Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Refs were far from Super in this one

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Refs were far from Super in this one

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192?print=true

    Refs were far from Super in this one
    By Kevin Hench

    Where I get to remind everyone that I guaranteed the Steelers would win the title after they beat the Colts. That they were the only championship-caliber team among the final four. That they would dismantle the Broncos in Denver and waylay whomever the NFC sent at them.
    This is the space where I get to wag a finger at my colleague Ian O'Connor, with whom I'd waged a dueling columns battle of opposing prognostication. He picked the Seahawks and made a very strong case for them.


    This is the space where I get to say, I told ya so. But I won't. I can't.
    I've never felt so empty being right. I feel dirty. I wish I'd been wrong. The Steelers did not deserve to win this game. They were not the better team. O'Connor was right. Seattle was the better team.

    So, Paul Tagliabue, how does a team lose when it outgains an opponent by 57 yards, controls time of possession and wins the turnover battle?
    Like a crazed CIA analyst running through the halls of Langley screaming into open offices about some impending calamity, I've been shrieking hysterically about the terrible officiating in the NFL and warning that some day the brutal calls were going to affect the outcome of the Super Bowl.
    That some day was Sunday.

    Every single questionable, marginal or outright bad call went against the Seahawks.

    Their first three big plays were all wiped out by penalty calls. On their second drive, Darrell Jackson caught an 18-yard pass on 3rd-and-6 that would have given Seattle a first down at the 23. But Chris Gray was called for holding James Farrior. When Farrior pushed upfield, Gray did hook him with his right arm, and Farrior went down. When referee Bill Levy flagged Gray, it was a bad omen for the Seahawks. Instead of being on the edge of the red zone, they came away without any points.

    On their third drive, the Seahawks looked to take a 7-0 lead when Jackson separated from Chris Hope in the end zone and Matt Hasselbeck delivered a perfect strike to his outside shoulder. The back judge looked uncertain —sound familiar, Patriots fans? — then finally jerked his flag out and called offensive pass interference to wipe out the touchdown. The replay showed receiver and defender hand-fighting with Jackson getting the slightest push into Hope's chest before turning to catch the ball. ABC's John Madden thought the call was dubious. FOX analyst and all-time great offensive lineman Brian Baldinger had no doubts, calling it "absolutely horrendous" on his FOXSports.com Super Bowl Instant Analysis. ESPN's Steve Young and Michael Irvin also had no uncertainty, dismissing the call as ticky-tack and insisting the Seahawks got robbed of a TD.

    Then came a huge call on the first play of the second quarter. Peter Warrick ripped off a 33-yard punt return to give Seattle the ball at the Steelers 46. But Etric Pruitt was called for holding. How clear was it? Well, Madden thought the call was for Pruitt holding the gunner at the beginning of the play. It wasn't. The flag came in during the runback and it looked pretty minor. Another example of an official searching to make a call.

    So despite totally dominating the first 20 minutes of the game, the Seahawks led only 3-0.

    Then came Pittsbugh's first touchdown. Whether you think Roethlisberger broke the plane of the goal line seems to depend on which team you were rooting for. The odd part was the line judge seemed to have determined that Big Ben had come up short as he ran in from the sideline. Since Roethlisberger had been pushed back well short of the goal line I don't know what he could have seen as he got closer to the pile that would have made him change his mind. But up went the arms. Had Roethlisberger been ruled short of the plane, that call would no doubt have stood too. But you figure the Black and Gold would have pounded it in from the two-inch line on fourth down so there's not that much here for Seattle fans to complain about except for the continuing storyline that every single call was going the Steelers' way. And the worst was yet to come.

    The Seahawks were on the verge of taking a 17-14 lead early in the fourth quarter when officiating disaster struck. Hasselbeck had drilled a pass down the seam to Jerramy Stevens to set up first-and-goal at the one when suddenly Levy appeared in the middle of the screen to call the play back on account of holding on Sean Locklear. No less a source than newly-minted Hall of Famer John Madden came right out and said it was a bad call. This penalty was beyond ticky-tack. Baldinger called it "another terrible call" and added that the Steelers were offsides on the play. It was yet another official searching for a call, desperate to throw his flag, yearning to impact the action. Why, why, oh, why? That's 14 points the officials simply took away from the Seahawks. Incredible.

