another take on the Super Bowl officiating

[Bill McBlueState]

Here's what Tuesday Morning Quarterback has to say about the Super Bowl officiating. He claims four of the six major calls went against Seattle, and of those four, two were good and two were bad. If you believe that interpretation, Seattle may have a legitimate gripe, but there's no way anyone can claim some kind of systematic bias on the part of the officials. It's long, but it's only two paragraphs!

...

Zebra Critique: Four of the six big officiating decisions went against Seattle. Does this mean a pro-Steelers bias, as some in the sports yak world are saying, or perhaps a slap at Mike Holmgren by the officiating guild? (Holmgren ripped the officials after the Giants-Seahawks contest; conspiracy theory says the zebras were seeking vengeance.) The two decisions that favored the Hawks were the fourth-quarter replay reversal that gave possession, initially awarded to Pittsburgh, back to Seattle; and the no-call of a block in the back by Seattle during Kelly Herndon's record interception return. Of the four big decisions that favored the Steelers, two seemed correct to me. On the offensive pass interference nullifying Seattle's first touchdown, Darrell Jackson pushed off with the ball in the air and gained advantage by doing so. Had the physics of the play been exactly the same, except Jackson a defender, television announcers would have been screaming, "Interference!" It's true, as some said, that Michael Irvin often got away with push-offs -- but he shouldn't have. And when Roethlisberger dove for Pittsburgh's first touchdown, at game speed I thought, "He didn't make it." But replays showed the tip of the ball above the goal line, and Rule 3, Section 38 reads, "A touchdown is the situation is which any part of the ball, legally in possession of a player inbounds, in on, above, or behind an opponent's goal line."

On the flip side, the holding penalty against Sean Locklear, nullifying what would have been a Seahawks' first-and-goal on the Pittsburgh 1 in the fourth quarter, seemed a bad call. On almost every Pittsburgh offensive play, a Steelers blocker grabbed as briefly as Locklear grabbed on the down in question; if it was illegal for one team, it should have been illegal for both teams. Owing to the dubious penalty, instead of first-and-goal, Seattle ended up throwing an interception on third-and-long. That interception undid the Seahawks, as they staged a 13-play, 81-yard drive that ended in no points, and undid the Super Bowl itself, converting what might have been a fabulous ending into a lackluster fourth quarter. Seattle faithful also have a legitimate complaint that the fourth-quarter 15-yard penalty on Hasselbeck for "low block" was inexplicable. The rulebook states that during a turnover, neither team may block below the waist. But Hasselbeck wasn't blocking -- he was making the tackle. Check the official Game Book, at 10:54 of the fourth quarter. The league's own Game Book credits Hasselbeck with the tackle on a play where the penalty could be valid only if Hasselbeck was not making a tackle!

[blue neen]

1. Officiating

I've been in FL for all of the Super Bowl festivities (my mom is having surgery). The general consensus around here is basically what "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" had to say. Everyone also keeps mentioning that Seattle made some crucial mistakes i.e. not controlling the clock, not going for "it" on the fourth down play, not going for a field goal in the last minutes, receivers dropping passes.

Everyone I've talked to and listened to here feels that Pittsburgh deserves to be the Super Bowl champion.

[timber84]

2. and another good one:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl/news/abn4003143.htm

[timber84]

3. and another the best yet:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2322300

[blue neen]

8. Excellent analysis.

That's a good article.

[maxsolomon]

4. 3 bad calls

1. phantom touchdown
2. the push off
3. phantom hold

lets say pittsburgh gets the TD on the 4th down. in all likelyhood, its still a 14 point swing.

that would be Seattle 24, Pittsburgh 21.

[fishwax]

5. The Steelers TD was right

It was the right call. The tip of the ball crossed the tip of the plane, and that's enough.

But point taken on the other two. Of course, that's still no guarantee that Seattle would have won, as the game would have been completely different had the first Seattle TD not been called back.

Overall, the officiating was really bad, and most (if not all) of the bad calls favored the Steelers.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. "no guarantee"

Exactly. Had the Steelers been down by three or something at the start of the fourth quarter, their strategy would have been very different. Who knows what would have happened?

[Mojambo]

9. I would very much have liked to see how Ben Rothelisberger

would have dealt with a little adversity in the 4th quarter. Frankly, he looked pretty shaky.

Because of the officiating, the game never got close enough to find out. Disappointing.

[northzax]

7. I would argue 3-1 actually

on the fumble you have to go with the initial call, since the replay was conclusive that it was not a fumble, by rule. Given multiple replays, not overturning it would have gotten the ref fired. (and I don't think there was a conspiracy, sometimes things just go to the home team, and the Steelers were the home team, in everything but name) Take away the replay, and the initial inclination of the calls was 3-1 against the Seahawks.