Site Headlines

Please scroll down for posts on main page...

WARNING: THIS SITE FEATURES ORIGINAL THINKING...Jim Croce once sang Don't tug on Superman's cape..., which seems like reasonable advice should we not wish to anger the supreme powers. We do have this duality in our culture: the Superman that is the state collective, the leftist call to a politics of meaning managed by the state, the deification of "we're from the government and we'll take care of you" - versus the Superman that celebrates individual freedom, private property, freedom of conscience, free enterprise, and limited government. We humbly take on the latter's mantle and, eschewing the feeble tug, we dare to PULL, in hope of seeing freedom's rescue from the encroaching nanny state. We invite you, dear reader, to come and pull as well... Additionally, if you assume that means that we are unflinching, unquestioning GOP zombies, that would be incorrect. We reject statism in any form and call on individuals in our country to return to the original, classical liberalism of our founders. (We're also passionate about art, photography, cooking, technology, Judeo/Christian values, and satire as unique, individual pursuits of happiness to celebrate.)

Most popular posts Recommended reading
Meet another hero - but he's not allowed to vote WA Governor's Race Saga
The Heroes of India Company United Nations - Oil For Food - Oil For Fraud
WA Governor's Race: EXTRA EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT! Wisconsin Vote Fraud
One day in Fallujah Bioethics
Diktat summons Simplicio 'Science'? What's that?
Harsh Conditions Japan


WWW Pull On Superman's Cape
Superman's product of the century (so far):

February 07, 2006
Play's Anatomy
Filed in: Current Affairs, Sports, Super Bowl XL

(See my entire and growing series of posts on Super Bowl XL.)

DO you have a video tape or hard disk recording (that you can transfer to DVD or video tape) of the Super Bowl? I will pay you and make it worth your while for your recording - please send me an email or leave a comment if you can help me.

They hyped an ABC medical show (located in Seattle) all during the Super Bowl called Grey's Anatomy. Excuse me.

Too bad they haven't performed any autopsies on the fraudulent calls on the field so far. Guess I'll have to do it.

NFL films released a short clip about the game - at least one of the calls was left out entirely, but we've got enough to take a look at what actually happened versus what cash made happen last night.

First example: Touchdown pass to D-Jack in the first quarter...


This is called Defensive Holding.  Chris Hope has both hands on D-Jack - the left hand enclosed on D-Jack's upper arm.


He continues contact and impedes D-Jack's progress down the field actually changing his direction with the contact. After five yards from the line of scrimmage, no contact is allowed by the defensive back on a receiver. It must be that it's the Super Bowl and 'we just have to let them play' ...


Again, a few yards further down the field, Chris makes hand contact with D-Jack. This is technically illegal - but goes uncalled as well.


Chris's left arm is going under and around D-Jack's right arm - actually clasping it. This is Defensive Holding once again - but we must let them 'play' right?


D-Jack escapes Hope's hold - both men using their arms equally. Hope is actually attempting to grab D-Jack's right arm with his open left hand.


This is the first frame in which we can see the ball - and D-Jack is at least two full body lengths away from Hope - the ball wasn't thrown when D-Jack made his break and Hope wasn't moved back by D-Jack's break.

So how do you want this? We 'let them play' when Hope holds D-Jack twice? But call D-Jack for offensive pass interference when he breaks from a hold - before the ball is even thrown? There is no possible explanation for this but home cookin'.

UPDATE: 2/21/06: A rebuttal to the NFL Official Review.

Second example: No call on Roethlisberger pass.


Remember that play in the second quarter when Roethlisberger scrambled to the left - very near the line of scrimmage and completed a long pass to Hines Ward? Here he is letting the ball fly. Number 78, tackle Max Starks is beyond the line of scrimmage. That's called Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Lineman cannot be beyond the line of scrimmage when a forward pass is thrown. This was a Steeler's penalty that was not called. Admittedly this was a couple of yards - fairly close - but if you were going to call D-Jack for pass interference on that touchdown, you'd surely call this one as well. Wouldn't you?

Third example: No clear Roethlisberger failure to score?


Here's Roethlisberger taking off for the first Steeler's 'score'.


He leaves his feet. The following sequence is really the best way to view what happened from here:


The first frame in this sequence shows Roethlisberger fully airborne headed for the goal line. Frame two shows Roethlisberger and D.D. Lewis just before their collision. The football is behind and to the right of Roethlesberger's right elbow which you can see as an arc just short of the goal line. The third frame is Roethlisberger's furthest penetration on this play - with his helmet. D.D Lewis is fully engaged with him at this point and you can see Roethlesberger's elbow again well back from the goal line - it's the arc that you see again to the right of D. D. Lewis's right arm - and the ball is behind and to the right of that. The ball cannot be breaking the goal plane because D.D. Lewis's body and arm are in that space. In Frame four, Roethlisberger is clearly down and D. D. Lewis takes up any space that the ball could be over the goal plane. In Frame five we see the ball clearly for the first time in several frames. It is a football length short of the goal line. In subsequent frames - Frame six specifically, you can see the required position of his helmet for the ball to be close to breaking the plane - a position that his head, shoulders, and arm clearly never had during the play. It is instructive to view the position of his helmet through these frames - and the position of D. D. Lewis's body. There is no way that the ball could have crossed the plane. I don't know what kind of tools they use in the replay booth. Seems like a frame by frame analysis would be pretty easy. They need clear evidence to reverse the call? Well, there you go. And you'll tell me that in the last minute of the first half, Cowher is going to go for it on fourth down? Uh, huh.

Fourth Example: Steelers strike early in the third quarter.

I'll say.




Here's the beginning of the play that is the longest run from scrimmage in Super Bowl history - by the Steeler's Willie Parker. Steeler's Tight End Heath Miller (83) obvioulsy holds Seattle Defensive End Bryce Fisher (94) - upper middle right of picture above - to open up the hole for Parker with the cross block. His arm is fully extended and his hand is open - the impetus that is applied to Fisher is at least equal or more with the extended arm. If players have their arm out on initial contact on the line, they are required to immediately pull the arm back in - Miller continues in this position for several yards. It's called Holding folks and it wasn't called. (UPDATE: I added a couple more frames so that you can see that the major impediment that keeps Fisher from reaching Parker is Miller's arm - this is what officials are to look for in a holding call. Textbook.)






Never fear, Seattle's fast rookie linebacker Lofa Tatupu (51) will get him. Oh, wait, there's Max Starks (78) again - upper left middle of the picture above - with a full left hand to the face of Tatupu. Starks overran Tatupu and could only keep him off of Parker by jamming him in the face with his left hand. This is called Illegal Use of Hands or Hand to the Face - an offensive blocker is allowed zero contact with a defensive player above the neck - and is an infraction of the rules. (UPDATE: I've added a few more frames to show that Tatupu and Starks were in contact already - and Tatupu discarded Starks to his left and has a clear shot at Parker - you can see Starks reach out with his left hand and pop Tatupu in the helmet - and in the last new frame - an official is looking on.)

Both of these infractions kept defensive players from tackling Parker. Neither was called.

Of course, on the next possession, when the Seahawks made a completion to the two yard line, the officials saw fit to call holding on Seattle tackle Sean Locklear. The NFL and NFL films are apparently so embarrassed by the holding call that it isn't shown or mentioned in the history clip on their site. That's really sad. This call prompted John Madden to say something like: "There's things you look for for holding. That's not any of them." Compare it with the actual holding by Miller above. 'Nough said.

Mr. Tagliabue, the NFL has lost credibility as an institution that can sponsor a fair game in its championship. If you choose not to do anything about this mockery, your institution will forever be tarnished and this game will always be remembered as the game when fraud made Steelers into Stealers.

UPDATE: The Locklear holding call - someone sent me a link to this picture:


You can clearly see that Locklear's hands are in on his chest in proper blocking position. Holding was a fantasy (at best) in the official's mind.

I also thought, naively, that video evidence like this was the sort of thing that clearly demonstrated the factual basis of official error on these plays. I'm learning that's not the case - as people in the forums on the Sporting News site are telling me that 'Hope's contact on Jackson was minimal' (any contact beyond 5 yards is an infraction), 'Starks got back within a yard of being over the line of scrimmage' (the rules don't say, if you are within a yard of the line - they say if you are ineligible you cannot be over the line), and 'Miller isn't holding FIsher' (among other statements) after looking at this post. If that's not Miller's arm, what is it? Your momma?