    After a sack, Hasselbeck threw a pick and then was penalized 15 yards for making the tackle. I'm not kidding. The same thing happened in the Indy-Pittsburgh game in the regular season. It's like the officials become so discombobulated during the change of possession that they just randomly start throwing flags. The call was that Hasselbeck had thrown an illegal block below the waist on the return. Never mind that Hasselbeck wasn't trying to block anybody and did, in fact, make the tackle. Just another terrible call that cannot be reviewed in Paul Tagliabue's NFL.
    The Steelers took quick advantage of their enhanced field position and just like that it was 21-10 Pittsburgh when it should have been 17-14 Seattle.
    But the stripes weren't done.

    First, they blew a fumble call on the field — of course against Seattle — before overturning it after replay. Then, with the Steelers trying to run out the clock, Levy granted Roethlisberger a timeout, even though the play clock clearly read zero before the quarterback signaled for time. It ended up being the final bad call in Seattle's coffin. As Madden and Al Michaels watched the replay they shared a laugh about a similar bad non-call in an earlier playoff game between the Bears and Panthers. This is what it has come to: Announcers comparing the bad calls happening before them to the bad calls from earlier rounds of the playoffs. Is this really what the NFL wants?


    With Cris Collinsworth lobbying for pass interference to be eligible for review on Inside the NFL after New England got jobbed in Denver; Joey Porter inveighing against the league after the game in Indy; Young and Irvin railing at halftime of the Super Bowl; Baldinger being spot-on with his Instant Analysis critique of the officials; and Madden and Michaels wondering aloud about the officiating during the game ... is anybody in the league office listening? Or can we pretty much count on next year's playoffs being dominated by the officials too?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

    And another:

    How the referees handed Pittsburgh the Super Bowl.
    By Robert Weintraub
    Posted Monday, Feb. 6, 2006, at 3:11 AM ET

    http://www.slate.com/id/2135435/nav/tap1/

    A media meme emerged late in the long, two-week march to the Super Bowl: Since everyone had basically handed the game to Pittsburgh, Seattle was sure to shock everyone and win. Unfortunately for underdog lovers, no one briefed the refs about this scenario. Remember all that screaming about the Troy Polamalu pick that wasn't against the Colts a few weeks ago? Well, the Steelers got so much payback last night that I'm sure Steelers fans have found it in their hearts to forgive the men in black and white.

    Four critical calls stood out. A rinky-dink offensive pass interference flag wiped out an early touchdown pass from Matt Hasselbeck to Darrell Jackson, forcing Seattle to settle for three instead of seven. When Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger lunged for the goal line near the end of the first half, replays indicated a close play but a clear stop by the Seahawks. Nope—touchdown, Steelers. Then came the pivotal double shot that ended all hope for Seattle. With the Seahawks trailing 14-10, a phantom holding call negated a completion that would have given Seattle first and goal at the one yard line. Three plays later, Hasselbeck was picked off by Ike Taylor, a mistake he partially made up for by tackling the Steelers CB. Sadly for Seattle, tackling now brings a 15-yard penalty—the zebras somehow called Hasselbeck for a "block below the waist." The last call set up Pittsburgh for the clinching score.

    Even John Madden, as reliable an apologist for the NFL as there is, started questioning the calls. The videogame pitchman sounded especially miffed after the phantom hold/illegal tackle sequence. He wasn't quite as persistently loud and angry as Billy Packer in the 2001 NCAA basketball finals, sounding off on a series of laughably pro-Duke calls. But this was eye-opening stuff coming from the usually see-no-evil Madden.
    Before I start sounding like some embittered Seahawks fan—for the record, I'm an embittered Bengals fan—let's go through Seattle's flurry of mistakes and near-misses. Several key drops by Jerramy Stevens, who the bored media (and the bored Joey Porter) inexplicably cast as Terrell Owens after an innocuous "we'll win" comment. Two bombs caught just out of bounds by Darrell Jackson, who might have been MVP but for a few inches. Grant Wistrom tripping over his own feet rather than sacking Roethlisberger on a third-and-28 heave to eventual MVP Hines Ward.
    Give the Steelers some credit. For sublime blocking on Willie Parker's record TD run. For Chris Gardocki's excellent punting. For speedy pursuit from the linebackers that kept Shaun Alexander to a quiet 95 yards. And, of course, for continuing their remarkable streak of successful trick plays. For at least one play every game—when Antwaan Randle El flicks a perfect pass downfield as the defense reacts just a few seconds too late—the Steelers look like the boldest, smartest team that's ever laced them up. As for those other 100 plays ...

