NFL Says SB Properly Officiated!

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by dmek25

this thread is pathetic! why 3 pages on 2 teams that the majority of people here could give a rats ass about?

this thread is about the officiating. it's not about the two teams.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

this thread is about the officiating. it's not about the two teams.

Thanks Wolfeskins. It seems rather difficult to keep on topic here like people are assuming that everyone that feels the game was less than properly officiated is a Seahawks sympathiser.

[jermus22]

Yeah, the point of this thread is that we're concerned about the officiating. Like someone said earlier, we could have this come back and bite us in the ass (possibly in next year's SB). I don't want any stupid calls deciding a game like that for us. BTW, Seattle DID play well enough to win (at least in the first half.

[MTK]

Please, some of you are acting like Seattle played a great game and had the game stolen from them by the refs.

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

-Seattle was 5/17 on 3rd downs (29%) compared to the Steelers who were 8/15 (53%)

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

Yes some of the calls were iffy.

The push off in the endzone was iffy but hey, he did clearly push off so it really wasn't a horrible call.

The only outright horrible call I saw was the low block on Hasselbeck. You can argue about the holding calls, some were legit, some weren't, but those types of calls are made all season. How many phantom holding calls did we see this year both for us and against us??

Ben's TD was a very close call that could have went either way. I don't think anybody can say with 100% confidence that he did or didn't get in.

-Seattle missed 2 FG's.

-Jerramy Steven's 4 dropped passes caused several drives to stall out.

-Hasselbeck's INT in the 4th quarter killed any chances the Seahawks had of coming back.

-The Steelers scores boiled down to 3 key plays. Willie Parker's 75 yard run, Roethlisberger's 37 yard pass to Ward on 3rd and 28, Randle El's reverse toss for a TD. There wasn't any "ref interference" on any of these plays, the Steelers simply made these big plays when needed and Seattle couldn't stop them.

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.

[skinsguy]

Thank you Matty!

Complaining doesn't help matters.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

The fact that the NFL says the game was "properly officiated" doesn't bode well for the future. The NFL simply doesn't care enough if the officiating is bad. If they did, the refs would be hired full time and be in shape and able to see. Nfl is the only sport that doesn't hire full time refs. Golly, could it be a "money issue".????

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!

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Just a question. If the REF's were full time what would they do diffrent? What would they do in the off season? And what would they do Monday thru Friday? Other major sports have games seven days a week and need full time REF's. I'm not defending the REF's but I just don't see how being full time would change the mistakes.

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!

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Please, some of you are acting like Seattle played a great game and had the game stolen from them by the refs...

Matty: I respect your opinion and you have issued valid points however I would like to bring your attention to the following sequence of events

1. Seattle has the ball in I think it was the 3rd or maybe 4th quarter. Hasselbeck drops back to pass and completes inside the 10 yd line. Play is called back for holding penalty. I will grant that from the official's viewpoint the holding is a valid call. However, it appeared the Pitt linebacker had jumped offsides. The offsides was never flagged but the holding was. Same two players/field of view was involved.

2. After the holding penalty was assessed, Hasselbeck throws an interception. During the return, Hasselbeck is flagged for an illegal block (?) while tackling the return man. This gives Pitt the ball and places the ball near midfield.

3. A couple plays later, Randle El takes a pitch and runs around right end, then throws and completes a pass to Heinz Ward for a TD.

I would submit that without the two key calls made here (the holding and illegal block) that (1) Seattle scores at least a field goal, and probably a touchdown and (2) Pittsburgh does not score. Would that be reasonable or not? Others feel free to chime in on this one too!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I found a clip online of that play from some bitter Seahawks fan the other day and the guy that supposedly jumped offsides had PERFECT timing. He went RIGHT when the ball moved and the holding clearly prevented him from sacking Hasselbeck. And Matty's point really is this (and my mantra lately is "can't see the forest for the trees):

If Seattle deserved to win, you think they would have been able to stop that long run by Parker. If Seattle deserved to win, Stevens wouldn't have dropped those passes. If Seattle deserved to win, they wouldn't have been burned on that play by Randle El that you HAD to know was coming. Even the announcers called it.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

If Seattle deserved to win, you think they would have been able to stop that long run by Parker. If Seattle deserved to win, Stevens wouldn't have dropped those passes. If Seattle deserved to win, they wouldn't have been burned on that play by Randle El that you HAD to know was coming. Even the announcers called it.

The crux of my argument is that officiating interfered heavily with the outcome of the game. Obviously, you don't see it that way and your argument is simply that Seattle didn't play well enough to win and Pittsburgh did. Personally, I enjoyed watching Seattle being abused. I think they're in a soft division with no real competition and I think Chicago or Carolina might have represented the NFC better.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

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.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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".

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

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?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.