I'm just asking, because I'm sure that guy is going to say that he can tell that Locklear meant to hold in the above sequence.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference: Play's Anatomy:

» Pull on Seattle's Cape from File it Under
In a follow-up to yesterday's rant, MC has followed through in a big way. Mr. Tagliabue, the NFL has lost credibility as an institution that can sponsor a fair game in its championship. If you choose not to do anything about this mockery, your... [Read More]

TrackPulled on Feb 7, 2006 2:41:03 PM

» A Crisis of Credibility from The Write Wing Conspiracy
Commisioner Tagliabue needs to be made to explain how this could happen during America's most revered sporting event and take steps to ensure this doesn't happen again. Period. [Read More]

TrackPulled on Feb 7, 2006 3:57:06 PM

» Tell Me Why DJ Drummond is a Great Blogger? from Grapevine's Sports Ramblings
By most accounts, D.J. Drummond appears to be a thoughtful blogger. Why that is, I don't know.. And to Mr. Leavy and his crew, well done gentlemen, it was a pleasure to watch you work together. Over 100 comments, including some my own, followe... [Read More]

TrackPulled on Feb 7, 2006 4:51:14 PM

People Pulling

This is an awesome blog entry, Mac.

EMCEE: Thanks Hood. I appreciate your sentiments.

Posted by: Hoodlumman at Feb 7, 2006 2:52:24 PM

Great work!

Sorry for the inadvertent double-tap on the trackback.

EMCEE: Thanks Jason. No prob on the trackback. Thanks for the kind words on your site as well. It's true that I don't mean the Steeler's players of course.

Posted by: J. Hagglund at Feb 7, 2006 3:58:58 PM

I've been hearing about the mistakes in officiating during sundays game. Here's my two cents.
Take away the long Steelers tuchdown run and the Steelers still win 14-10.
Give the Seahawks one of the missed field goals and they still lose 14-13. Give them both field goals and they win. Why does no one seem to get on Seattle's kicker for his misses? You still have to take away the long TD run for the Hawks to win though.
Why wasn't Seattle scoring more in the first half when they were running up and down the field seemingly at will? Why couldn't they "finish it"? You can't blame officiating for the ENTIRE game.
Steelers had what, three straight "three and outs"? Seahawk defense was dominating, the offense should have scored more. The officials didn't make the offense inept, that was Seattle's doing.
The Seahawks final drive of the first half. Is that what is known as Superbowl quality clock management? Should have gotten at least a field goal attempt right?
Just my two cents.

EMCEE: You make some good points but for some reason ignore two touchdowns that the Seattle offense earned which were disallowed by poor officiating. That's at least an 11 point swing. Given that all three Steeler touchdowns are questionable and there is a clear case that poor officiating impacted the outcome of the game. Despite Seattle's many mistakes, they actually won the athletic competition. Go back and look at the visual evidence Robert. Or are you saying "Don't believe your lyin' eyes"?

Posted by: Robert Jones at Feb 8, 2006 5:25:43 AM

"Why does no one seem to get on Seattle's kicker for his misses? You still have to take away the long TD run for the Hawks to win though."

1.) They were 50 yarders for gosh sakes. You suit up. Feel free to get on the Seahawks for bad clock management though.

2.) You're wrong. If we'd have got the two TD's we deserved (D-Jack in the 1st quarter and the highly probable one we would have scored if not for the "Phantom Hold" on Locklear), we'd have seen 21-21 and, I believe, the first Super Bowl OT in history. This concedes all of Pittsburgh's scores, of course.

Posted by: J. Hagglund at Feb 8, 2006 9:08:12 AM

It's simple:

- D Jack gets his TD - Seahawks are now down 21-14.

- Big Ben doesn't get his TD, but the Bus probably scores the next play anyway - still 21-14 Steelers.

- Locklear's "holding" taken away, Seahawks are 1st and Goal at the 1. Easy TD with 4 shots. Seahawks tied 21-21.

- Since Locklear DOESN'T get called for holding, no interception thrown by Hasselbeck, meaning no start at the 45 (after that crazy "illegal block" call on Hasselbeck). Meaning no Steelers TD. Seahawks UP 21-14.

Just that one Locklear call caused a 14 point swing. That alone makes the game...

Posted by: Edmonds Dan at Feb 8, 2006 2:33:15 PM


EMCEE: Sonny, I think I hear your mommy calling you. Time to go to bed little fellow.

Posted by: cant,take,a.loss at Feb 8, 2006 7:19:31 PM

Glad I sided with the refs and bet on Pittsburgh.

EMCEE: David, my friend, that may be the crux of the matter.

Posted by: David at Feb 8, 2006 9:34:43 PM

"Since Locklear DOESN'T get called for holding, no interception thrown by Hasselbeck, meaning no start at the 45 (after that crazy "illegal block" call on Hasselbeck). Meaning no Steelers TD. Seahawks UP 21-14."

Eh, I'm not cool with taking points away from the Steelers based on that. They wouldn't have gotten the generous head start, sure, but they'd have still gotten the ball back. Can you say, definitively, that they wouldn't have pulled that sweet "Reverse-X" or whatever they call it and scored anyways? I can't.

Posted by: J. Hagglund at Feb 8, 2006 11:06:05 PM

Oh, and I totally second that call for a game tape. I'd pony up. I'm kind of kicking myself for not taping it all of a sudden.

Posted by: J. Hagglund at Feb 8, 2006 11:42:07 PM

Just wonder... if referees are accused of bias on behalf of Steelers --which videos with knowledgeable commentary appear to indicate-- why no discussion of the officials themselves? Were they from Pittsburgh, or imported for the occasion? Has there been any previous pattern of favoring Steelers over other teams, or is this a one-time phenomenon?

In other words: Context and perspective are key. Disinterested "social watchers" like myself generally assume that with impartial officiating, errors will tend to cancel out. Even if that's not true for one game, including the Super Bowl, we should at least have confidence that the whole season hasn't been rigged. Frankly, that's why many of us prefer baseball... football has gotten much too complicated when Flags fly (or don't fly) thick-and-fast, to the point where one minute of actual playing time takes 3 - 4 minutes of stopped-clock penalties, time-outs, etc. Simplify your rules, make calls extremely unambiguous and for major offenses only-- then controversies such as this will not recur.

EMCEE: John, thanks for adding thoughtfully to the discussion. It's dialog like this that should be well considered by the NFL.

Posted by: John Blake at Feb 9, 2006 6:09:19 AM

Well, the Steelers themselves got hosed on plenty of calls prior to the Super Bowl, they just always played well enough to overcome them. So frankly, I don't know that there's any evidence for a "conspiracy" so much as there is for just all out poor officiating. Which is another reason I'm not necessarily saying "we was robbed."

I so prefer baseball to football though, and this kerfuffle does help explain why.

Posted by: J. Hagglund at Feb 9, 2006 8:45:42 AM

Wow, good stuff. Even this proud liberal approves of your work. That's the magic of sports for you.

Somehow the Steelers were playing their 'championship game' and the Seahawks 'weren't good enough', although it came down to 3 plays for the men from Pennsylvania. If *they* had been penalized on those plays, the game would have easily been a Seattle victory, and the story would be what a poor game 'Big Ben' had, with a QB rating even smaller than his years.

Nothing to be done about it though, we'll just have to Get Over It, unless someone can get President Gore to use his bully pulpit to get the NFL to do the right thing.

EMCEE: Mark, Ha! Conservatives and Liberals can agree on something! But Gore? I don't think so. You know, it will be over for me when the NFL acknowledges the problems and takes steps to insure that something like this doesn't happen again.

Posted by: Mark centz at Feb 9, 2006 9:56:14 PM

Nice work.

I think the ineligible receiver non-call is probably the most important. If that hadn't happened the phantom touchdown would never have occurred. It also shows that Pittsburgh didn't play any better or cleaner, just that their big plays didn't get the flags they deserved.

EMCEE: Thanks Nathan. 0 penalties for 0 yards againt the Steelers from the middle of the second quarter on. Prior to that - 2 false starts and a blatant interference call against - surprise Heath Miller. Questionable calls against Seattle and non-calls against Pittsburgh deserves more scrutiny.

