Why I left the Roethlisberger TD out of my article
 

Some readers have commented on why I did not include the Big Ben TD which was looked at on replay as one of the "bad calls" in the Super Bowl. Here's why:

1) IMHO Roethlisberger did score, but barely. Let's just say that no replay showed CONCLUSIVE evidence that it was not a touchdown. The call on the field was TOUCHDOWN, and you need INDISPUTABLE evidence to overturn the call. I saw nothing that made me scream at the officials on that play other than the late signal by the side judge.

2) Challenges are worthless inside the one yard line unless it is fourth down. In Super Bowl XXXVIII, Christian Fauria caught a touchdown pass which was shown on film to be a touchdown but ruled incomplete on the field. Bill Belichick did not challenge the call, though he would have won the challenge. Why?

Because there was defensive holding on the play, which gave the Patriots the ball at the one. On the next play, Antowain Smith ran it in for the touchdown. So, the Patriots get their score anyway and save a challenge. Why use up a challenge when you can simply plow in from the one on the next play?

In this case, it was just inside the 2:00 warning, so this was a booth review. Even if the booth overturned the touchdown, I submit that Pittsburgh merely scores from inside the one on the next play. Unless you are named Tom Moore and run the Colt offense, you are almost guaranteed a score in that situation.

That is why I did not include this touchdown as one of the bad calls of the night. I actually agreed with it.

Bob G

you know what who really gives a **** what happened in that ****ty sb .im a pats fan first and foremost im interested in whats going on with them .

Excellent points, Bob. I agree, the Roth TD was shaky, especially considering the line judge was clearly leaning towards a non-TD call... but clearly, not enough to really overrule it conclusively.

And again, who cares? Like you said, on the 1 yard line, it's a score unless you have a horseshoe on your helmet.

we watched that play 10 times on tivo... and pretty much agreed it was a TD... there certainly was not evidence to overturn it

It would've been 4th down. Down 3-0 at that point, they likely would've taken the points and the tie.

That's what makes these calls so devastating....There is a huge difference in game calling depending on the whether a team has the lead, is behind or tied. Especially when Roth is operating with a 22 QB rating

Over at KFFL, a Stealers fan posted this pic, which was from a collage of photos he had (or some other Stealers fan) had from the SB, claiming it was proof that Ben got in:
http://photobucket.com/albums/v469/R...rent=proof.jpg
Notice though that what he circled (claiming it was the football) is actually Ben'S ARM. The football is up and to the right of there, in Ben's chest - and NOT across the goal line.

I agree though that this was the most marginal call - there were many that were far, far worse.

I heard that Big Ben was on the David Letterman show and admitted that he didn't think he scored.

You know the chin would have been conservative and kicked the FG.

The major problem I had with the maybe TD was that it appeared as if the official was running to spot the ball and changed his mind. If he had called it no TD, it would have stood as well because of the whole conclusive evidence thing. In his hesitation, he seemed to think, what the heck, let's err on the side of the Steelers scoring.

But if he had just spotted the dang ball, the Steelrs may have indeed gotten a conclusive score on 4th down, or they would have kicked the FG and tied the game. Was the Ben TD any more conclusive than the offensive pass interference that took away Seattle's first TD? Certainly not, imo. But they erred on the side of giving it to the Steelers, and taking it away from Seattle. That's just wrong, no matter what might have happened on 4th down.