Seattle got jobbed

[Pistons < Spurs]

No, sorry. He has to be in bounds. The pylon marks the plane of the goal line. You aren't in bounds if you kick it.

It happened earlier this year with M Vick.

The talked about it on ESPN and said it fell under the same ruling as the Vick scenario.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...tm?POE=SPOISVA

Vick gave the lead back to Atlanta with his 2-yard dive for the pylon, capping a drive that included a 36-yard pass to Brian Finneran.

"Because Mike Vick told me to," Mora told The Associated Press. "He said 'Challenge it, we'll win it.' You listen to what No. 7 says."

The run was ruled a touchdown after replays showed Vick kept his leg in bounds as his body flew over the pylon, the ball in his hands.

"It is hard to defend the quarterback," said Saints coach Jim Haslett. "He does a great job. He made a nice play. I guess his hand touched the pylon. I thought the ball was outside the pylon, but if any part of your body touches the pylon it is a touchdown."

[Obstructed_View]

It happened earlier this year with M Vick.

The talked about it on ESPN and said it fell under the same ruling as the Vick scenario.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...tm?POE=SPOISVA

Whoever was talking about it on ESPN was incorrect, if this was indeed what they were suggesting. Vick was in bounds with posession of the ball and went across the pylon. Since the NFL goal line extends to infinity and vick crossed it before touching down out of bounds it was ruled a touchdown. If a receiver hasn't caught the ball and gotten two feet down in the field of play, nothing he does after that matters. A player that was never in bounds never had possession of the ball, and a player without possession of the ball cannot possibly score a touchdown. The pylon is in bounds only as a marker. It does not extend the field of play onto its surface.

[Dre_7]

Whoever was talking about it on ESPN was incorrect, if this was indeed what they were suggesting. Vick was in bounds with posession of the ball and went across the pylon. Since the NFL goal line extends to infinity and vick crossed it before touching down out of bounds it was ruled a touchdown. If a receiver hasn't caught the ball and gotten two feet down in the field of play, nothing he does after that matters. A player that was never in bounds never had possession of the ball, and a player without possession of the ball cannot possibly score a touchdown. The pylon is in bounds only as a marker.

Exactly. Otherwise guys could catch the ball in the endzone with one foot out of bounds at the side of the endzone. You have to catch the ball with both feet in bounds. It was a good call. Stop looking for more excuses please.

[TexasAggie2005]

MLB Officials have less opportunity to screw up. There's not as much to watch, and their calls have less of an impact on the game than in any other sport.

In Hockey, Basketball, and Football, you could probably call some kind of penalty on every play and it's up to the officials to choose which ones to call.

In baseball, usually the calls are pretty obvious, except on certain balls and strikes and some bang-bang plays at a base.

I've seen some pretty oddly shaped strike zones though.

[MannyIsGod]

The Seahawks DID make plays when they needed to. Unfortunately the refs decided to negate the plays.

Really? Like those 2 end of half drives? Like those 2 missed field goals?

Give it a ing rest. Seattle blew this .

[Spurminator]

I've seen some pretty oddly shaped strike zones though.

No doubt, there will always be umpires like Eric Gregg who will find SOME way to screw up a baseball game... But they're very rare.

[tlongII]

Really? Like those 2 end of half drives? Like those 2 missed field goals?

Give it a ing rest. Seattle blew this .

How many ing plays do they need to make? Darrell Jackson should have had a TD. They should have had the ball on the 1 yard line in the 2nd half. Both got called back erroneously. Why not call back Willie Parker's 75 yard run or Pitt's trick play? That would make it even.

[TheAdmiral#50]

I've seen some pretty oddly shaped strike zones though.

HAHAHA, QFT!

[Obstructed_View]

How many ing plays do they need to make? Darrell Jackson should have had a TD. They should have had the ball on the 1 yard line in the 2nd half. Both got called back erroneously. Why not call back Willie Parker's 75 yard run or Pitt's trick play? That would make it even.

Jackson should have had a TD, but he pushed off. Are you saying he didn't? It looked pretty obvious to me. If he didn't need to push off to gain an advantage, then WHY DID HE DO IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE OFFICIAL? Why is it the official's fault that he called it? The guy pushed the defender away. Even if the defender flopped, he didn't put Jackson's hand on him. If there was no need for the contact, then the guy who initiated it is responsible for the fact that it was called.

It's the same with the hold. The guy was holding. Was the official supposed to take into account the fact that it might really be bad for Seattle if he threw the flag? No. The ball should not have been on the one yard line because the quarterback should have gotten hit by the defenseman, who couldn't get there because he was held.

You people are unbelievable.

[tlongII]

Jackson should have had a TD, but he pushed off. Are you saying he didn't? It looked pretty obvious to me. If he didn't need to push off to gain an advantage, then WHY DID HE DO IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE OFFICIAL? Why is it the official's fault that he called it? The guy pushed the defender away. Even if the defender flopped, he didn't put Jackson's hand on him. If there was no need for the contact, then the guy who initiated it is responsible for the fact that it was called.

It's the same with the hold. The guy was holding. Was the official supposed to take into account the fact that it might really be bad for Seattle if he threw the flag? No. The ball should not have been on the one yard line because the quarterback should have gotten hit by the defenseman, who couldn't get there because he was held.

You people are unbelievable.

Do you know ANYTHING about football? That call on D-Jack was bogus! There was very little contact and you never see that call made. The holding call was simply non-existant. It didn't occur. The ref made it up. You are the unbelievable one.

[Obstructed_View]

Do you know ANYTHING about football? That call on D-Jack was bogus! There was very little contact and you never see that call made. The holding call was simply non-existant. It didn't occur. The ref made it up. You are the unbelievable one.