    Maybe Randle El should have played quarterback the whole game. Ben Roethlisberger played like he knew the game was fixed, completing a mere nine passes for 123 yards and throwing a critical interception when a touchdown would have iced it. He also got clobbered during that Kelly Herndon interception return, a sad irony after his memorable, game-saving tackle against Indy.

    Then there was the Most Valuable Backup. It may not be Jerome Bettis' fault that he became the centerpiece of this storyline-deprived Super Bowl. Nevertheless, his self-absorption was astonishing. First, Das Bus turned the player introductions into a dig-me moment, waddling out a few seconds ahead of everyone else. Unfortunately for him, ABC missed the memo, and its cameras stayed on the team. Four hours later, Bettis turned the Lombardi Trophy presentation—which was held atop a bizarre, teacup-shaped, UFOlike structure—into a self-love session, essentially saying the team won it all for the glory of Jerome.

    Seattle's role as afterthought to the pre-ordained Pittsburgh coronation was confirmed when ABC didn't even bother with the traditional losing-coach interview. But perhaps Seattle brought this on themselves by coming out of the tunnel to The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony." Note to the Seahawks: That's probably not the best choice of pump-up tunes. Next time, why not just play Beck's "Loser"?

    Also absent was any mention of the industry gossip that Madden and Al Michaels will be reunited at NBC next season. Michaels is expected to weasel out of the contract he signed with ESPN to broadcast the cable network's Monday Night Football package—apparently, Sunday night is now the bigger stage. My favorite moment of the broadcast came at the very end, when the two glumly shook hands in a bit of network blazer kabuki, as though they would never see each other again. Here's hoping that when the long-lost pals meet again to call the Super Bowl for NBC, the officiating won't be the only thing worth talking about.

    Robert Weintraub, a freelance TV producer/writer based in Atlanta, writes about sports media for Slate.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

      Glad to see this stuff coming out in the press. Let's hope they hammer the league hard about this.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

        Originally posted by Harmonica
        Glad to see this stuff coming out in the press. Let's hope they hammer the league hard about this.

        Amen to that brother.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

          Obviously not having a vested interest in the game, I didn't care who won, so I was pretty unbiased. Man, it's hard NOT to to buy into conspiracies after watching that game. Unreal. Thing is, just like when the Bulls were in finals, no one raised TOO much a stink about bad calls because most people wanted Michael to win.

          I think that's going to be the case here. Everyone wanted the Steelers. Makes good press, so there won't be hardly any stink. Too bad.
          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

            Originally posted by Harmonica
            Glad to see this stuff coming out in the press. Let's hope they hammer the league hard about this.
            I doubt anything will come of it. Remember the Lakers/Kings and Lakers/TWolves fiascos? NBA officiating is as bad as ever. It will probably continue in the NFL as well.

            It's pretty sad that it's so obvious that certain games are fixed to a degree. You just can't be unbiased and make every single call against a certain team like that. It was unreal. And I was already convinced with the overturned pick in the Colts/Steelers game that something was screwy. No rational human being makes a call like that without some kind of bias, whether personal or otherwise. This is just further fuel to the fire.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

              I'm not stating there was a conspiracy, but I do think the power of suggestions may have crept into the ref's heads. With the crowd being largely Steeler's fan's, their *****ing about being screwed vs. the Colts, Jerome Bettis' last game etc. I think those kinds of things do get in their minds. Even the Disneyland and NFL commercials were all about the Steelers. It did seem more like a coronation. That hand check call that took the Seahawks 1st score off the board, you just don't make that in the SB. Same with the block on the punt return in the 1st half. Anyhoo, here's another rip job from the 4 letter network:

              http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...683&type=story

              DETROIT -- Three weeks ago, after the Steelers held on to upset Indianapolis, Joey Porter was unhappy about the overturning of Troy Polamalu's fourth-quarter interception that could have sealed the win much earlier. Believing that deep down the league preferred Peyton Manning and the Colts to win, Porter publicly criticized the game officials, asking them not to "take the game from us."


