outplayed Seattle until your last post.

 

Oh, by the way, before you watch the news and find out later, Roethlisberger is on Letterman tonight and told Dave he doesn't think he got into the endzone. He said they were ready to go for it on 4th down if the call was reversed. Do I think Pitt would've scored from one inch out? Yeah, I do.

 

But it all matters little now though, right? They're not going to replay the game and they're not going to change the results.

 

I am surprised someone hasn't computer analyzed where the ball was in relation to the goal line yet! I would do it myself but I don't know how!

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Oh, by the way, before you watch the news and find out later, Roethlisberger is on Letterman tonight and told Dave he doesn't think he got into the endzone.

 

Heard this earlier today. No big deal.

[Shield]

Only a person that doesn't know a damn thing about football would bother copying/pasting such an article.

 

While time of possession is sometimes in important, it's totally irrelevant in this case, because Pittsburgh had two scoring drives that consumed a total of TWO MINUTES (Willie Parker's 75 yard run and Randle-El's touchdown pass to Ward).

 

Pointing out useless stats like Seattle had six more first downs than Pittsburgh? Are you kidding me? Can you not see the fallacy in such an argument?!

 

I'm being serious here. If you don't know a thing about football, stick to talking about comic books. Ask Jivemo. I bet you even he'd back away from citing such a weak article to argue the Seahawks somehow outplayed the Steelers.

 

Clearly, you're a football genius. This is why you're a famous coach/player. Clearly all the six packs you've drank on Sundays makes you a football genius. When I hear people make statements then say "Go ask someone else" I immediately know I'm wasting my time (re: go ask jivemo). I clearly know quite a lot more about football AND comics than you do. "I'm being serious here"? Oooh, you're being serious! What you fail to understand about that article, my cycloptic friend, is that I didn't write it! I just posted it for fun! Just as another counter-argument for you to think about!

I'm allowed to post any articles I want - sorry that bothers you. Now go back to beating your chest and telling your bowling buddies how you bested someone on a chatboard over NFL football. While you're at it, throw a dingo on the barbie!

[supapimp]

roethlisberger admitted on the late show that he didn't think he got in on his rushing TD.

[Excelsior!-migration]

Never seen such a bunch of whining sore losers.

 

Get over yourselves Seahawk fans. Show a little respect for the 5 time Superbowl Champion STEELERS!!! Seahawks didn't make the big plays and the Steelers DID. Parker's 75 yard run, Randel El to Hines Pass, and Big Ben's key 3rd - 28 pass to Hines. Some calls might have been tough against the Seahawks, but they were textbook acurate (except for the penalty called on Hasselback after his interception).

[Shield]

Never seen such a bunch of whining sore losers.

 

Get over yourselves Seahawk fans. Show a little respect for the 5 time Superbowl Champion STEELERS!!! Seahawks didn't make the big plays and the Steelers DID. Parker's 75 yard run, Randel El to Hines Pass, and Big Ben's key 3rd - 28 pass to Hines. Some calls might have been tough against the Seahawks, but they were textbook acurate (except for the penalty called on Hasselback after his interception).

 

Who's a Seahawk fan? Not me! Again, I think Pittsburg would've won this game fair and square, and the Lombardi trophy is right where it belongs.

 

(But the officiating STUNK! )

[FlamingCarrot]

Only a person that doesn't know a damn thing about football would bother copying/pasting such an article.

 

While time of possession is sometimes in important, it's totally irrelevant in this case, because Pittsburgh had two scoring drives that consumed a total of TWO MINUTES (Willie Parker's 75 yard run and Randle-El's touchdown pass to Ward).

 

Pointing out useless stats like Seattle had six more first downs than Pittsburgh? Are you kidding me? Can you not see the fallacy in such an argument?!

 

I'm being serious here. If you don't know a thing about football, stick to talking about comic books. Ask Jivemo. I bet you even he'd back away from citing such a weak article to argue the Seahawks somehow outplayed the Steelers.

 

Clearly, you're a football genius. This is why you're a famous coach/player. Clearly all the six packs you've drank on Sundays makes you a football genius. When I hear people make statements then say "Go ask someone else" I immediately know I'm wasting my time (re: go ask jivemo). I clearly know quite a lot more about football AND comics than you do. "I'm being serious here"? Oooh, you're being serious! What you fail to understand about that article, my cycloptic friend, is that I didn't write it! I just posted it for fun! Just as another counter-argument for you to think about!

I'm allowed to post any articles I want - sorry that bothers you. Now go back to beating your chest and telling your bowling buddies how you bested someone on a chatboard over NFL football. While you're at it, throw a dingo on the barbie!

 

 

So does this mean you're still in disbelief as to how Seattle could've possibly lost despite having the ball a whole three minutes more than Pittsburgh?

[Excelsior!-migration]

roethlisberger admitted on the late show that he didn't think he got in on his rushing TD.

 

There you have it. Roethlisberger had a better point of view to judge where the football was than the refs on the field even after further review.

 

 

[Shield]

Only a person that doesn't know a damn thing about football would bother copying/pasting such an article.

