Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

pudge (1)

pudge
  (email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)

I run this joint, see?

Journal of pudge (1)

Tuesday February 07, 2006
11:36 AM

Super Bowl Officiating

[ #28611 ]

It was very good. I watched every replay of a "bad" call, and there was only one bad one in the bunch: the Seahawks receiver who stepped out of bounds did, in fact, barely nick the pylon with his right leg, after getting possession and stepping in bounds with his left leg. That should have been a touchdown.

The offensive pass interference was clearly correct. He changed directions, straightened out his arm on the defensive player, and gave himself some momentum while taking away same from the other player. No question, correct call.

The hold on the lineman, same thing: the defensive player got past him, and he grabbed the guy's shoulder pad from behind. Absolutely no question, correct call.

Big Ben's touchdown, I am not entirely convinced was the right intial call, but I am 75 percent sure he got it across. But everyone seems to be telling me the video was not conclusive, so how can they be mad at the initial call, if you can't even tell from the video? Judgment call, can't tell from the video, so I have no problem with it.

And how come the Seahawks fans aren't talking about the interception and two missed field goals, without which they would have won regardless of these supposed "bad" calls?

Look, I complained about the bad call against the Patriots in the divisional playoff game, where the fumble clearly went through the end zone. However, I was quick to point out that Brady through an interception to put them in that situation, and their three other turnovers are what killed them.

The best team always wins, even with bad calls, because that's part of the game too. But in this case, the calls weren't bad anyway.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I didn't care which team won and I found myself just disappointed that the refs and calls had to be such a big part of the game.

    On the push-off in the end zone, I agree that by the absolute letter of the law, it was a penalty. However, officiating is done in the spirit of the law and I've seen the same play plenty of times when it wasn't called. The written rule doesn't mean as much when it is inconsistently enforced. In this case, I don't think they should have called it because I don't think the push matt
    • I didn't care which team won and I found myself just disappointed that the refs and calls had to be such a big part of the game.

      *shrug* They followed the rules. They rules are the game. I see no problem.

      In this case, I don't think they should have called it because I don't think the push mattered that much.

      That it mattered at all should be enough. That said, if it didn't matter, why did he do it? I see no reasonable complaint here.

      There was another bad call on a phantom chop block when Hasselbeck tackle
      • By definition, the team who wins is the best team on the given day.

        When you put it that way, it made me realize that in my mind, I don't have that absolute definition. That is, I think I have some idea in my head that in a perfectly officiated game, the winner is the best. In an imperfectly officiated game, the bad calls will fall equally because officials are human but not biased. In this case, the winner is also the best.

        But I think I also hold out for the possibility that in some cases, the team that

        • That is, I think I have some idea in my head that in a perfectly officiated game, the winner is the best. In an imperfectly officiated game, the bad calls will fall equally because officials are human but not biased. In this case, the winner is also the best.

          I hear that, but a game is made of rules, and those rules include the fact of fallible human officials, and whoever wins the game in the context of those rules is the best team at this game called "NFL football."

          But I think I also hold out for the possi
      • But, you are wrong, by definition. The best team did win, because that is what it means to win: you are therefore the best. There is no other way to measure which team is best. The goal of the team is to win, and whichever team accomplishes that goal is therefore the best team: by definition.

        I'll mention that to the 1972 US Olympic Basketball Team.

        • I'll mention that to the 1972 US Olympic Basketball Team.

          Implicit in my comments is that no one is cheating. I, along with many others, am convinced the officials cheated to give the USSR more chances to win. But even if you aren't, the point is that the 1972 U.S. Olympic Basketball Team certainly is so convinced, and so they would see the notion of "best team wins" doesn't apply to their case.
    • What makes you think Seattle would win two out of three games? The Steelers beat the 1, 2 and 3 seeds in the AFC, which is generally acknowledged as the better conference. Pittsburgh's offense played poorly for most of Sunday which I doubt would happen in successive games. (Plus, Pittsburgh and Buffalo are practically kissin' cousins!)

      I do wish we would only have one week between the conference and league championships. The break helps nobody but the media.

      • What makes you think Seattle would win two out of three games?

        The worst part is, it is just begging the question. Would it prove Seattle is the better team? If so, then why does one game not prove the Steelers are? If the Steelers won two, would they still not be better?

        The only best team in the league is the one that wins the Super Bowl. The only best team between two in a given game is the one that wins that game.

        There is a single exception I can think of: and that is when a team intentionally does no
    • The NFL isn't about the spirit of the law. The rules are a huge book. It is very detailed and there isn't much spirit in its law.

      If you were talking about soccer or rugby I would agree. The rule book is much thinner and is very much open to the interpretation of the ref on the field.

      American football definitely reflects our attitude about law, very technical and nitpicky.
  • You forgot the "chop block" against Hasselbeck. That has to be one of the worst calls I have ever seen, and definitely the worst call I've ever seen in the Superbowl.

    You're also forgetting the non-calls. On the critical holding penalty against Seattle, Pittsburgh was offsides. On the 3rd and 26, I heard (but have not confirmed) that Pittsburgh had men illegally downfield. The Porter horse collar. The should-have-been delay of game against Pittsburgh on 3rd and 8.

    True, Seattle did get a break on the