Posted by: Nathan Azinger at Feb 10, 2006 10:49:14 AM

So your telling me the Stealers only had THREE penalties? Thats the most telling stat to me. It's
not just the bad calls against the Seahawks but the non-calls against Pittsburgh. Blatant, transparent effort to give the game to a team.(What else are we supposed to think?)I don't see how anyone can say the Steelers earned that victory. I was hopeing to see the Steelers win, but not like that. At the least, that should be the last super bowl these guys officiate.

EMCEE: Yep only 3 penalties - none after midway in the second quarter. But, really, penalty count isn't really consequential. In the history of Super Bowls many teams have been penalized more than the Seahawks, many less than Pittsburgh (they, at least once had 0 penalties in one Super Bowl past) But, I sure hope those guys don't officiate another Super Bowl again. They were either bought or biased.

Posted by: stunzed at Feb 12, 2006 2:47:59 PM

Grow up. This site is immature and ridiculous. Find something better to do with your time. You're probably a lazy gambler who lost a lot of money. Btter luck next year for Seattle. It's one thing to be the best in the NFC but a whole nother thing to be the best in the NFL. Seattle wasn't the best. Granted, Pittsburgh lose to Denver....that may have been a different story. Seatle would have won the Super Bowl...On any given sunday, anyone can beat anyone...Pittsburgh won. Face it, get over it and grow up.

Well, thank you for your mature and wise judgments. For your information, I am not a gambler and I did not and do not bet on the outcomes of sporting events. I do, however, expect a guarantee of a fair game from those that sponsor such events and that clearly (except you apparently belong to the "don't believe your lyin' eyes" crowd) didn't happen for the Super Bowl. BTW - I'm not letting this go - stay tuned. As for laziness, I would gamble that the results of my professional work are such that any objective measure would determine that laziness is not one of my characteristics.

Posted by: Pat at Feb 15, 2006 12:00:29 PM

There were obviously penalties on Seattle. For the Seahawks the problem was that it "APPEARED" that all the calls came at critical times on critical plays. TO benefit the Steelers were several "No Calls". There was also a hold late in the third Qtr, jersey pull visible, on third down. Result 1st down. On the Reverse X or whatever it is, 84 was holding on the LB. Take down, result: TD. So its not so much the calls that were made, but the calls that weren't made that probably made the field of play a litle more equal.

EMCEE: Show me some available video evidence for what you are talking about. I'd be happy to look at it.

Posted by: Bruce at Feb 16, 2006 10:54:13 AM

First off, what is shocking is that people, even myself, are taking the time to continue to talk about the officiating this much after the Super Bowl. But, I'll post here since I posted elsewhere.

Secondly, here's my take on the controversial calls and I COMMENT the person who went through the painstaking process of getting these images and posting them on this site. GREAT JOB!

The Big Ben TD Run - I thought right away it was a TD and after reviewing the play, I thought the ball ever so slightly crossed the line. However, the ISSUE I have with this play is how late it took the ref to call it a TD and that at this point he could then call it a TD when Ben, on the ground, then pushed the ball over the goalline. I don't see how the ref can make that call. Now my buddy, who is a die-hard Steeler fan, said he had heard the ref was just looking to see if Ben fumbled the ball. If that's the case, I can see the late call. However, that's the ONLY time I've heard this explaination. Personally, I think the right call was ultimately made however on the flip side, I don't see how the ref could tell it was a TD at that point and thus call it a TD. But, lets concede a TD on 4th down anyway and move on to more important controversial calls.

The D.Jackson offensive pass interference call. I clearly thought it was pass interference and after looking at the review I could see his arm extend and push off. According to the rules, it's pass interference. However, after listening to Steve Young and Shannon Sharpe at halftime, they mentioned that this is a call that is normally NOT called and was a picky call and probably shouldn't have been called. These are FORMER NFL PLAYERS we're talking about who both agree this call shouldn't have been made. So, I've equated it with travelling in the NBA. If they called travelling "by the rules", there would be travelling EVERY TRIP DOWN THE FRICKIN' COURT. My take is that if it's a bad rule, fix the rule. And if it's normally not called, don't make the call, ESPECIALLY IN THE SUPER BOWL. Now, go above on this site, look at these STILL PICTURES, and explain to me that IF D.Jackson indeed did push off, then why is the defender immediately moving towards him? To me, this call should NEVER have been made. Picky call at best. I don't fault the ref for making the call because he was right there and saw a hand extend. They're supposed to make that call. However, after seeing the reveiw, which they don't have the ability to see and hearing from these players and others who have said the same thing, it's a call that shouldn't have been made.

Locklear holding call. BOGUS CALL. The defender, who may have been offsides on the play to begin with, got the jump on Locklear and was moving around him and the natural progression of the block made him fall to the ground. CONTRARY to what those who ONLY WILL see this as a holding call, Locklear did NOT block him and pull him down. The defender did that via the natural progression of this play. It was a bogus holding call at best and should NOT have been called. That was the WORST CALL of them all. Now, when a ref sees a guy go to the ground and had the advantage, he just pulls out the flag and calls it. And, 99% of the time, they are probably right in doing so. But why can't they actually SEE HOW that person goes to the ground. That was the most critical call of the game and the refs, WITHOUT QUESTION, got that call wrong.

The Hasselbeck fumble was reversed correctly. No issue there. The Hasselbeck penalty for his block was a bad call and not many take issue with that.

One other play most don't talk about is the D.Jackson TD catch that wasn't. The "Pylon" catch as people talk about. If the rule is correct, and some thing they know what the actual rule is, when the second foot comes down and hits the pylon, that constitutes being in play and thus should have been called a TD. Personally, I don't think it should be a TD because he NEVER could have gotten his second foot down. However, if the current NFL rule would permit this to be in play, then they never made the correct call and this was an officials call inside of 2 minutes. Now, why hasn't the NFL come back and stated the ruling on this play?

Now, with all of this said, the bottom line is that the Steelers won the game and we can't change that. The Seahawks had every chance to win this game and I thought actually played just slightly better than Pittsburgh in this game. Both teams played poorly and the officiating definitely was in Pitts favor. But, we can't take away the accomplishment the Steelers had in going through the playoffs this year as they were a DOMINANT TEAM in the AFC Playoffs. What puts a sour taste in my mouth is how much affect the officiating had on the outcome of this game and how the calls that were made were NOT so black and white. It would be easier to accept if I could sit here and say EVERY CALL went Pitt's way and should have gone Seattle's way. That would be easier to swallow. But the fact that most of these calls were so controversial that they could go either way really tainted the Super Bowl for me. It would have been nice to see a well officiated and well played Super Bowl where these teams played at their best. Instead, it was one of the most BORING Super Bowl's I've seen in years.

Posted by: Stebbs at Feb 16, 2006 11:49:29 AM



Posted by: jason in tacoma at Feb 17, 2006 8:39:14 AM

haha emcee are you seroious maybe if you had a life you could of maybe forgoten about a footbal game that happened 2 weeks ago, its sad to see such computer boys liek you spend all your time comlainin about games and not about real problems int he world . get a job pal and the steelers won

EMCEE: Always fun to get instruction from the literati. Perhaps I should calculate how many times my monthly payroll at my company would buy and sell you. Oh, what was that? It was your mom calling. She wants you to stop living in the basement.

Posted by: remus at Feb 18, 2006 2:39:20 PM

so much wasted energy. sorry i also wasted my time reading this garbage. what a bunch of whiners. 5 rings baby!

EMCEE: Yep. You're such a champion that you're willing to sign your name to this number 5 bogus ring.

Posted by: at Feb 19, 2006 7:32:15 PM

If the Steelers had won a fair game, I would have congratulated them. But, with all the calls that were made against the Hawks and the, what, three? against the Steelers, I'm sad that the refs stole from both teams. The Steelers have to now look down on a ring that they know they shouldn't have deserved, and/or are living in denial about it. Too bad some of their fans are turning on them to support the Hawks. Goes to show that cheating and biast refs is not the best way to go.

Also, I've heard these are the same refs that helped them win that game over Indianapolis. Is this true?