I obviously know more about football than you do, because pass interference calls are made every single week in the NFL. There's nothing in the rulebook about "Very little contact" being acceptable. If you go back and watch it (as I am doing while typing this) it was a big enough push to create the separation he needed. Again, if the player didn't gain an advantage from it, he should have just caught the ball and gotten his six points instead of initiating contact and pushing off right in front of the official.

I'm now watching the second play you've been complaining about. Sorry to tell you, but Sean Locklear held. He had him by the jersey under the arm. The ONLY reason Clark Haggans didn't get a sack on that play is because Locklear held him up. You aren't allowed to grab a fistful of jersey.

It also happened on first down so Seattle had plenty of time to show up. They didn't. Seattle, in my opinion, should have gotten a first down later in that series because Joey Porter horsecollared Alexander. It's all moot since the series ended with Hasselbeck throwing a terrible pass directly to the defender. Was that the officials' fault too?

I'd suggest that you were conveniently forgetting the two Seattle turnovers that were whistled dead and ruled incomplete, making both un-reviewable, but you seem to only want to argue the calls that cost Seattle big plays, so that seems unnecessary.

[IceColdBrewski]

You people are unbelievable.

What's unbelievable are people like you (that happen to be part of a very distinct minority by the way) who actually think the game's outcome wasn't severely impacted by the shoddy, inconsistent, and overzealous officiating in favor of pittsburgh. Next time watch the game with your eyes open. It's a whole different experience.

On a side note, did anyone catch Big Ben's interview with David Letterman? He said himself that he didn't think he made into the endzone, and told Cowher the same.

I personally thought he probably (no clear eveidence from the replays) made it in by one RCH, based on his forward momentum. But it's interesting to hear from the guy who was actually carrying the ball say that he didn't think he made it.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Do you know ANYTHING about football? That call on D-Jack was bogus! There was very little contact and you never see that call made. The holding call was simply non-existant. It didn't occur. The ref made it up. You are the unbelievable one.

Not entirely true. They've made the offensive PI call more so this year than any year I can remember.

It's not a bogus call, just an inconsistent one.

[tlongII]

Locklear was not holding.

[Obstructed_View]

What's unbelievable are people like you (that happen to be part of a very distinct minority by the way) who actually think the game's outcome wasn't severely impacted by the shoddy, inconsistent, and overzealous officiating in favor of pittsburgh. Next time watch the game with your eyes open. It's a whole different experience.

First of all, just because the kooks and the morons and the people that repeat things they hear other people say are making mountains out of this particular molehill doesn't mean that they cons ute the majority of people. In addition, the vast majority of people who watch the Super Bowl are not really football fans and don't understand the difference between a false start and offsides. Inferring that my logic, which I've spelled out quite clearly over and over again, based upon watching the plays in question over and over again is somehow a result of blindness is laughable.

I've been saying for a while that the officiating in the NFL has been terrible, particularly since instant replay was brought back, but the Super Bowl wasn't as badly officiated as many of the other playoff games this year. There were still the two plays that should probably have been turnovers for the Steelers, so any problem in the officiating wasn't in favor of the Steelers.

But that's not the part I think is unbelievable.

The unbelievable part to me is the people on this board, who are supposed to be sports fans, and therefore more knowledgable than non-sports fans, think that Seattle should have been allowed to break the rules in order to win the game because they broke the rules 'just a little'. Everyone agrees that Jackson pushed off, but they seem to think that the degree of pushing off, even though the push-off resulted in a touchdown, should have been overlooked. The offensive lineman, with a fistfull of jersey, slowed up the pass rusher just enough to allow a big completion, but he should have been allowed to do it because it wasn't obvious on the replay angle shown on TV.

I thought that Ben didn't get in, but the replay shows what looks like a lace of the ball in his grasp and it looks like it might be across the plane. It's not difinitive so it wasn't enough to reverse any call made on the field. It's obviously close enough that nobody can say for sure. It might have been a bad call, but it's not nearly the scandal some would make it.[/QUOTE]

[Obstructed_View]

Locklear was not holding.

He was grasping the rusher's jersey. By rule it's a hold. If you want to be a homer that's fine, but read the rulebook.

[tlongII]

He was grasping the rusher's jersey. By rule it's a hold. If you want to be a homer that's fine, but read the rulebook.

Bull . All O-lineman grab the jersey. If it's inside the shoulders it is not called.

[Obstructed_View]

Bull . All O-lineman grab the jersey. If it's inside the shoulders it is not called.

If all O-lineman grabbed the jersey, they'd get called for it. He also hooked the rusher under his arm to impede his progress, which is also a hold. Again, you should just admit that you think the rules shouldn't apply to the Seahawks.

[Horry For 3!]

As all the ESPN analysis have said.....You need to just get the over it already. Superbowl is over, you didn't do good enough to win, you just gotta get over it and work harder next year.

To tlong: GET THE OVER IT! Steelers = Superbowl Champions

It is already a new year now for football.

[TheAdmiral#50]

Found this on another site...

[tlongII]

If all O-lineman grabbed the jersey, they'd get called for it. He also hooked the rusher under his arm to impede his progress, which is also a hold. Again, you should just admit that you think the rules shouldn't apply to the Seahawks.

Bull . You apparently don't watch O-linemen.

[hussker]

HOLMGREN'S FABLES

[dbestpro]

Anyone consider the irony of someone named obstructed view defending the superbowl refs?

[IceColdBrewski]

Anyone consider the irony of someone named obstructed view defending the superbowl refs?

Methinks maybe rose collored glasses were his only obstruction on Super Bowl Sunday.

[Obstructed_View]

Methinks you guys have nothing if all you can do is take shots at my handle. In the land of the blind, the obstructed view is king. To paraphrase Mark Cuban, I own you.