Was it INCOMPETENCE or was it PERSONAL BIAS??

[mikey]

I thought it wasn't incompetence but prejudice on the part of the officials.

Every time Seattle threaten to score, you KNEW KNEW the officials were gonna throw the flag.

You KNEW they were NOT going to let Seattle take the lead or gain any momentum.

ALL the close calls went AGAINST Seattle.

When Hasselbeck hit the ground, you KNEW they were gonna call it a FUMBLE.

Pittsburgh got all the BENEFIT of the doubt.

Seattle got all the BUM calls.

.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I thought it wasn't incompetence but prejudice on the part of the officials.

Every time Seattle threaten to score, you KNEW KNEW the officials were gonna throw the flag.


Seattle got all the BUM calls.

.

You forgot the 15 yd chop block penalty on a tackle on Hasselbeck......
To me that was the worst.....

 

[BelichickFan]

Just like our game vs. Denver, it's tough to beat a good team and the refs. Maybe they should get some younger refs and make them full time. Full time refs, wow, what a concept.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Whats the record for having touchdowns called back in the SB? Whatever it is Seattle must now own it.

I had no problems with the holding call on the first Seattle non-touchdown, the tackle clotheslined the DE and it was without a doubt a flagrant hold.

The Offensive Pass Interference was a terrible call, the guy was making his cut back long before he pushed off, and I don't even think he got any push from that at all. Bad Call.

I also thought that the Jureivous non-catch was indeed a catch and a fumble (which Pittsburg ignored and ended up going out of bounds around the 10 yard line), I don't know if they blew the whistle and called the play dead, but I thought that Holmgren should have challenged the call. He clearly caught the ball and had both feet down, was moving up field and even tucked the ball under his arm, before fumbling it. Yet another bad call that went Pittsburgs way.

There was another holding call on Seattle on another big pass play, that I could not even see where they thought it was holding.

But the chop block on Hasselbeck when he made the tackle on the interception. That was ridiculous! Whats most distrubing about this one, is the ref had to really think about that, it's not like he thought he saw something that he didn't, it was just making up something to call. Which leads you to think that they were of a mindset to make calls on Seattle.

Pittsburg might be the most unimpressive SB winner since Dallas beat Pittsburg a few years ago (both teams played terrible that night, however Neal O'Donnel was horrible).

Either way, if was a Seahawk fan, I be doing some *****ing this morning.

 

[The Gr8est]

Whats the record for having touchdowns called back in the SB? Whatever it is Seattle must now own it.

I had no problems with the holding call on the first Seattle non-touchdown, the tackle clotheslined the DE and it was without a doubt a flagrant hold.

The Offensive Pass Interference was a terrible call, the guy was making his cut back long before he pushed off, and I don't even think he got any push from that at all. Bad Call.

I also thought that the Jureivous non-catch was indeed a catch and a fumble (which Pittsburg ignored and ended up going out of bounds around the 10 yard line), I don't know if they blew the whistle and called the play dead, but I thought that Holmgren should have challenged the call. He clearly caught the ball and had both feet down, was moving up field and even tucked the ball under his arm, before fumbling it. Yet another bad call that went Pittsburgs way.

There was another holding call on Seattle on another big pass play, that I could not even see where they thought it was holding.

But the chop block on Hasselbeck when he made the tackle on the interception. That was ridiculous! Whats most distrubing about this one, is the ref had to really think about that, it's not like he thought he saw something that he didn't, it was just making up something to call. Which leads you to think that they were of a mindset to make calls on Seattle.

Pittsburg might be the most unimpressive SB winner since Dallas beat Pittsburg a few years ago (both teams played terrible that night, however Neal O'Donnel was horrible).

Either way, if was a Seahawk fan, I be doing some *****ing this morning.

The problem is that it is hardly a Seattle problem. It is an NFL problem.

Right now you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about the integrity of the NFL. There is an outcry from football fans everywhere in the country after this year's playoffs,and I'm sure there are more than a few Steelers fans who are more concerned than they want to let on right now.