              Well, the Steelers can call it even now, as the officials who performed well enough throughout the season to earn the privilege of working Super Bowl XL performed Sunday as though they were trying to make it up to the Steelers by giving them the game -- not just any game, but the biggest game. And, yes, this time the other guys, the Seahawks, cried conspiracy, only not quite as loudly as Porter.

              "You know, that's what happens when the world is against you," one Seahawk said after the 21-10 loss at Ford/Heinz Field. "No one wanted us to win. They wanted Jerome Bettis to win and go out a hero, and they got it."

              Seattle had its share of goats: in particular, tight end Jerramy Stevens, who dropped four balls, and kicker Josh Brown, who missed two field-goal attempts. Almost to a man, the Seahawks pointed the blame finger at themselves for converting only one of three red zone attempts (when they had been the best in the league in that area, scoring a touchdown on 71.7 percent of their trips inside the 20-yard line); for allowing Ben Roethlisberger to improvise and complete a 37-yard pass to game MVP Hines Ward to the 1; for giving up a 75-yard touchdown run to Willie Parker; and for getting beaten by a trick play on Antwaan Randle El's pass to fellow receiver Ward for a touchdown, a first in Super Bowl history. If you read between the lines, though, they pretty much spelled out in bold letters that they had plenty of help in handing Pittsburgh its fifth Lombardi Trophy.
              Namely, the boys in black and white.

              "Those things are out of our control," Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said of the three major penalties that helped change the game completely. Not saying the outcome of the game would have been any different, but for sure it would have been a different game. "That's the way [the officials] called them," Hasselbeck continued. "The Steelers played well enough to win tonight, and we didn't. They should get credit. It's disappointing, it's hard, but what are you going to do?"

              Here's what referee Bill Leavy's crew did, point blank: It robbed Seattle. The Seahawks could have played better, sure. They could have done more to overcome the poor officiating. We understand that those things happen and all, but even with all the points Seattle left on the field, there's a good chance the Seahawks would have scored more than the Steelers if the officials had let the players play.

              In the biggest game of the year, the biggest game in sports, even, the officials were just a little too visible. In that regard, the Super Bowl provided a fitting conclusion to a postseason packed with pitiful performances by the game's third team. There were incorrect down-by-contact rulings in both NFC wild-card games; a touchdown that could have gone either way and should have gone the other way -- in favor of Tampa Bay -- in the Bucs' loss to the Redskins; the Patriots got no love in Denver in being hit with a bogus pass interference penalty and not catching a break on Champ Bailey's fumble at the goal line that looked as though it could have been a touchback; and, of course, the Polamalu play.
              Still, what happened to the Seahawks wasn't the same as, say, New England going into Denver and playing badly (five turnovers) on top of the bad calls. Seattle gained almost 400 yards and turned it over just once.
              You see, you can spend weeks -- and we did; two, in fact -- analyzing and dissecting matchups and giving each team the edge in certain areas and trying to figure out how the game is going to play out, but the two things you can't account for are turnovers and officials. The latter were the X-factor Sunday. Edge: Steelers.

              It actually was a fairly clean game from a penalty standpoint, without a whole lot of yellow on the field -- 10 accepted penalties between the teams. Seven were against the Seahawks, though, a team that tied with Indianapolis for the second-fewest penalties (94) in the regular season. But those calls against the Seahawks stuck out like the Space Needle on the Seattle skyline.

              Consider: The Seahawks lost 161 yards to penalties when you combine the penalty yards (70) and the plays the flags wiped out (91). By halftime alone, when it trailed 7-3, Seattle had had 73 hard-earned yards and a touchdown eliminated.

              Hasselbeck hit Darrell Jackson with an apparent 16-yard scoring pass in the first quarter, but the play came back when Jackson was called for offensive pass interference. It was a touch foul. Jackson extended his arm, yes, but both players were fighting for position, and he didn't create any separation by doing so. It was like a referee calling a hand-check in a key moment of Game 7 of the NBA Finals.

              The Seahawks had to settle for three instead of seven.
              Still, that was early, and that one didn't change the game as much as did a holding call against Sean Locklear early in the fourth quarter with Pittsburgh leading 14-10. That one wiped out an 18-yard catch by Stevens that would have taken the ball to the 1. Locklear supposedly held Clark Haggans, so instead of first-and-goal at the 1 and the chance to complete a 98-yard touchdown drive and take a three-point lead, Seattle faced first-and-20 at the 29.

