It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


American Football: Super Bowl Party at Toejams house

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:00 PM
I agree, retaining Alexander is key. He will want big money now but Seattle has to make it happen. Give him 4 years and pay him what he deserves ---he'll be back if that happens, i would hope--- I look for them to be right there in the hunt again next year. Holmgren may have made some slips last night but we all know he is a great coach.


posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:08 PM
I'm sorry that I missed your party, tj.

I hope that you enjoyed the game, even though your team got royally screwed by the officials. What was the worst call of the game?

A. Rothlesberger's "touchdown"
B. The phantom pass interference call on Jackson
C. The blocking call on Hasselback after the interception
D. The "holding" call on Seattle

IMO, the one that hurt the most was the pass interference call, it was still early in the game, and Jackson wasn't much of a factor after that play.

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 06:16 PM
The offensive PI call on Jackson was horrible. The phantom block on Seattle was bad also. The "blocking" penalty on Hasselbeck wasn't even a block he was going to make a tackle after an INt, wasn't he?!? I would have to agree that the Jackson call so early in the game surely was deflating for Seattle.

I don't see the goal line play as even being a "bad call", ecspecially compared to some of the others. Oh well, we can't all agree on everything.

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 07:16 PM
There are two long articles on, both written by regular columnists, which just excoriate these blind/corrupt (take your choice; it's gotta be one or the other) officials for how they systematically ruined the Super Bowl.

As I said, it was the worst non-massacre Super Bowl I've ever seen, and worse than a lot of the massacres, because a lot of the time I enjoyed who was getting massacred.

I am simply not willing to believe that eight men, even though they're part time officials and full-time workers in unrelated jobs, can be THAT terrible. It's gotta be more than that. This game wasn't as bad as New England-Denver, and no call was as bad as the "fumble" call on Polamalu against the Colts, but it's by FAR the worst-officiated Super Bowl I've seen. Whichever SB is second, it doesn't even come to mind, that's how distant a second it is.

They castrate mules, right? Why not zebras?


posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:54 AM

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?


posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:19 PM
I agree with most of what you have said, ia.

However, I must argue that the officiating did alter the outcome of the game. The pass interference call on Jackson in the first quarter specifically. At that point in the game, the Seahawks had been dominating. Scoring the first touchdown of the game would have increased Seattles momentum. Instead, big mo swung the other way. Jackson didn't get a single reception after that play, after tying a Super Bowl record for receptions in a quarter.

Take away the 75 yards on Parker's run, and the 43 yard recpetion by Ward, and the Seahawks out-gained the Steelers 410-229 yards. Even with those two plays included, the Seahawks outgained the Steelers by73 yards.

IMO, the better team didn't win, and it wasn't necessarily because the Steelers outplayed them.

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:26 PM

You see it one way, I see it another. I am more than certain you and I both are mature enough to understand that happens. I do disagree with you but totally respect your opinion.

IF you take away those plays there is a rather large difference in offensive production. And 73 yards isn't all that much difference. Many teams have won many games but got outgained by more than 73 yards. But the run by Parker was a big play with GREAT blocking....Did he even get touched? The play to Ward was a gamebreaker, a "check your testicular fortitude to see if you meet the requirements to call this one" play. I may be giving it a little too much credit but, bottom line is that it was a GREAT call.

Jackson's push was a call that didn't need to made, but he did push off and we have all seen it called like that before. Big momentum swinger, I understand. Big game, don't call a little pansy penalty, that I also understand. We will never know if officiating altered the outcome. So like I said, I agree there were bad calls, but Pittsburgh also got it done. And as you said, not necessarily because they outplayed them.


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in