PDA

View Full Version : NFL referee admits he made game altering mistakes in the 2006 SuperBowl



Basketball Fan
08-06-2010, 09:56 PM
This just adds insult to injury

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5444048


NFL ref admits mistakes in Super Bowl

* Email
* Print
* Comments63

Associated Press

RENTON, Wash. -- NFL referee Bill Leavy acknowleded he made mistakes in the Seattle Seahawks' 2006 Super Bowl loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

The veteran official began an annual rules interpretation session with the Seattle media on Friday by bringing up the subject without being asked.

Leavy says he "kicked two calls in the fourth quarter" and "impacted the game, and as an official you never want to do that."

The veteran official of 15 NFL seasons says the game "left me with a lot of sleepless nights" and that "I'll go to my grave wishing that I'd been better."

This week is the first time since that game that Leavy has been in Seattle with the Seahawks.

travmil
08-06-2010, 11:06 PM
I will always remember when they penalized Hasselbeck for TACKLING the Pitt player after he threw that interception.

ChicagoJ
08-07-2010, 11:18 AM
Yawn.

Basketball Fan
08-07-2010, 12:35 PM
I will always remember when they penalized Hasselbeck for TACKLING the Pitt player after he threw that interception.



Me too but I just don't get the point of saying this now. It doesn't change anything the Steelers aren't going to lose the trophy etc the damage is done.


If I were this ref I'd have taken it to my grave.

ChicagoJ
08-07-2010, 12:50 PM
I'm not sure the article in the Seattle newspaper is even referencing the same thing the office is talking about.

The "illegal block" call on Hasselbeck was weird but not game chanigng. It was after the intereception. Its not like the Seahawks were getting the ball back.

The holding penalty was correct. Unfortuntaley, John Madden's announcing was even worse than the officiating (which has been typical of Madden for the last 10, 15 years). And the ABC replay video angles were of no help. From the endzone view, you can see Clark Hagaans getting drug to the ground on his blitz. That was the call. It wasn't on Joey's side of the field, which is what ABC kept showing. No wonder Madden was saying, "I don't see a hold here." Doofuses.

I assumed he was talking about Ben's touchdown in the first quarter. But anyone that has passed middle-school geometry knows that none of those replay angles were acceptable to determine if he "broke the plane" (as the camera has to be "in the plane"... at the goal line. Not the 10 yard line. Not the back of the endzone, nowhere else but the goal line.) So the call on the field was going to have to stand, right or wrong.

Since86
08-07-2010, 04:04 PM
I think I'll take the word of a NFL official, that's good enough to get a freaking Superbowl, than a die-hard Steelers fan that would probably drop dead if he ever uttered a negative word about the organization.

I would rather poke myself in the eyeball with needles than talk Steeler football with Jay. I respect the hell out of you but when it comes to the steelers?:suicide3:

Foul on Smits
08-07-2010, 09:19 PM
How bout the crap offensive pass interference on Jackson which screwed seattle out of a TD or the mysterious Rothlisberger 1 yard TD that didnt actually cross the line?

That's a 14 point swing right there. And the game ended up being 21-10......

ChicagoJ
08-08-2010, 01:43 AM
I think I'll take the word of a NFL official, that's good enough to get a freaking Superbowl, than a die-hard Steelers fan that would probably drop dead if he ever uttered a negative word about the organization.

I would rather poke myself in the eyeball with needles than talk Steeler football with Jay. I respect the hell out of you but when it comes to the steelers?:suicide3:

Tell me which plays he identified? He didn't identify any of the plays. He only identified "the fourth quarter". The plays mentioned by the Seattle newspaper were either (a) the right call or (b) nonconsequential.

The plays mentioned in the post above were in the first half, so the official must've thought he got those right. The Roethlesberger touchdown was a close call, no doubt about it. But there was no was to reverse it based on useless camera angles. Had the officials on the ground called it "short" then the replay would not have changed that either because the camera angles were useless.

