posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:47 PM
I like that last line B.H.N.LOL.
Myself and many others I have heard believe it was a very poorly officiated game but it did not alter the final score. Well, no more than any bad
call does in any game. In an ideal world, among many other things the Super Bowl (at least) would be called perfectly by the zebras. But that is not
the world we live in, don't we all know!
Should they get together and say 'let's make sure no call (although not necessarily always producing the right call) alters the outcome'. No we
shouldn't. Calls will go one way and swing back the other, and some times they don't swing back. In the regular season, the playoffs and God forbid
the Super Bowl officials are a variable every team has to deal with. As I said earlier I don't think the officials determined the outcome. Ask
Antwan Randle El, Hines Ward, and Willie Parker (who were all part of "legit" TDs, and with the 14 point they produced it would have still been enough
to capture victory) who could have determined the outcome.
As for the goal line play, I liked the call. More than that though I liked the way the referee made his decision without unduly delay. When it was
challenged he looked at the play and saw no "inconclusive visual evidence" to contradict the call, so it stood. He made a decision that he knew would
be unpopular, but it was his call to make. You may say he bombed it, but not me.
I also think there is extensive confusion regarding the definition of "inconclusive visual evidence". You would think/hope there is a clear cut
definition for it, but there is no way to ensure each official is on the same page. Certainly there are times two people can very easily see a play
two totally, different ways.(i.e. the Rothlisberger TD) We see one official overturn plays with regularity and another almost never overturn calls.
It is because as the official varies the definition of "inconclusive visual evidence" also varies.
So, what is the solution? First I would start by hiring full-time, very well screened, members of an exclusive zebra club (full-time refs). Although
this would not put a definate end to bad calls, you would like to think it would help. I don't know what strain that would put on the league budget,
but since it won't increase revenue it probably won't happen. Next, I would make sure every rule is clear to everyone. Like the "football move"
rule. What the **** does that mean? The last thing I would do is nix the instant replay! That's right gone, no more challenges or "inconclusive
visual evidence" debates. Officials have been a part of every sport for a LONG time. It's not like it will give any one team an advantage, it will
be an even playing field. Oh, and did I mention that's the way sports were meant to be played. Just my opinion.
The other thing, which I think B.H.N. may have been hinting at is corruption. In the the world we do live in, a poorly officiated "big game" in any
sport will raise questions about corruption. I know it happens, I just hope not as much as some want to think. While everything else crumbles to
corporate America and dirty rich guys trying to get richer, why wouldn't sports?