Steelers fans are good football fans, and it isn't their fault what the referees did in this game. If it had been us, we'd certainly not want our mood dampened by this...winning the Superbowl is what ALL NFL fans want to see for their team. If the Steelers had thoroughly outplayed the Seahawks, which they didn't, they would STILL need to be concerned about the overall officiating this playoff season. It seems apparent that the NFL didn't really want THEM in the SB either.

This could all be for the good if the NFL cleans up their act by getting better, and full time referees, and let the players play what is a physical game. Let the players play and tell Polian and his ilk to get a grip.

Failure to do so could be a serious blow to the future of the NFL.

Remember, boxing used to be above board too.

 

[stcjones]

great analogy

The problem is that it is hardly a Seattle problem. It is an NFL problem.

Right now you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder about the integrity of the NFL. There is an outcry from football fans everywhere in the country after this year's playoffs,and I'm sure there are more than a few Steelers fans who are more concerned than they want to let on right now.

Steelers fans are good football fans, and it isn't their fault what the referees did in this game. If it had been us, we'd certainly not want our mood dampened by this...winning the Superbowl is what ALL NFL fans want to see for their team. If the Steelers had thoroughly outplayed the Seahawks, which they didn't, they would STILL need to be concerned about the overall officiating this playoff season. It seems apparent that the NFL didn't really want THEM in the SB either.

This could all be for the good if the NFL cleans up their act by getting better, and full time referees, and let the players play what is a physical game. Let the players play and tell Polian and his ilk to get a grip.

Failure to do so could be a serious blow to the future of the NFL.

Remember, boxing used to be above board too.

"Remember, boxing used to be above board too."

GREAT analogy........this is exactly the direction that the NFL is going in at this point.....fraudulent

 

[maverick4]

re:

This is a SERIOUS question.

Did anyone else hear that the back judge who called the offensive interference penalty grew up near Pittsburgh and played college ball there?

I heard it on the radio today, and I can't believe that's allowed among officials.

I wonder how many of those bad calls that same official was involved in...

 

[flutie2phelan]

Just like our game vs. Denver, it's tough to beat a good team and the refs. Maybe they should get some younger refs and make them full time. Full time refs, wow, what a concept.

You good folks who think that the bad officiating was just innocent human error ... have to somehow explain the statistical improbability ... that three key games (@ Indy, @Denver, @Detroit) should EACH display a half-dozen or so egregious wrong calls and non-calls ... all cutting one way ... with no comparable "compensatory" calls.

After the conference games, and the league's official apology for the Polamalu replay ... one ref realized that he couldn't uphold the Hasselbeck "fumble" call from under the hood. But aside from that ... why do you presume that these flagrantly wrong calls and non-calls were all honest?

Would "younger" or "full time" refs be immune to bribery?

 

[PatsFan-NH]

I think the problem may not be the refs, or even that they aren't full time.

I want to know how long Pierra (SP?) has been the head of the Officials ?

At some point someone was talking about the refs watching tapes of the teams they were going to have in their game, and then meetings where 'points of emphasis' were gone over. What is being presented and how ?

Now you have the people who hire you, train you, also grade and promote you ? Something is wrong there, where is the independent quality control ? So as a ref, you are going to listen to what they say, how they say it, and maybe even fill in the blanks. How are these 'points of emphasis' presented. Is team A portrayed as habitual offenders, is team B viewed as needing some help to 'compete' ?

There is more than incompetence when refs come out like guided missiles aimed at a specific team, and often not just one official, but several of the officials. I don't know if it is a conspiracy - so much as something that is presented in such a way as to develop a bias in the officials. And when it comes from those who control your fate, then you pay attention.

So I think it is neither incompetence nor personal bias, but the result of institutional decisions made by the NFL in terms of hiring, training and promoting. Whether there is a person or a group at the center of it all, trying for specific outcomes I don't know, but the problem for the NFL is that it looks like there is. They are going down the road to joining the WWF, and boxing as someone else mentioned.