              Three plays later, Ike Taylor picked off a Hasselbeck pass, and Hasselbeck went low to make the tackle on Taylor's return and was called for a 15-yard personal foul for a low block. The Steelers set up shop at their 44. That one right there made no sense.

              Pittsburgh likes to run its trick plays in the middle of the field. Boom! Four plays later, from Seattle's 43, Randle El took a reverse and threw a sweet strike on the run to Ward. It was 21-10, and that was all she wrote. Everyone knows how important it is to play Pittsburgh with a lead or with the score tied. The Steelers don't lose when they're up by 11.

              Eleven just so happens to be the total points taken away by bogus calls. Some penalties meant points; others meant field position. A holding call in the second quarter negated Peter Warrick's 34-yard punt return that would have started Seattle in Pittsburgh territory.

              By contrast, the Steelers might have gotten a break on Roethlisberger's 1-yard touchdown plunge on third-and-goal in the second quarter. Leavy reviewed the play under the booth's orders, since it occurred inside the two-minute mark, and while still photos of an airborne Roethlisberger showed that the ball might have broken the plane of the goal line, he landed short of it and reached the ball over. It was close. Head linesman Mark Hittner didn't seem so sure of it, hesitating before signaling touchdown.

              "I don't think he scored," Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren said.
              It was that kind of evening for the Seahawks, who represent a town where residents know all too well that when it rains, it pours. If having what seemed like 90 percent of the 68,200 in attendance waving Terrible Towels wasn't enough to make Seattle feel as though it was playing on the road, the officials called it as though the Seahawks actually were.
              Pittsburgh capitalized on its opportunities. And guys like Bill Cowher, Ward, Dan Rooney and The Bus are all very deserving of a championship -- and it's nice to see them win one -- but it would have been better had it not happened like this. It's like the Seahawks said: Not taking anything away from the Steelers, but keep it real.

              "We had a touchdown taken away from us, the first one we scored," said Hasselbeck, who was measured in his words but clear in his frustration, "and then we had the ball at the 1-yard line, they called a penalty on us. That was unfortunate."

              "I thought they were offside [on the play Locklear was called for holding]," center Robbie Tobeck said. "I thought we had a free play on because they had two guys come across. You know, that's the game. In a game, there's situations you have to overcome, and all night long we didn't do a good job of overcoming those things, and that's something we've done all year."
              In the offseason, 31 teams will be back at the drawing board, evaluating what they need to do to knock off the Steelers in the fall. After the postseason they just had, Mike Pereira and the NFL's crew of officials would be wise to take a long, hard look at themselves. It's a real shame when, on the game's biggest stage, the major players aren't players at all. We saw too much of the third team in Super Bowl XL and not enough Seahawks and Steelers.
              Michael Smith is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                I think that's going to be the case here. Everyone wanted the Steelers. Makes good press, so there won't be hardly any stink. Too bad.
                I completely agree, and I find that really unfortunate for the Seahawks fans out there. This has to hurt them after putting on a great performance and getting robbed, but people will seemingly overlook it all because the "storyline" that was being promoted finished with a happy ending.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                  Originally posted by rcarey
                  I completely agree, and I find that really unfortunate for the Seahawks fans out there. This has to hurt them after putting on a great performance and getting robbed, but people will seemingly overlook it all because the "storyline" that was being promoted finished with a happy ending.
                  Exactly.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                    This is preposterous.

                    Let's go down the list.

                    Offensive pass interference in the end zone. The receiver clearly pushed off. Whether it was "minor" or not is irrelevant, the official has to make that call. You didn't have a touchdown taken away by the officials, Matt. Blame your receiver for pushing off when he probably did not even need to.

                    Ben's touchdown. Madden's explanation was wrong, and the ball clearly crossed the plane on Ben's forward progress. The play ends right there, and it doesn't matter if they push him back after that. I-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. Shame on Madden's misinformation for creating this day-after buzz that's based on the wrong criteria. Holmgren may not have liked the call, but the replay re-inforced the fact that the correct call was made on the field.