 

While time of possession is sometimes in important, it's totally irrelevant in this case, because Pittsburgh had two scoring drives that consumed a total of TWO MINUTES (Willie Parker's 75 yard run and Randle-El's touchdown pass to Ward).

 

Pointing out useless stats like Seattle had six more first downs than Pittsburgh? Are you kidding me? Can you not see the fallacy in such an argument?!

 

I'm being serious here. If you don't know a thing about football, stick to talking about comic books. Ask Jivemo. I bet you even he'd back away from citing such a weak article to argue the Seahawks somehow outplayed the Steelers.

 

Clearly, you're a football genius. This is why you're a famous coach/player. Clearly all the six packs you've drank on Sundays makes you a football genius. When I hear people make statements then say "Go ask someone else" I immediately know I'm wasting my time (re: go ask jivemo). I clearly know quite a lot more about football AND comics than you do. "I'm being serious here"? Oooh, you're being serious! What you fail to understand about that article, my cycloptic friend, is that I didn't write it! I just posted it for fun! Just as another counter-argument for you to think about!

I'm allowed to post any articles I want - sorry that bothers you. Now go back to beating your chest and telling your bowling buddies how you bested someone on a chatboard over NFL football. While you're at it, throw a dingo on the barbie!

 

 

So does this mean you're still in disbelief as to how Seattle could've possibly lost despite having the ball a whole three minutes more than Pittsburgh?

 

Of course not! Look, in all seriousness, if you read the fun banter going back and forth with MK and I, he said that ESPN was a bad source. I just found an article from Fox News and posted it.

 

One last time - I watch college football, have for about 26 years. My earliest memory is the 1980 Rose Bowl with Ohio State. That could be wrong too. Might have been 81. Anyway, I don't care for the NFL, and I'm a fan of NO NFL team. But I did watch a game that clearly favored the Steelers via officiating. Period. There's no conspiracy theories here; I don't think they need to replay the game, I don't think the CIA was involved, etc.

 

Anyway, I'm now bored with this topic. Back to Australia topics, thank you.

[Shield]

roethlisberger admitted on the late show that he didn't think he got in on his rushing TD.

 

There you have it. Roethlisberger had a better point of view to judge where the football was than the refs on the field even after further review.

 

 

 

That is a good point! Of course at the time he DID have a beard, and you know who else has a beard!

That's right, you guessed it!

 

[FlamingCarrot]

Only a person that doesn't know a damn thing about football would bother copying/pasting such an article.

 

While time of possession is sometimes in important, it's totally irrelevant in this case, because Pittsburgh had two scoring drives that consumed a total of TWO MINUTES (Willie Parker's 75 yard run and Randle-El's touchdown pass to Ward).

 

Pointing out useless stats like Seattle had six more first downs than Pittsburgh? Are you kidding me? Can you not see the fallacy in such an argument?!

 

I'm being serious here. If you don't know a thing about football, stick to talking about comic books. Ask Jivemo. I bet you even he'd back away from citing such a weak article to argue the Seahawks somehow outplayed the Steelers.

 

Clearly, you're a football genius. This is why you're a famous coach/player. Clearly all the six packs you've drank on Sundays makes you a football genius. When I hear people make statements then say "Go ask someone else" I immediately know I'm wasting my time (re: go ask jivemo). I clearly know quite a lot more about football AND comics than you do. "I'm being serious here"? Oooh, you're being serious! What you fail to understand about that article, my cycloptic friend, is that I didn't write it! I just posted it for fun! Just as another counter-argument for you to think about!

I'm allowed to post any articles I want - sorry that bothers you. Now go back to beating your chest and telling your bowling buddies how you bested someone on a chatboard over NFL football. While you're at it, throw a dingo on the barbie!

 

 

So does this mean you're still in disbelief as to how Seattle could've possibly lost despite having the ball a whole three minutes more than Pittsburgh?

 

Of course not! Look, in all seriousness, if you read the fun banter going back and forth with MK and I, he said that ESPN was a bad source. I just found an article from Fox News and posted it.

 

One last time - I watch college football, have for about 26 years. My earliest memory is the 1980 Rose Bowl with Ohio State. That could be wrong too. Might have been 81. Anyway, I don't care for the NFL, and I'm a fan of NO NFL team. But I did watch a game that clearly favored the Steelers via officiating. Period. There's no conspiracy theories here; I don't think they need to replay the game, I don't think the CIA was involved, etc.

 

Anyway, I'm now bored with this topic. Back to Australia topics, thank you.

 

My apologies for jumping to the conclusion you thought the fella from Foxsports was making a valid argument. As you can tell, I thought the writer of that piece made some truly idiotic points.

[Excelsior!-migration]

roethlisberger admitted on the late show that he didn't think he got in on his rushing TD.

 

There you have it. Roethlisberger had a better point of view to judge where the football was than the refs on the field even after further review.

 

 

 

That is a good point! Of course at the time he DID have a beard, and you know who else has a beard!

That's right, you guessed it!