In short THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES, AND THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT.

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

the nfl obviously has bigger problems than the cba

 

[B-LO Baby]

This has nothing to do with the age or full-time status of the refs. This game was fixed. Period.

 

[PatsFan-NH]

I was watching a SB reaction show on cable and there were 3 sports guys from 3 different cities in the US talking about the game and the bad officiating. They all agreed that one of the problems seems to be that with the reliance on review, refs have become unsure of what to call. The refs know it will be reviewed, and they don't want to be wrong and look bad. Then they get together and try to decide what to do, but by then the truth or reality of the moment is gone and they are more easily swayed by externals or minor stuff.

They also seem to try to call a little of this and of that and so when there is a review there isn't enough 'indisputible visual evidence' to overrule what may have ended up becoming a bad call on the field. Rothlessburger's TD was the example. If it had been called short, there wouldn't have been enough to overrule, they wouldn't have given points to the Steelers, but it would have been so close that they had another chance to score - and the Hawks to stop them. But because of the fear and dither factor they called it a TD and were stuck with it. Someone on the cable show said that they thought the refs themselves are actually confused about how to enforce the rules.

It made me think of watching the NFL network with the officiating recap - Pierra (SP?). He goes to great lengths to try to explain how every call is really correct. And you get these tortured explanations about what is a catch, what is down, what is in-bounds, what is a TD, the football move. But their inability to stand up and accept criticism (their inate Manning tendencies ) pushes the envelope as to what is ok as a play, and what is actually a penalty or what constitutes a play failure.

If he gives this explanation publically then does it become a precedent for how this situation should be evaluted in the future, and what the refs should use to determine their calls ? Who can they ask, because admiting they don't know, to the people who grade them would seem to be professional suicide. So they keep it quiet and just muddle through and the fans and the teams are paying for it.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

I haven't even seen that, I was so disgusted I turned it off.

 

[big mike]

Whats the record for having touchdowns called back in the SB? Whatever it is Seattle must now own it.

Definitely - and the most yardage lost to penalties - especially "phantom penalties".

I had no problems with the holding call on the first Seattle non-touchdown, the tackle clotheslined the DE and it was without a doubt a flagrant hold.

I agree - that was essentially the only legit call on them (other than a false start penalty). There were 5 other penalties called on them that ranged from highly dubious to downright outrageous, plus some other times they were screwed (the Ben TD, and Jackson SHOULD have had a TD at the end of the first half, on the long pass in which one foot touched in bounds, and the other then hit the pylon. See http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1354105.html
"A player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. For example, a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds.")

All in all, there was a swing of 29 points IMO made by the officials. That's absolutely horrendous.

There was another holding call on Seattle on another big pass play, that I could not even see where they thought it was holding.

And don't forget another phantom holding penalty on a big 33 yard punt return - another time the commentators couldn't find any penalty, since there clearly was none.

But the chop block on Hasselbeck when he made the tackle on the interception. That was ridiculous! Whats most distrubing about this one, is the ref had to really think about that, it's not like he thought he saw something that he didn't, it was just making up something to call. Which leads you to think that they were of a mindset to make calls on Seattle.

Yes, that one and the hold on the long pass play shortly before that were really the ones that made me lean much more towards them being outright biased and fixing them game, rather than it just being bad officiating that through an extreme coincidence all went one team's way.

Pittsburg might be the most unimpressive SB winner since Dallas beat Pittsburg a few years ago (both teams played terrible that night, however Neal O'Donnel was horrible).

I personally feel sick every time I see footage on TV now of Ben or any of those guys holding up the Lombardi. Sure, it's nice to see Bettis win one, but the way that game was fixed calls into question the entire league, and even makes me wonder about past Super Bowls. When fans start wondering if it really matters how good a team is, since the refs are determining the outcome of key games, the sport is in serious trouble.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

There's still websites in St. Louis dedicated to the complaint that the game was fixed in favor of the Pats - connected to 9/11 and all.