Posted by: Nae at Feb 20, 2006 9:11:09 AM

you people aarguing against the refs are something else. in no way was locklears hold phantom as has become the popular catch phrase all of a sudden. the pass interference call on samuel in the bronco game was phantom, not the locklear hold. he was behind him and clearly beat with his arm hooked around haggins' shoulder. clearly a hold, not a strong one but defintaly a hold. and i dont want to hear about missed calls either the refs miss calls in every game. the obvious ones are bad, like the pass interference that wasnt called on randle el in the divisional game at indi. that was out in the wide open clear to everyone that he was tackled before the ball got there. hope did grab the arm and it wasnt called, ill give you that. but jackeson did push off. he extended his arm, created separation, and even moved hopes feet when he pushed. the low block call on hasselbeck was the wrong call, the nfl admitted it. but it hardly had an effect on the game. try asking stevens why he couldnt hang onto the ball, or d jackson whey he couldnt drag his foot on the touchdown he would have caught if he stayed in bounds. Also, stevens did fumble that ball that was whistled dead and farrior was chasing it down the sidline. he gave up on it because of the whistle but probably would have come up with it had he continued. holmgren never should have punted with 6 minutes in the game either. i told my friends that was a mistake as soon as they did. he was at midfield and needed 2 scores. lots of mistakes by seattle for all you guys to be so focused on the calls by the refs. i do agree that a lot of times those dont get called, but only one out of all of them was outright wrong. also, roethlisberger may have scored and he may not have, but that is unclear. anyone who says different is imagining it. whatever the call was on the field though, it couldnt be overturned. and cowher did in fact say that if they didnt get it he was going for it on fourth down even before they were done with the replay. he told all the players to get ready to go for it if they didnt get it. (fyi)

EMCEE: Well, we hear from another of those 'don't believe your lyin' eyes' crowd.

Posted by: steelman at Feb 20, 2006 3:50:44 PM

also, id like to say that you pointed out one play made by bouleware, an interception made at the 17 yard line, and asked if he didnt play well enough to win. an interception on the 17 hardly guarrantees a victory. its about as effective as a forced punt. he made a great play, but where was he on the 75 yard touchdown run by parker? i guess they even out. actually they dont. we got 7 points on his mistake, they got nothing out of the int. im not proud of the way the steelers played, especially roethlisberger, but are you aware that even after that terrible first quarter, seattle only outgained pittsburgh by 60 yards? they hardly dominated, even with the poor performance by pittsburgh. i think its a little sad that you would not give any blame to the seahawks who even with the calls against them had their chances to win. try looking at everything if all youre going to do is whine and cry.

EMCEE: So, you understand what a 'microcosm' is Steelman? You do undersand that the post you are talking about is a not-so-subtle view of the game in a single play? That Seattle exemplified at least some extreme athleticism and that the officials, for some as yet unexplained reason, turned a blind eye to the rules of football? How long do you think it will take for you to get it?

Posted by: steelman at Feb 20, 2006 4:06:26 PM

i just want to say one last thing. im also sick of the "just let the guys play" theory just because its the superbowl. you to allow cheating just because its the superbowl? and there is no rule that sayspenalties have to be called equal on both sides. its not too many games where both teams have the same number of penalites. usually you just hear how penalites killed them instead of how the refs cheated and the game was fixed. dont know whats so different in this game, except maybe its the superbowl. but every game in the year is important, for playoff seeding and homefield advantage. one extra win or loss at the end of the season could mean a whole different set of circumstances in the playoffs. its just that theres time to overcome so nobody points fingers. but 60 minutes isnt enough time to overcome any kind of misfortune unless the quality of the team is that much higher than the opponent. I would give you guys more credit if at least you blamed seattle a little instead of just wanting to hand them the superbowl based on a couple calls that were unfavorable. changing one play has a ripple effect on the entire game. changing most any of the outcomes from any of those plays means that the other ones after it may never have happened. its not as easy as just adding 4 plus 7 and getting a tied ball game. and even that doesnt guarantee a seahawks win either. give jackson the touchdown and give them a touchdown on locklears hold (even though they could have been held to 3) and all that does is tie the game. cowher was going for it on fourth down whether you want to believe it or not. only could have had 1/4 inch to go if we didnt have that touchdown. so say the game is tied. in the second half we moved the ball pretty well and our 3rd down percentage was way better than seattles. so please stop it with the conspiracy theory crap. its getting old

EMCEE: Steelman, you doth protest too much. Don'cha think? This isn't going to stop until the NFL guarantees that this kind of thing isn't going to happen again.

Posted by: steelman at Feb 20, 2006 4:28:29 PM

Interesting picture on the Ben 3rd and 28 completion. I notice that the picture is before the ball is anywhere near release. Starks is moving back towards the line of scrimmage as this play is unfolding. But waiting a few more frames wouldn't do justice to your agenda. You are a fraud.

EMCEE: Really? So the fact that he is STILL over the line of scrimmage at the instant of release makes ME a fraud? OK. You want fraud? Check out the NFL's 'view' of this play. Coming soon to this site.

Posted by: Frank at Feb 20, 2006 6:56:06 PM

Yes, you intentionally used the wrong still that would seemingly support your claim rather than use the correct still that would allow the viewer to discern the truth for himself. That is what makes you a fraud.

Posted by: Frank at Feb 21, 2006 5:31:38 AM

I watched that entire game as I always do and I was disgusted. Those refs were at their worst. I have never in my entire life seen such a badly one-sided officiated game. WHO GOT PAID?????? I don’t accept the Steelers as the Super Bowl champs because I saw who really won that game. The Seahawks are the true champs.

Posted by: Soaring at Feb 21, 2006 12:00:07 PM

Dude -

Nice work overall on your video captures - now if your snarky comments only worked as well as the video.

As a long time Steeler fan - my comments:

1) I'll concede that Hope laid hands on the receiver - when you concede that Jackson's push off was also a penalty. Should have had a call on both players - but that doesn't make the receiver's push off any less a penalty.

2) had not seen the Starks video, and do not know the rule about illegal man downfield. Conceded that this is a blown call pending what Frank lists above - can he get back across the line - I just don't know the rule.

3) when I saw the play live, I was certain the ball crossed the line. What I was not watching was did Ben's knee hit first. Looks like it did here. I'm convinced the Steelers go for it on fourth down despite your snarky comment. Have no idea why this was not held up under replay.

4) I'd like to see the video of the Parker run again. I'm wondering if Miller is holding Fisher, why we don't see jersey being stretched. It looks like Fisher is there to make the play - except I'm thinking Fisher is being pushed left, not held from going left - or he would have run straight into Faneca who was pulling. Since Faneca made it through to smack 56 coming up on the play, it's got to be because Fisher has been blown out of the play left by Miller, not held as you claim. You're missing several video frames so I'm calling BS on this one.

I'm disregarding your deal on Tatupu because he's five yards out of the play and although yes, you can argue that if Starks hand hit him it should have been a call, there's no way a stud like Tatupu gets pulled out of the play by that hand unless he gets a finger in the eye or something like that. Show me a frame where he's falling down from getting poked and you're right. I'm thinking Parker was through there before Tatupu gets there.

Finally - I've been trying to see your point of view on these. I can't see how having Haggans hooked like you're showing on the last video captures is NOT holding. Sure looks like a handful of jersey there, but I guess you will see what you want to see.

I linked to this blog from a massive Football Outsiders posting, something that suggested that Locklear committed EIGHTEEN holding penalties, only two of which were called.

I think it's fair to say it was a sloppy game, a game where the NFL really needs to reconsider how it assigns "all star" referee teams instead of ones that work all season together, and it's a shame that the game was decided by bad calls and not on the field. Still happy my Steelers won, but not how they won.

Posted by: Geo Steeler Fan in Houston at Feb 21, 2006 1:35:37 PM

My bad - it was TEN holding penalties that could have been called on Locklear, not 18.

