The officiating was Horrible!!!! Again

[shatch62]

Lets's count the ways:
1) Roethlisberger was not in the End zone on his TD. He was down at the 1 inch line. Line judge runs in but does not signal TD until he is right on top of the pile and Ben has moved the ball into the endzone. Would have made it 4 and goal and Pittsburgh wouldhave/might have settled for a FG.

2) Seattle's Mack Strongs run for a first down where the ball clearly landed on or beyond the first down marker but the refs moved it back. Seattle ends up punting.

3) Illegal block called on Hasselbeck WHEN HE IS MAKING A TACKLE!!!

4) Steelers play clock was at 0.0 when Roethlisberger called timeout but the refs said he called it in time. Steelers end up getting 7 yrds on a 3-6 when it should have been 3-11.

5) Steelers were called for no holdings. Pretty incredible that they ran the ball 33 times and passed it 22 (55 total plays) and were NEVER guily of a hold.

 

[BigEZPatsFan76]

Don't forget:


6) The ridiculously ticky tack call that brought back the Darrel Jackson TD in the first quarter,

7) The phantom holding call that brought the ball back to about the 40, when the Hawks should have had 1st and goal at the 1, early in the fourth, going for the lead.


EZ76

 

[CheerforTom]

You're right about most of those, but I don't see why everyone's in such an uproar about the Rothles... Ben touchdown run. It was certainly close, but I think if I was the ref I would have called it initially the way he did, and once it's being reviewed you can't overturn that, the ball was way too close to the line to conclusively say it didn't reach.

I think that call was another example (joining the Watson touchback hit) of how they need to rethink the policy of "only overturned if conclusive evidence is shown". Too much weight is put on the inital call in certain situations.

 

[kirjtc2]

I'm watching the post-game coverage on a local Seattle station. They're calling it everything short of a conspiracy.

 

[bobgeorge]

My postgame article expresses these sentiments. Don't forget that holding call on Locklear in the fourth quarter which in effect took six points off the board.

Bob G

 

[Murphys95]

I'm not a conspiracy buff, and admittedly the Seahawks had their chances, but boy were there a lot of officiating screw ups.

Add another one to your list, on the Randle-El Td pass, Roethlisberger "blocked" a defender in almost identical fashion to Hasselbeck.

No Consistency.

 

[DaBruinz]

You're right about most of those, but I don't see why everyone's in such an uproar about the Rothles... Ben touchdown run. It was certainly close, but I think if I was the ref I would have called it initially the way he did, and once it's being reviewed you can't overturn that, the ball was way too close to the line to conclusively say it didn't reach.

I think that call was another example (joining the Watson touchback hit) of how they need to rethink the policy of "only overturned if conclusive evidence is shown". Too much weight is put on the inital call in certain situations.

Cheer -
If you called it the same way the referee did, then you would be in the wrong and deserve to be fired as well. The Referee, who lines up in the backfield and is NOT in position to make the call, clearly over-ruled the side judge who was moving to mark the ball down. The side judge looked at the referee after he'd already moved to the scrum and still hadn't put his arm up.

 

[Michael]

I'm watching the post-game coverage on a local Seattle station. They're calling it everything short of a conspiracy.

Pretty much the same sentiment by the local sports media on the CBS affiliate here in Boston too.

 

[old 55]

I don't understand why no one is talking about

the "out of bounds" play by Seattle at the end of the 1st half.

The WR catches the ball, gets his left leg down and the right leg hits the pilon. The ref says "out of bounds." A couple of us watching the game say "TD"

After Brett Favres TD against us in the '96 SB where he was out of bounds and waived the ball over the pilon, I don't understand why this wasn't a clear cut TD and certainly not "out of bounds."

 

[Willie55]

Mike Pereira (sp?), Head of Officiating, must be proud.