 

[Mike the Brit]

You good folks who think that the bad officiating was just innocent human error ... have to somehow explain the statistical improbability ... that three key games (@ Indy, @Denver, @Detroit) should EACH display a half-dozen or so egregious wrong calls and non-calls ... all cutting one way ... with no comparable "compensatory" calls.

After the conference games, and the league's official apology for the Polamalu replay ... one ref realized that he couldn't uphold the Hasselbeck "fumble" call from under the hood. But aside from that ... why do you presume that these flagrantly wrong calls and non-calls were all honest?

Would "younger" or "full time" refs be immune to bribery?

I'm always very reluctant to believe in conspiracies (experience suggests that human incompetence is very deep-seated). Undoubtedly the officiating in the games you refer to was awful -- and one-sidedly so, as you say. But it isn't hard to understand that referees are intimidated by a one-sided crowd (note: @Indy; @Denver). You only have to watch the way that soccer referees are intimidated by Manchester United and their very aggressive manager/players/crowd (allowed crucial blatantly off-side goal last Saturday -- ho hum, business as usual).

The Superbowl itself is harder to understand, of course, though there were more Steeler fans than Seahawks in the stadium.

But what's the alternative? The Steelers paid off the officials in the SB but didn't in the AFCC? Or the Colts paid more? And the whole crew have to be in on it -- do you think that it would be possible to keep that a secret?

I'm still skeptical.

 

[MDPATSFAN]

After watching the playoffs....It seems to me that the league wanted a fairy tale ending to the season before the ugly CBA negotiations. Storyline "A" was to have America's Sweet Heart Peyton win it all...When even the refs couldn't salvage the desired outcome during his annual playoff choke job, Storyline "B" became "Win this for the Bus".

Watching the media gloss over the elephant in the room is sickening.

 

[Michael]

I thought it wasn't incompetence but prejudice on the part of the officials.

Every time Seattle threaten to score, you KNEW KNEW the officials were gonna throw the flag.

You KNEW they were NOT going to let Seattle take the lead or gain any momentum.

ALL the close calls went AGAINST Seattle.

When Hasselbeck hit the ground, you KNEW they were gonna call it a FUMBLE.

Pittsburgh got all the BENEFIT of the doubt.

Seattle got all the BUM calls.

.

If you tried to say that on WEEI yesterday they would call you an angry NE fan that was just mad that the Steelers won and would talk over you until they eventually hung up on you. It was funny they accused anyone who tried to talk about the officiating as a bitter person angry because they lost their bets on Seattle.

I made a post about this a few days ago that said if the NFL doesn't do something about the officiating problem by next season then I'm done with it. It is embarrassing to be a fan of what is becoming a WWF league.

If there is no bias, then someone explain to me why all the borderline calls went Denver's way in week 2 and why all the borderline calls went Pitts way in the Super Bowl. I mean if it's just incompetence why don't we have good examples of borderline calls or calls at key times going the other way too?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

My direct answer to your very good question is somewhere between "It doesn't matter" and "We'll never know." There's a Pulitzer Prize waiting for the reporter(s) who can make a link between the calls and officiating bias in Sunday's game, but I'm not holding my breath.

To me, an even better question is "Did the officiating 'influence' or 'determine' the outcome of Sunday's game?" Even the most critical talking heads (Jaworski and Wilbon) have walked right up to the 'determine' line, but have not crossed it, saying that the Seahawks made enough mistakes that it's fair to say they lost the SB themselves, even though the officiating definitely influenced the outcome of the game. That's where I stand now.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

There's still websites in St. Louis dedicated to the complaint that the game was fixed in favor of the Pats - connected to 9/11 and all.

Wow. What comes to mind in that game are the innumerable great hits to the Rams receivers, or Marshall Faulk, with or without the ball (legal), and Vrabel's hand hitting Warner's helmet on the TY Law interception return. Do they ***** about these, or other stuff?