As for the offensive pass interference, it happened. There may not have been the biggest push on the hip, but Chris Hope was dislodged in the opposite direction of the ball and couldn't make a play on it. Its the same concept as basketball - was an advantage gained? Maybe Chris Hope committed the first flop in the history of football? I know I'm a bit biased but I was yelling for that flag in real time because the advantage was gained and was the only way the pass was complete.

If he said, "I blew two gamechanging calls in the first half" then at least we'd know what he was talking about. In the fourth quarter? It couldn't have been the two plays mentioned by the newspaper. So which two plays was it?

Foul on Smits
08-08-2010, 02:25 AM
I feel like if you're not gunna specify what plays you blew, then keep your damn mouth shut. There's no sense in opening the wounds of seattle if you're just gunna generalize.

And for all we know, he may be talking about no flag calls.

Sollozzo
08-08-2010, 06:12 PM
He made these comments in Seattle and offered zero specifics. This gets a big yawn from me.

Since86
08-09-2010, 12:30 PM
We've went over this time, and time again, and I'm not gonna do it anymore.

If you want to puff out your chest, and get defensive, then have at it. But someone good enough to officiate a superbowl has come out and said he made mistakes, and I'm a lot more inclined to take his word, rather than a bunch of couch analysts, myself included.

I seriously doubt he'd come out and say something, and draw the ire of the league to pacify fans about a game 4 years old, if he didn't believe it.

ChicagoJ
08-09-2010, 01:32 PM
I seriously doubt he'd come out and say something, and draw the ire of the league to pacify fans about a game 4 years old, if he didn't believe it.

Yawn.

Then he should tell us which game-changing calls in the fourth quarter he "kicked". Fess up completely or keep your mouth shut.

Here's the article from the Seattle newspaper right after the game. The explanations of the calls aren't from a "couch analyst" but Jim Tunney himself. I'm not sure you can find a better authority on the subject of NFL officiating.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2002795956_theplays10.html

There were six calls that the Seahawks didn't like, but there are explanations for five of them. Since he did identify the calls were from the fourth quarter, we can eliminate four of them.

And re-reading that article, what you've got are six calls that could have gone in favor of the Seahawks but didn't. This list doesn't include any close calls that did go in favor of the Seahawks, so it is not a complete picture anyway.

So those calls: Close? Controversial? yes. Outright wrong? No. Could the judgment on certain of those calls have gone the other way? Sure. But I wouldn't think of that as a "kicked" call. And it would a different story if Darnell Jackson never put a hand on Chris Hope in the first quarter and if Locklear didn't wrap an arm around Haggans in the fourth quarter. I'm sure that bigger pushoffs and bigger holds have gone uncalled, but those were still pushoffs and holds, as explained by Dr. Tunney.

Same thing as Antonio Davis in the Garden. The bozo put his hands on Larry Johnson, making the four-point play possible. If he never fouled him, there would not have been a chance for the offical to make a controversial call on the play. I sure don't think that play should have been a "continuation" foul but I blame Antonio for committing the foul, not Jess Kersey for calling continuation.

No doubt the penalty on Hasselback was a terrible call, but not a game-changing call. The officials clearly should have just picked up their flag on that one.

And don't forget, the biggest part of the controversy over Locklear's grab of Haggans was that Madden circled the wrong side of the field with the telestrator when he said "there's no hold over here". He's right, there was no hold over there. We just don't know if Madden had turned into a complete doofus or was being disengenious, because as Dr. Tunney explains, there was something to circle on the other side of the field. Maybe there's an offsetting penalty for Clark being offsides before he's held, but that drive still ended in an interception, so I'm not sure that changing the call from "Holding" to "offsetting penalties" would have been game changing either.

Meanwhile, Cowher was 108-1-1 at holding an 11+ point lead, so I'm still not convinced that the officiating influenced the outcome. That team was outstanding at closing out games, and overcame its share of bad calls along the way (especially a particular overturned interception in the Hoosier Dome that the league immediately admitted to being a "kicked" call.)