Posted by: Geo Steeler Fan in Houston at Feb 21, 2006 1:56:06 PM

With regards to the OPI, the offensive player pushes off. As for the other contact, it is incidental, and happens all the time. If you called a game that tight, it would take forever to play a game.
On the hold, looks like the o lineman is beaten, and he does what o lineman do to keep the QB from getting clobbered. They hold. Since the Umpire throws the flag, and the replay is from the Referee side of the field, I give it to the Umpire since he has a vastly superior angle on the play. Good call.
As far as ineligible downfield, That would be the Umpire again. The Referee lives and dies with the QB so he is very unlikely to see it.The LJ, BJ, FJ, and SJ all have eligible recievers to cover, and are not going to be watching an OL unless he happens to be way downfield, or happensto cross their line of sight.. That leaves the U. Among his many other duties, the U has to watch for The QB going beyond the LOS.For him to do that, it would not be possible for him to see an OL behind him who crosses a yard beyond the LOS. The best you can say is too bad,but there are 7 pairs of eyes watching 22 moving players. The alleged infraction had absolutely no bearing on the play, so you don't have much of a gripe either way. Blame the DB for taking a poor angle at the ball, and not making the play he should have.
As for the TD call. If you can't see the ball clearly for several frames, how do clearly know the ball does not ever so slightly break the plane of the goal line?Can't overturn it with that kind of unclear evidence. Looks like he probably got it right.
The rest of the pics and their interpertation is basically a bunch of scapegoating. Nothing more , nothing less. Almost as bad as a Miami fan.

Posted by: at Feb 22, 2006 2:39:41 AM

The above was posted by Bruce from Federal Way, WA

Posted by: at Feb 22, 2006 2:41:08 AM

On the ineligible downfield, I forgot the HL. He also has an eligible to cover, and would not be likely to observe an OL 1yard beyond LOS.

Posted by: at Feb 22, 2006 2:51:53 AM

The point of the Football Outsiders was to point out that 'if that was holding' then it should have been called over twenty times in the game. The shame of that call is that Locklear used excellent technique with a jam to the sternum and then rode Haggans around the quarterback with his arm sliding to the shoulder without grabbing even though Haggans had a questionable jump on the play.

It's as good a football play as you are going to get--that's the part that is irritating.

Posted by: at Feb 22, 2006 9:58:44 AM

D-Jack's 'push off' is another 'football play' that is never called especially when the defender has his hands on the receiver AND Chris Hope was in no position to make the play on a ball thrown to the inside. D-Jack made the better play, but Hope was rewarded with the call.

Posted by: at Feb 22, 2006 10:03:46 AM

Thanks for all the visual evidence,hurts to see it again but I'm glad you put it out there. The Seahawks dominated this game on both sides of the field, no doubt about it. I really hope the Hawks get another shot at it, at least next time I think the game will be called better. Easily the worse job of officiating ever...first superbowl robbery. Seahawks would have been up 10-0 and wouldnt have looked back. Thumbs up to the poise they showed under the repeated bad calls...true champs

Posted by: Raymond at Feb 22, 2006 10:07:23 PM

in the first place emcee, i think you are the one protesting too much. and are you saying that the seahawks are the only ones who made any plays that game? you are indeed blind in that case. did you see hines ward pull that ball up from about 2 inches off the ground or the 75 yard td run by parker? how about hope knocking the ball out of stevens' hands every time they touched it? and ill say it one more time; WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HASSELBECK'S TACKLE, NOT ONE OF THOSE CALLS WAS OUTRIGHT WRONG. not always called, maybe. but none of them were wrong. by the way, did you notice that a flag for helmet to helmet was thrown against seattle and then picked up? i guess they didnt totally have it out for seattle. plus if you caught the disney commercial about hines being the mvp, there was clear helmet to helmet on the play where he was pushed out of bounds that wasnt called. i saw that one during live play and waited for a flag that never came. with one exception, there was no call in this game as bad as the missed PI and the overturned interception in the pittsburgh indy game, or the pass interference against samuel in the patriot bronco game. You guys are crying about borderline calls that might or might not have affected the winner of the game. im sure there would have been a difference in how things played out, but when the winner wins by 11 points, Seattle would have had to get every single borderline call their way and all that would have done is make a close game. and if seattle won i guess all steeler fans could be crying right now about how the officials missed all those calls in the superbowl and cost them the game. did you lose a lot of money on the game or something? and it still bothers me that you will totally dismiss any blame toward holmgren, hasselbeck, stevens or the seattle defense that let pittsburgh chew up 4 minutes of clock with 6 remaining after holmgren punted needing 2 possesions which was only shortly after hasselbeck threw a football to a spot where there was no seahawk within 5 yards. you got some rose colored glasses it seems to me and maybe when youre done with them you could pass them around

EMCEE: I never said that the Steelers didn't make any plays and I never said Seattle didn't make any mistakes. I've been pointing out that poor calls affected the outcome of the game. You want to discuss something else, go ahead. It's just not what I'm talking about. You want to discsuss some other plays - send me some video or some stills and I'll be happy to post them and discuss them. In the meantime you continue to ignore visual evidence right in front of you. That's an objectivity problem right there.

Posted by: steelman at Feb 23, 2006 3:21:04 AM

also about the great call by locklear, are you allowed to be behind a defender with your hand hooked around his shoulder? i dont know where all this is coming from that a defender has to be pulled to the ground for it to be holding. you cant block someond from behind them. you gotta hold or let them go---bottom line.

EMCEE: I don't see Locklear with a hold on Haggan's shoulder. I see Locklear's right arm in proper blocking position, and his right arm inside the frame as defined by the NFL rules - Mike Pereire doesn't offer anything up about the left hand and any picture of the right hand looks like something called blocking to me.

Posted by: steelman at Feb 23, 2006 3:24:49 AM

You don't see it because you are confined to the poor camera shot from the referees approx position, and limited to 2/d as well. Since the flag is from the Umpire ( other side), it's a useless angle to demonstrate what was visible to the him. Basically what you have illustrated is just a picture of a football game. Still photos are very limited in value. Just because it isn't in your picture that covers a tiny fraction of what happens, doesn't mean that it doesn't occur at another point. I do believe even Madden made references along those lines. Your pictures are worthless.

EMCEE: Well, I'll be sure to let Mike Pereire know that in your judgment video stills from the game broadcast are worthless and that he can't use them either. Apparently, only your memory and the construction of your mind is the only thing that's useful to make determinations about what actually happened in the plays in questions.

Posted by: at Feb 23, 2006 7:21:52 AM

Whoever told you that an offensive lineman cannot be accross the NZ on a pass play is wrong.

EMCEE: What are you claiming? Your knowledge is superior to the NFL rule book? It's always interesting that someone to freely display their ignorance. Here 'tis:
5. The rules concerning a forward pass and ineligible receivers:

(a) If ball is touched accidentally by an ineligible receiver on or behind his line: loss of five yards.

(b) If ineligible receiver is illegally downfield: loss of five yards.

(c) If touched or caught (intentionally or accidentally) by ineligible receiver beyond the line: loss of 5 yards.

The line referred to here is the line of scrimmage. Who told me? The NFL rules. Now, I'm supposing that these unsigned comments could be letters from God, but I think even Mr. Tagliabue would argue this one.

Posted by: at Feb 23, 2006 7:54:54 AM

Actually, I should amend that to LOS.

EMCEE: Line of Scrimmage is what the ineligible player downfield refers to. And your assertion is simply ignorance of the rules.

Posted by: at Feb 23, 2006 8:00:52 AM

again, youre the one with objectivity problem, i admitted already openly that hasselbeck's flag on his tackle was the wrong call and that hope grabbed jacksons arm for a second and got away with it. i dont care about the out of pocket theory from pereirra, i dont think the back judge would notice hasselbeck stepping over 2 feet past the tackle anyway. I just think he got away with one. theres a lot of defensive holding that doesnt get called in the nfl, thats nothing new. officials have never and will never be able to call every single penalty in every game, they always miss some. its part of the game. i dont see it from only one side as you do. i look at it from both sides. and as for the visual evidence you speak of, i still see calls that could have been called or not called in slow motion and stills that the refs were looking at at full speed. i hope you guys are taking stock in kleenex.

EMCEE: Drawing a battle line in the sand has nothing to do with whining, steelman. I'm actually fighting for your rights as a football fan as much as anyone else's. No football fan wants officiating to determine the outcome of any football game - much less the Super Bowl. I don't want it to ever happen again.

