NFL Says SB Properly Officiated!

Train, watch game film, increase their knowledge of the rules to name a few. I don't know how many times this year there were "conferences" that lasted forever, "disagreements" as to what happened on a flag, flags picked up that were thrown, obvious replays from the booth that were still not overturned, a blatent misunderstanding of the rules (see Plummer's fumble or 'tuck rule'), the non call of horsecollar tackles and I could go on and on. I guess they need more time to LEARN THE F-----G RULES!I still don't think making them full time will help. Take the horsecollar tackles it was new this year and I'm sure all the REF's got plenty of training on it but it was call very little this year. I don't have a problem with them meeting on the field to dicuss a call. They can have several things to happen on some penalties so they need to discuss the situation. Take golf alot of times player will ask for a ruling and it takes several minutes for the judges to decided whats is the right rule. They are human and will make bad calls just like the player and coaches will make mistakes.

Can anyone honestly say the Seahawks played a better overall game than the Steelers?


-Seattle was penalized 7 times for 70 yards compared to the Steelers who were penalized 3 times for 20 yards.


As some have already said, complaining about the refs is what losers do. Once the dust settles on this whole thing, the Seahawks only have themselves to blame and they know it.




i honestly do think seattle out played pitt. pitt. made 3 plays on offense the entire game. pitt's defense had trouble stopping seattle's offense without the help of those "questionable" penalties.

i'm not even going to comment on the penalties. i'm pretty sure you know how i feel about that. i will say this, those penalties decided the outcome of that game.

i don't think complaining about the refs is what losers do, if they have legitament complaints. which i feel they most certianly do. i seem to remember a lot of folks on this site complaining about the officiating during the first skins- dallas game of 2004 (pass interferrence) also the skins-bucs game of 2005 (alstott's td). that doesn't make those who complained losers because they had legitament complaints. but because it's seattle those same people don't care as much, they just say "oh well, seattle just didn't play good enough to win".

i honestly do think seattle out layed pitt. pitt. made 3 plays on offense the entire game. pitt's defense had trouble stopping seattle's offense without the help of those "questionable" penalties.

i'm not even going to comment on the penalties. i'm pretty sure you know how i feel about that.

i don't think complaing about the refs is what losers do, if they have legitament complaints. which i feel they most certianly do. i seem to remember a lot of folks on this site complaining about the officiating during the first skins- dallas game of 2004 (pass interferrence) also the skins-bucs game of 2005 (alstott's td). that doesn't make those who complained losers because they had legitament complaints. but because it's seattle those same people don't care as much, they just say "oh well, seattle just didn't play good enough to win".

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?



part of it was the refs and the other part was jeremy stevens. i've been pretty consistant in my belief that the game was lost by seattle because of the refs and jeremy stevens not playing well.

a team doesn't have to win the 3rd down % of success in order to win a football game, just look at some of the skins stats from this year and last years as well.

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?


my reasoning for not focusing on the 3rd down % is because i don't feel it had anything or at least, very little to do with the out come of the game.

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?

jeremy stevens dropped at least, 4 passes that would have resulted in a first down and that "holding penalty" took away a first and goal.

add those up and seattle would have been 10/17 , thats pretty good but once again, the reason i think they lost is because of stevens and the refs.

if you think seattle outplayed pit thats insane.. they gave up a 3rd and 28... they couldn't stop dropping passes. guess what, dropped passes = not outplaying your opponent.

if you think seattle outplayed pit thats insane.. they gave up a 3rd and 28... they couldn't stop dropping passes. guess what, dropped passes = not outplaying your opponent.


i think overall, seattle played a better game then pitt. that 3rd and 28 was bad and yes those dropped passes by stevens was awful but pitt only made 3 plays in my opinoin of course, the obove mentioned play, the run by parker and the trick play. seattle moved the ball quite easily on pitt and seattles defense did a good job, outside of those 3 plays.

part of it was the refs and the other part was jeremy stevens. i've been pretty consistant in my belief that the game was lost by seattle because of the refs and jeremy stevens not playing well.

a team doesn't have to win the 3rd down % of success in order to win a football game, just look at some of the skins stats from this year and last years as well.


It makes it awfully tough to convert on third down when the ref's are putting a team in 3rd and long, I also saw a questionable spot that forced Seattle to punt where the ref came up and had his foot on the yellow line and then spotted it behind his foot, I was waiting for a challenge on that play it looked like a bad spot.

It's not like Pitt wasen't doing the same things on third down, it's not like Pitt didn't drop passes, how about we make it a level playing field, let's give Pitt the same penalties on their big play's as seattle recieved and see how well they played once you take them away? let's say just 2 big play's, the 3rd and 28 conversion to the 1, and the TD to ward, just 2 play's and Seattle wins, even with all those ridiculous penalties.

The fact is there was no interference by the ref's when Pitt needed a big play, but it sure seemed like they were Johnny on the spot when Seattle was on the move.

It makes it awfully tough to convert on third down when the ref's are putting a team in 3rd and long, I also saw a questionable spot that forced Seattle to punt where the ref came up and had his foot on the yellow line and then spotted it behind his foot, I was waiting for a challenge on that play it looked like a bad spot.

It's not like Pitt wasen't doing the same things on third down, it's not like Pitt didn't drop passes, how about we make it a level playing field, let's give Pitt the same penalties on their big play's as seattle recieved and see how well they played once you take them away? let's say just 2 big play's, the 3rd and 28 conversion to the 1, and the TD to ward, just 2 play's and Seattle wins, even with all those ridiculous penalties.

The fact is there was no interference by the ref's when Pitt needed a big play, but it sure seemed like they were Johnny on the spot when Seattle was on the move.



i think you and i might be the only two on this site that actually watched and paid attention to the superbowl.:)