That's what irks me. Over 2004/2005, the Steelers were the best team in football with a combined 26-6 regular season record and 5-1 in the playoffs, a Super Bowl win and Conference Title game loss. That's why they won Super Bowl XL, not the officiating.

Since86
08-09-2010, 02:08 PM
Yawn.

Then he should tell us which game-changing calls in the fourth quarter he "kicked". Fess up completely or keep your mouth shut.

I agree with this, but this still isn't the same as saying he's wrong.

In the end, does it really matter? No, they aren't going to change the outcome.

But like I said in my original post, when it comes to the Steelers, rationale gets thrown out the window.

Basketball Fan
08-10-2010, 08:34 AM
Mike Pereira speaks

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/ref-taking-super-mistakes-too-hard


Ref taking Super mistakes too hard
Mike Pereira was the NFL's Vice President of Officiating from 2004-09, having spent the five seasons previous to that as the league's Director of Officiating. He also served as an NFL game official when he acted as side judge for two seasons (1997-98).


PRINT RSS 36 comments »Updated Aug 9, 2010 3:19 PM ET
The recent remarks by referee Bill Leavy admitting to the Seattle Seahawks that he made two bad calls during their Super Bowl XL loss have rekindled the strong emotions of so many: those who are Seattle Seahawks fans, those who don't like the Pittsburgh Steelers, and even many Steelers fans and Steelers players who are insulted that Leavy's calls may have tainted their Super Bowl victory.

I have to admit that I was bit surprised when I read that Leavy addressed the calls with the media. Surprised, but not shocked.



Distant replay
Super Bowl XL referee Bill Leavy apologized to Seattle media publicly for botching two fourth-quarter calls. The calls:
Early in fourth quarter, Seahawks tackle Sean Locklear was called for holding on a completion that would have put the Seahawks at the Pittsburgh 1, poised for the go-ahead touchdown.
After the penalty, Matt Hasselbeck threw an INT, then was called for a mysterious low block on a play that ended with him tackling Pittsburgh's Ike Taylor on the defensive back's return. The penalty moved the Steelers from their 29 to the 44, giving Pittsburgh better field position to score the clinching TD four plays later.

Bill is one of the best referees we have in the NFL. He is a great communicator with players and coaches and has always been very accurate in his decision making. Ask most all of the coaches in the league and they will tell you they respect him. Even Mike Holmgren liked him before Super Bowl XL.

Like the other referees in the NFL, Leavy hates it when he makes a mistake and to make one in the Super Bowl makes it worse. It has been eating at him for four years. He wasn't kidding when he said he lost sleep and was miserable. We had many conversations about this. You live with that negative feeling as an official and it is hard to shake. Last week in Seattle, he found an opportunity to get it off his chest and admit that he had made mistakes. In my opinion, he was too hard on himself.

First, he didn't "kick" two calls in the fourth quarter. He was clearly incorrect when he called Matt Hasselbeck for a low block after the interception when Hasselbeck attempted to go low through a blocker in an attempt to make the tackle. It would only have been a foul if Matt would have made contact with the blocker, but he didn't, so it should not have been called.

Leavy piled on himself by saying that his holding call on Sean Locklear was incorrect. That is not true. It was a hold and should have been called. If anything, you could have made a case that the Steelers were offside and, if the play had been officiated correctly, the penalties would have offset and the down replayed. In any case, the reception would not have been allowed to stand.

Did Leavy's calls and the officiating, in general, have an impact in that game? Sure they did. Officiating has an impact in every game that is played, whether calls are made or not made, whether they are correct or incorrect.

Did Leavy's calls determine the winner of Super Bowl XL? Absolutely not! In truth, there were missed calls that went against both teams. Let's all put aside our allegiances and go back four years and look at the game objectively. If we do, we will see that the Seahawks did not play well and neither, actually, did the Steelers.

The officials also did not have a great game. In the end, however, the team that deserved to win won. That, in my opinion, is the bottom line.