                    Holding on the punt return - IN THE FIRST QUARTER - I don't see how anybody in their right mind is concerned about this call, and I'm not sure the goofballs for ABC even showed the right replay.

                    The holding penalty against Clark Hagans certainly looked like holding at full speed. From the original camera angle, you see Clark beat the tackle, and then he appears to be grabbed around the shoulder and spun around. As they say, you can call holding just about every play. Perhaps in super slo-mo the tackle didn't actually get a grip, oh well. When you see the defender break free and then get spun around again, the officials are going to call that all the time, and a high % of the time the replay proves they got it right. The Seahawks still had opportunties, what did they do? They went vertical again (that's not their game but that's all the Steelers let them have after the first quarter) and threw a pick. Oh, and Clark wasn't offsides but he got a nearly perfect jump on the snap. Our front seven had a pretty good read on the snap count in the second half.

                    The cut block on the interception return. That was a bad call but it didn't really impact the outcome.

                    Hasselbeck's fumble. Overturned with the correct call. Give the on-field officials credit here. The worst thing they could've done was to signal Hasselbeck to be down by contact if they weren't sure if Foote got a hand on him or not - and from the angle Foote made the play the officials were not in great position to see it. If they blew him down by contact and yet Foote missed him, they would've taken away a great defensive play.

                    The spot on Ben's first down run. Terrible. Ben probably lost 1.5 yards on the spot. Replays clearly showed the officials spotted the ball at Ben's knee, not his forward progress on the play. I expected a red flag if the measurement indicated fourth down. But he had the first down anyway, so everyone has already forgotten about this one.

                    A big part of the percieved officiating problem lately is the the commentators are screwing up their explanations as often as the officials are screwing up.

                    I think there's a thread on here where I ripped another one of Madden's explanations from earlier in the season (although it may be lost in the fire, too.)

                    Yet, the single worst call of the entire playoffs was the reversal of Troy's interception in Indianapolis. Without that bad call, that particular game was nowhere near as close as the final score. I guess the bottom line is that it all balances out.

                    So I've got three bad calls - a holding call that looked like holding at full speed but in fact was not, the cut block, and the spot on Ben's first down.

                    Two of those calls had no consequence on the game. The holding call might've made a difference in the final score, since the interception happened two plays later, but not the outcome.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                      Is your avatar Kurosawa Harmonica?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                        Originally posted by McClintic Sphere
                        Is your avatar Kurosawa Harmonica?
                        Yeah.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                          This is preposterous.
                          I'm neither a Seahawks', Steelers' or a Colts' fan and I'm telling you, Seattle clearly won the game.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            Offensive pass interference in the end zone. The receiver clearly pushed off. Whether it was "minor" or not is irrelevant, the official has to make that call. You didn't have a touchdown taken away by the officials, Matt. Blame your receiver for pushing off when he probably did not even need to.
                            He did not push off and create distance. There was a lot of hand contact on both sides. You do not call that in the most important game of the season. Not only that, the ref hesitated before throwing the flag. The commentators mentioned it, the press is mentioning it today and as an unbiased viewer, I'm saying it: AWFUL call.


                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            Ben's touchdown. Madden's explanation was wrong, and the ball clearly crossed the plane on Ben's forward progress. The play ends right there, and it doesn't matter if they push him back after that. I-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. Shame on Madden's misinformation for creating this day-after buzz that's based on the wrong criteria. Holmgren may not have liked the call, but the replay re-inforced the fact that the correct call was made on the field.
                            Not true again. The replay was inconclusive. Personally, I would have reversed the call based on what I saw. The ball appeared to be in a vertical position when he was stopped, not horizontal with the tip of the ball crossing the plane.


                            You conveniently failed to mention the phantom holding call early in the fourth quarter against Seattle. Puts them on the Steelers' 1 yard line with a good chance to go up 17-14.

                            Bottom line: This Super Bowl and the Steelers' win has an awful stench to it. And Bill Leavy should never be allowed to officiate an NFL game ever again.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Refs were far from Super in this one

                              Jay the pass interference that took away the Seahawk touchdown was horrible. If they are to call that there should be laundry on every single pass play in the NFL. If you can gain separation with one hand backwards while running the other way against an NFL db who has both feet planted, then you are superman. It wasn't until the DB turned and started complaining that the guy threw the flag.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X