Posted by: steelman at Feb 23, 2006 10:00:07 AM

When a lineman is engaged in contact behind the LOS, and that contact continues 2-3 yards beyond the LOS, it is considered legal. Beyond 2-3 yards and there is a problem. If contact is ceased, and the lineman freezes, generally he is ok. If he initiates contact beyond the NZ, there is a problem. If he wanders out up to 2 yards or so beyond the LOS, it is technically a foul. He will probably, though not always get the benefit of the "fudge factor", and no flag will be thrown, especially if it is seen to have no impact on the play. If he moves in a manner that could be judged as decieving the defense, he will be flagged no matter how far beyond the LOS. Like I said, whoever told you an OL can not be across the LOs on a pass play is wrong. The NZ is expanded to account for close contact between blockers and defenders causing O-lineman to cross the LOS by a short distance.. Because the NZ is expanded under these condtions, I was in error using the term, LOS,when in reality the NZ is extended beyond the LOS.

EMCEE: You're going to have to reference the rule book. Sounds like this is another one that's in your mind. The NFL site says that it's the line of scrimmage.

Posted by: at Feb 24, 2006 2:30:24 AM

I would wonder if you would kindly point out in your incredibly brilliant recap of the rules on ineligble down field, where it says that an OL across the los is always a penalty. I don't see it in A. Can't seem to pick it up in b either. B does mention illegally downfield, but not anytime across the LOS. If my eyes aren't decieving me, I don't see it in C either. Instead of spending your time on worthless stills, and what you (wish) take them to mean, you should spend some time reading officials boards, and how a play is worked,and the reasons it is done the way it is.Maybe you would be less likely to scapegoat. Doubtful,yes; but still possible.

Posted by: at Feb 24, 2006 3:09:57 AM

I love how some of the Steeler fans coming onsite are now saying "yeah, Hope held a little, but they can't call that everytime", or "yeah Starks was across the LOS, but there's a fudge factor involved". True, but Emcee's point is you need to let BOTH teams play. That didn't happen. The borderline calls were ignored for one side.

Apparently what the Steelers were best at in Super Bowl XL was knowing what kind of cheating they could get away with.

Posted by: at Feb 24, 2006 7:25:44 PM

What you have is someone who is hacked off because his team got beat. He then puts up a lot of meaningless (mostly) still photographs to demonstrate how , in his superior judgement, the covering officials got it wrong.He then looks in the wrong rulebook, goes instinctively , driven by his extensive training, to the wrong section ,and quotes the wrong rule to support his proclamation of superiority knowledge of the rules.
Once again I will tell you that whoever told you that an OL cannot be legally across the LOS when a pass is thrown , is wrong.

Posted by: at Feb 25, 2006 3:22:28 AM

I have a VHS of the game if you still are interested...

Posted by: Mike at Feb 26, 2006 3:50:56 PM

Move on losers.

Posted by: Seahawk Sensation at Feb 26, 2006 5:45:11 PM

Dear Seahawks Fan,

You have every right to be angry at the refs, cuz im *bleep* am. How the *bleep* are the refs going to decide the most important game of the season. I feel the Seahawks got robbed of the CHANCE to win.

A) If you take a look at most of the flags against the hawks most of them you could say were delayed as though the refs were waiting for the outcome of the play. i.e. Djacks offensive pass intereference was questionablly late...also Levy seemed to call holding on Locklear after Stevens made that catch)

B)EMCEE, shows reasonable evidence on most of the tainted calls, yet, most of you are, lets are being ignorant to the fact there is visual evidence. Most of you make excuses of how EMCEE is wrong because you're FANs that what you do. Heres my experience, I felt when the flag was thrown on Djack td catch...I thought it was defensive holding- Seahawks TD-...Ben Rothlisberger's Td Sneak...I thought it was 4th and goal...

C) Also to add into some of "non-calls" against the Steelers, after the Sean Locklear "Phantom Hold" and before Matt Hasslebecks Int and Tackle play. Jerry Porter horse-collared Sean Alexander. And if im correct that an illegal tackle and Seahawks should have gotten a new set of downs possibly nullifying Hasslebeck int and the Pitsburgh TD.

D)You really cant say the refs Robbed the game, because Seahawks did make a lot of mistakes, and even with the refs questionable calls if,Marquand Manuel didnt get hurt, i dont ever see -1) Willie Parkers TD 2) Randel Els TD throw-happening ...Pruitt's mistakes that Manuel prolly wouldnt have made cost seahawks the game as well as Jerramy Stevens butter fingers.

Frankly, this is a tainted team won and i might be on the winning side but I wouldnt necessarily call it the right side. The Seahawks and Hawk Fans deserve a lot of respect. Most of you are being biased against the truth because you dont want to believe in what is really the truth but I say stop and give the Hawks thier due in this game, because when all is done and said, the Steelers still have thier 5th Championship(and Bettis has his ring in a fashionable glorified unforgettable turn of events end of the season) *being saracastic some*

Posted by: Black And Gold Baby at Feb 26, 2006 8:41:09 PM

What if your team was the team who won 21-10? I bet you would be making points that they were all the right calls, see what you don't get is your a seahawks fan and your all bias to your team. I'm a Bears fan and if won 21-10.. i sure as hell would take it and im pretty sure 100%, that the other 32 teams would to, anyone who says differant is a hypicrate and there full of sh__ The calls could of gone either way, you lost and you need to move on, im sure there were lots and lots of other games were calls could of gone either way. You do this because it's your way of coping with a loss.

And another thing, If this was Peyton Manning's team who won 21-10, the world would be all over Manning with a 20 some rating. The media would use Tony Dungy's oldest son suicide, as there heart warming story to glory, instead of the questionable calls and saying they didn't earn it, If there is a conspiracy, it would be over the rich media down grading the small market teams. Pittsburgh is a crap city and the media looks down on them, you would be naive not to think otherwise. Nobody wants to accept them as champions. It is what it is and so move on you freaking cry baby.

EMCEE: You are free to go anywhere you want. If you don't like what I'm writing about please go elsewhere. I've taken up a fight for all football fans - all football fans want to see athletic contests determined by just that and nothing else. This is my nature to do this - or perhaps you missed the name of the site?

Posted by: tom at Feb 27, 2006 4:23:07 PM

This is beyond pathetic. I can't believe someone would have such an empty life that they would dissect every call with (very selective) image frames as references. Don't you get it? The Seahawks lost because they couldn't overcome their own penalties and they didn't show up to the biggest game of the year. They were penalized because they couldn't play the game the right way, they had to resort to cheating. Haggans was beating Locklear all night, he had to hold in order to keep Hasselbeck alive. You and the remaining whiners are going to blow a blood vessel trying plead your case. It's funny how the majority of Seahawks fans have moved on, and all that remains are people like you, the bottom of the bucket.

Oh, and you obviously are clueless to the rules of the game. You're making error after error in your empty assessments. Time to stop the bitching and move on like a man. You can use the "we're doing this for everyone's own good" stance until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change anything because, as far as this game goes, there's nothing to fix.

Whoever the author of this piece of fluff is, it's time to find something to fill the void that is your life.

EMCEE: Obviously you have time to spout off between calls from your mommy to get to bed. It's beddy bye time again little Eric. I know it hurts for you to confront the truth. Run along now.

Posted by: Eric B. at Feb 27, 2006 7:54:53 PM

Fantastic comeback! Truth is, your analysis is seriously flawed. You don't know the rules, quite obviously. You conveniently omit key images that would completely discredit your claims. For example, right after your Locklear images, there was a blatant yank on Haggans' jersey which took him to the ground. Didn't see that in your analysis. I don't see Hope grabbing Jackson either, I see their hands and arms in contact with one another, but no hold. According to NFL rules, which you seem to want to ignore, once the QB leaves the pocket the defender can initiate some contact with the WR. This is place for a reason, as the QB could scramble and the defender has the right to avoid a block by a WR. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're a joke as an analyst, stick to your day job.

And, by the way, if your agenda is not to discredit the Steelers as the champions they are, but to send a message to the league that their officiating was "one-sided", why not look at EVERY call in the game that was questionable? Why not look at the clip on Roethlisberger on the INT return? Or the non-call on the Stevens fumble?

Please answer these questions and save your overly-done "your mommy is calling" comments.