 

[OldEnglandPatriot]

The Roethlisberger TD

This was one call I thought they got right. It looked to me - on first and subsequent viewing - like the ball fairly clearly nosed the goal-line, well before Roethlisberger went down.

 

[cubedoggy]

You're right about most of those, but I don't see why everyone's in such an uproar about the Rothles... Ben touchdown run. It was certainly close, but I think if I was the ref I would have called it initially the way he did, and once it's being reviewed you can't overturn that, the ball was way too close to the line to conclusively say it didn't reach.

I think that call was another example (joining the Watson touchback hit) of how they need to rethink the policy of "only overturned if conclusive evidence is shown". Too much weight is put on the inital call in certain situations.

That is just another instance that support's BB's desire for pylon cameras...a better look on the line would've settled it.

 

[captain stone]

I'm talking about it, too...

the "out of bounds" play by Seattle at the end of the 1st half.

The WR catches the ball, gets his left leg down and the right leg hits the pilon. The ref says "out of bounds." A couple of us watching the game say "TD"

After Brett Favres TD against us in the '96 SB where he was out of bounds and waived the ball over the pilon, I don't understand why this wasn't a clear cut TD and certainly not "out of bounds."

Unless I missed it during a potty break, there did not seem to be many and varying replays of that catch. Considering what transpired at the other end zone one minute earlier, the officials should have allowed the completed pass, and therefore touchdown, to stand. That way, each team would have felt both fortunate and victimized.
The incompetancy displayed tonight was mind-blowingly stunning.

 

[Johnny Mac]

the "out of bounds" play by Seattle at the end of the 1st half.

The WR catches the ball, gets his left leg down and the right leg hits the pilon. The ref says "out of bounds." A couple of us watching the game say "TD"

After Brett Favres TD against us in the '96 SB where he was out of bounds and waived the ball over the pilon, I don't understand why this wasn't a clear cut TD and certainly not "out of bounds."

I think you need to get both feet inbounds to establish possession. I don't think the pylon counts.

 

[DaBruinz]

This was one call I thought they got right. It looked to me - on first and subsequent viewing - like the ball fairly clearly nosed the goal-line, well before Roethlisberger went down.

OEP -
How can you tell? None of the replays were at an angle that was parallel to the goal line. They were all at angles. None of them could have clearly shown that hte boall nosed the goal line.

Also, it looked like Big Ben moved the ball into his breadbasket just prior to Tatupu or Hill hitting him and driving him back. That would suggest that the ball didn't, in fact, make it over the line. Otherwise, why would Ben have been scrambling to get it over after he was already down?

 

[texpat]

You're right about most of those, but I don't see why everyone's in such an uproar about the Rothles... Ben touchdown run. It was certainly close, but I think if I was the ref I would have called it initially the way he did, and once it's being reviewed you can't overturn that, the ball was way too close to the line to conclusively say it didn't reach.

I think that call was another example (joining the Watson touchback hit) of how they need to rethink the policy of "only overturned if conclusive evidence is shown". Too much weight is put on the inital call in certain situations.

In Dallas paper this morn,

it states that referee Bill Leavy used replay to overturn calls on the field a league-low 23 percent over the last three seasons.

Either he works with the best crew in the league, or he doesn't want to rule against his crew, or he doesn't like being questionned.

 

[captain stone]

I'm confused (again)...

I think you need to get both feet inbounds to establish possession. I don't think the pylon counts.

...but is the pylon not considered part of the end zone, therefore part of fair territory?
I suppose I am looking at any reason to delegitimize the Stealers' victory, but damn, that was brutal $h!t last night. Let this be a lesson to all HCs not on the league office's Nice List:
Play mistake-free ball.
If something is working, keep doing it until they stop it.
Play aggressively, i.e.: go for the 1st down on 4th and less than the length of the ball, even in your own territory. See: 2003 AFCC. (note to Mack Strong: You MUST make a better effort than that.)
Do not put the zebras in position to Steel the game from you.