EMCEE: You come in my house and freely display your ignorance and expect me to give you any credence? You don't know the first thing about me. It is one mark of wisdom to find out a little something about someone before you go about trashing them. I buy and sell pinheads like you ten times before breakfast every day. Read all of my Super Bowl posts and after you have absorbed what I'm saying, if you want to have some civil discourse I'll be happy to. Otherwise, please move along. I've asked nicely.

Posted by: Eric B. at Feb 27, 2006 9:09:43 PM

Funny, "your house". You welcome comments, correct? Well, these are my comments in response to your flawed anlysis. If you feel the need to post this drivel expect to have your comments refuted.

I'm trying to have civil discourse with you, but instead you insult me in one response and then ignore my questions and comments in the next. On top of all that, you feel the need to throw out an "I'm so successful I don't even need to talk to the likes of you" comment as well. You're a real man. And what's even better, you are man enough to accept defeat. Oh wait...

EMCEE: Let's see. You showed up here and said:
This is beyond pathetic. I can't believe someone would have such an empty life that they would dissect every call with (very selective) image frames as references.
...all that remains are people like you, the bottom of the bucket.
...Oh, and you obviously are clueless to the rules of the game. You're making error after error in your empty assessments.
Whoever the author of this piece of fluff is, it's time to find something to fill the void that is your life.

And you are attempting 'civil discourse'? I guess you would define the Civil War as a disagreement then?

You want to challenge my analysis - do it with video frames and descriptions against them like I've done. You don't think I know the rules? Then give me chapter and verse from the NFL rule book like I've done here. I don't care what your opinion is. Use some objective facts and refrain from spouting your inanities or your comments will no longer be welcome at this site.

Posted by: Eric B. at Feb 27, 2006 9:49:28 PM

I don't have footage of the game on my computer and my DirecTiVo is not networked because it's not supported. I can give you points in the game to upload for me, but I'm sure you will refuse since they don't go along with your "opinions".

Sorry if you didn't like my truthful comments. But I especially like your arrogant: "I buy and sell pinheads like you ten times before breakfast every day." What exactly does this mean?

Posted by: Eric B. at Feb 27, 2006 10:42:58 PM

I've got a Tivo'd copy of the game on DVD. Wanna copy?


Posted by: Mike at Feb 27, 2006 11:39:08 PM

"Apparently what the Steelers were best at in Super Bowl XL was knowing what kind of cheating they could get away with."

No, Seattle was just dumb enough to commit penalties right in front of the officials. Or they're trying to keep their QB alive because Haggans was killing Locklear. You can probably find one or two penalties in 80% of the plays throughout the history of the league. Some are so minute or so far away from the action that it's pointless to call them (see being one yard beyond the LOS and 15 yards away from the play, above).

Of course push-offs happen all the time. But typically the WR is doing it in a subtle way down the sideline where it's almost impossible for the official to see. If you're in the endzone, six feet from the official and you blatantly shove the DB, it's going to be called 100% of the time. Jackson is a good WR but not very bright. Anyone who's heard him speak can attest to that. And his actions on that play tell you all you need to know.

Oh, and "emcee", or whatever your real name is, why not show the video of this play rather than certain images that appear to support your cause? If you look at the action during the play, you'll see very little contact by either player, except, of course, when Jackson blatantly shoves Hope backwards so hard that his feet leave the ground. See for the push off.

And for good measure:

Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

(a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

(d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

EMCEE: As to (b) - that's the point of my explanation in the detailed analysis of the play. Jackson did NOT initiate contact with Hope. Hope initiated contact with Jackson. It's right there in front of your eyes despite the fact that you don't want to see it. When Jackson escaped Hope's hold contact had already been initiated - and not by Jackson. Look at the play, look at the frames - it's right there. As I said in my analysis as well - Jackson wasn't attempting to catch a pass when he escaped from Hope's initiated contact - the ball hadn't yet been thrown (and no, I'm not saying that the ball needed to be in the air - I'm aware that is not germaine in this case) - it's just that Jackson wasn't attempting to gain separation to make the catch - he was trying to get away from Hope's (illegal) contact in the first place.

Posted by: Eric B. at Feb 28, 2006 7:45:54 AM

The answer to the question is very f---kin simple...

Pittsburghs three biggest or/and drives plays...

1) Ben to Ward..QB sneak later for a TD...What EMCEE shows what happens is illegal man downfield but also further more a very questionable td play later.

2)Willie Parker Touchdown run...there might have been holding but its unclear...lets say as maybe Sean Locklear hold unclear...and plus blocking with hands to the face on Lofa Seattle Rookie Safety botching the play. Two flags may have happened yet nothing.

3) Randel-el touchdown throw...a series of odd penalties and miscalls led to this touchdown..the break down working backwards:
a) hasslebecks block which was a tackle that was called for 15 yards...that 15 yards could have a made a difference...we dont know
b) Michael Smith of ESPN pointed out that Jerry Porter horse-collered Shaun was a illegal tackle so the refs should have seen it yet there was a no call..when the Hawks should have had a new set of downs instead it was 3rd and whatever, a play that lead to Hasslebecks interception.
c)Sean Locklears phantom hold that, in which i agree was somewhat late flag to begin with, pulled after Stevens caught the ball, plus the fact that two Steelers were offsides to begin with, which was NOT called...Seattle had a free play and if Sean Locklear did hold it should have been a No Play. Basically a Do-Over.

Seattles biggest plays were taken away from them...

a)Darrel Jackson TD catch...except for Djacks little push off...Hope was molesting Jackson in the endzone...yet at the end of the play, the play went to Pittsburgh.

b)Seattles drive of Sean Locklear hold, the horse-collar no call, and MH's int and blocking infraction was a blown drive for a sure TD.





You guys cant tell me we didnt see a lot of crazy sh** in the playoffs, what the refs were doing it was BS doing the whole show. So I know you cant ever confuse this with it being just the Seahawks made mistakes dont saw what happen in the playoffs all these wierd f**cked up calls, yet you guys say Pittsburgh won fair and sqare.

The NFL cant control games with a iron fist but im sure they pull little favors to have a better storyline...they hide behind the refs saying that the zebras made Judgement calls.

Seahawks did make mistakes, Offensive holds and interference, Darrell Jacksons field placement, Jeremy Stevens dropped catches, Josh Browns miss field goals, and Eric Pruitts mistakes on two touchdowns and special teams caused this team to get tired and tired quick...all the refs did was was allow a low blow or two and a headbutt, so the Pittburgh Steelers could deliver the knockout blow.

Posted by: at Feb 28, 2006 5:52:38 PM

Did you happen to check out the illegal man downfield non-call on Seattle in the first quarter (around 7:40)? I'd like to see your analysis of that.

Your exaggerated "analysis" does not show a hold. It shows a defender touching a wide receiver. In your "analysis" you also say he impedes his progress. I don't see that either. Most telling, however, is this gem:

"and Hope wasn't moved back by D-Jack's break."

Really? Take a look at Hope's feet and his position before and after the shove. Use the endzone lettering as your guides. Now tell me this is not a blatant lie on your part.

I see a bitter individual who is taking the four or five people who frequesnt his blog for fools. You're not just exaggerating in your analysis, you're flat out lying. It's irresponsible on your part.

But at this time, this topic has been argued to death and people like you, who claim to be "for the fans" are nothing but conspiracy theorists. How else do you explain these blog entries? I see images, selected carefully, to make an attempt at furthering a point of view. I don't see critical frames in the movies from which these are extracted that would damage your agenda. They are conveniently left out.

I don't have a problem with you expressing your views, however skewed and biased they are. I do have a problem with outright lying in an attempt to take advantage of a situation where you can increase traffic to a blog that seems to have none.

Posted by: Eric B. at Feb 28, 2006 10:24:38 PM

Some people like sucking d**k and some people like to see good championship games...I'm all for the second statement.Seattle played against the Steelers, Fans, and Refs and still dominated most of the game. They didnt win, yes, we all know that but..."what if" Jerramy Stevens caught his balls, "what if" Manuel never got hurt, and that later may have effected 2 of 3 Pittsburghs TDs,"what if" Jackson had given himself better field placementin which would have been not 1 but 2 touchdowns.


Pittsburgh may have came out on top with BETTER breaks, but Seattle certainly was the BETTER team. Just because you win the Super Bowl doesnt mean your the best.

They, the Seahawks, might have not won but at least they won respect in the NFL throughout.

AND the issue of them not going back because they are the losing team, "I wouldnt be surprised if they won it all, and one it big"

But I cant be hoping for that because i want my Rams to kick thier asses.

Posted by: St Lunatic at Mar 1, 2006 7:15:18 AM

maybe the clown who is puting on this farce of a web site coulld actually show the correct photo's. for instance, yess Max Starks was across the line of scrimmage while Ben was still holding the ball. But he made it back in time for the THROW. Anyone who recorded the game can see that. Now really, who loses the crediblitiy the NFL or the idiot who didn't show all the frames fo the play?

Give it people, it was a touchdown, it was holding and it is a Steelers Super Bowl 40 Championship!!!

EMCEE: You obviously have not see subsequent posts that show Starks beyond the line at the point of the throw.

Here We Go Steelers Here We Go

Posted by: why? at Mar 2, 2006 4:16:23 AM

The only way getting back to a legal distance of LOS will be of any benefit, is if the ineligible has not yet been seen. Once seen illegally downfield, you are considered such for the duration of the play. The player however,is legal.

Posted by: at Mar 2, 2006 7:43:10 AM

emcee, you only put up one photo because Max is standing at the LOS when the ball is TRHOWN. legal play.

Posted by: why at Mar 2, 2006 2:16:39 PM

even though Max appears to be past the LOS - he isnt more than a yard away. check his left foot.

What distance constitutes an "ineligible man" downfield and what is the rationale behind the violation? In other words, what advantage does an offense incur by having a non-eligible man downfield? -- Steve L., Glencoe, Ill.

It is a foul when an ineligible offensive player, which is difficult to describe but is often an offensive lineman, advances beyond his line of scrimmage after losing contact with an opponent at the line of scrimmage. It is also illegal when an ineligible offensive player moves downfield without contacting an opponent at the line of scrimmage. These restrictions end when the ball leaves the passer's hand. The offending player must be more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage prior to the pass to be illegally downfield. This guideline is used in college and professional football.,1,4338159.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-utility

Posted by: why at Mar 2, 2006 2:21:02 PM

Fantastic pics!! As a Hawk fan, I am still not over the whole Super Fraud XL. I was wondering if anyone can get a still shot of, in my opinion, the key non call that cost the Hawks the game. Right after Locklear was flagged for the non-hold, and right before the Hasselbeck INT, the Hawks ran Alexander. Joey Porter horse collared Alexander. Had the refs not been on the take and made that call, the Locklear non-hold would have been somewhat nullified. The Hawks would have had a 1st and 10 on the 19, instead of a 3rd and 18 from the 34. Hasselbeck would not have thrown the INT and chances are strong the Hawks would have capped off a 98 yard drive with the go ahead TD. If anyone can locate that still shot it would be great!

Posted by: John at Mar 2, 2006 7:15:52 PM

Hey John - I have a still for you: you're STILL whining about the refs. You lost, get over it!

Posted by: Hawks Lost at Mar 2, 2006 8:05:08 PM

1) The Max Starks over the line of scrimmage play did not result in a td pass from Ben Roth...but a questionable TD run by him.

2) Jerry Porter did horse-collar tackle Shaun Alexander. How the refs didnt see it and yet they supposedly see all these other calls that dont favor the Hawk.

Just to break it down.

1. Refs helping Pittsburgh is the NFLs Fault.
2. Pittsburgh had nothing to do with it.
3. Hawks lost because mostly of thier own mistakes and injuries but the refs did screw them somewhat on key plays.
4. Pittsburgh fans really can be dicks...I rank them with Redksins and Dallas fans as the NFLs biggest assholes.
5. Hawks fans arent trying to down-play Pittsburgh in anyway, i dont hate Pittsburgh, i just hate the refs. So really if ur a fan and being a big dick why dont u stop cuz u got the f-in wrong attitude about this, Pitburgh won we now that, we aint been talking about them, we been talking about the refs.

Posted by: stfu at Mar 2, 2006 9:10:02 PM

stfu - you need to drink MORE before you post. Hey, if you hate us all the better. Thanks!

Posted by: Hawks Lost at Mar 2, 2006 10:32:28 PM

I think since the nation has had a chance to soak up the correct calls, it changes the poll.

1) What grade would you give referee Bill Leavy's officiating crew for Super Bowl XL?

28.2% F

27.1% D

22.9% B

11.0% C

10.8% A

2) How do you rate the overall state of officiating in the NFL?

32.6% Bad

29.4% Good

25.9% Average

6.6% Abysmal

5.5% Excellent

3) Did the officiating in Sunday's game unfairly favor one team?

44.0% Unfairly favored the Steelers

39.4% The right calls were made

16.7% Unfairly favored the Seahawks

4) Which played the biggest role in determining the outcome of the game?

42.1% Steelers making plays

31.9% Officials missing calls

26.1% Seahawks not making plays

5) Do you think the official made the right call on Darrell Jackson's offensive pass interference in the endzone, negating a Seattle touchdown in the first quarter?

54.1% Yes

41.5% No

4.4% I'm not sure

6) Do you think the football broke the plane of the goal line on Ben Roethlisberger's touchdown run in the second quarter?

56.1% Yes

34.2% No

9.7% I'm not sure

7) Do you think the official made the right call on Sean Locklear's holding penalty in the fourth quarter, negating an 18-yard reception to the one-yard line by Jerramy Stevens?

49.9% Yes

41.6% No

8.5% I'm not sure

8) Do you feel that you understand what constitutes a ''football move'' on plays involving potential fumbles?

76.3% Yes

23.7% No

9) How much would creating full-time officiating positions, instead of the current part-time positions, help improve the quality of NFL officiating?

51.4% A little

30.3% A lot

18.3% Not at all

10) Which major sport has the best officials?

34.0% MLB

30.9% NHL

21.9% NFL

13.2% NBA

Total Votes: 313,450

Posted by: hawks whine and cheese at Mar 3, 2006 4:30:31 AM

Here We Go
Super Bowl
Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl
Here We Go

come on everyone, join in.

Posted by: here we go at Mar 3, 2006 4:32:28 AM

Only a very small % of fans have an understanding of what constitutes a well officiated game. The vast majority wouldn't know one, if it was diagrammed out for them. Most misunderstood part of the game by far.

Posted by: at Mar 3, 2006 8:37:17 AM

which is why the poll was so skewed from the start.

Posted by: here we go at Mar 3, 2006 11:04:56 AM

Check this...

The Seahawks are consensually FU CK IN the Steelers , in turn they say RAPE.

So they go to court.

Steelers cant allow the Hawks to win this case because they are famous around the nation.

the JUDGE knows the Steelers advantages if they win the case so he pays the jurors to FIX a little details so the Steelers come on top.

Most of the Court's Audience is pulling for the Steelers cause its the right thing to do, they dont want their beloved stars raped by what some considered a inferior team.

Seahawks lawyers are trying everthing to protect thier beloved Hawks but in the end the Steelers win with a lil help for being the fan favorite.

After the case, newsreporters and investigators, rechecks some of the details and found some major flaws and a lot of minor ones.

The judge takes the report and changes or removes some of the details and also supports the jurors decision.

So the only evidence left is for those who watched the case, and however they percieved, most know the Seahawks arent guilty, that they were played by the jury.

In a year or so the Seahawks will get thier chance to appeal thier case and they gonna win it becuz they know now. They gonna be more prepared.
No Judge. No jurors. No Lawyer is gonna stop them. They want thier named cleared. End of Case.

Posted by: at Mar 3, 2006 3:44:21 PM

this is bullshit, picture shots dont show motion and what appears to be holding might not have been, and the defensive holdings on hope in the first sequence are BULLSHIT, those camera shots could be of any motion, no wonder in the video shot of it, it didnt appear to be holding....and the willie parker td, gimme a break, ACCORDING TO THIS, we shoulda had 0 yards and lost 40-0, if i was an angry steeler fan i coulda found a million camera imaged on each of your good plays to find shots that appear to be a ahold or hand in the face, this is the most biased bullshit page ive ever seen, goodbye

Posted by: david librot at Mar 6, 2006 7:49:50 PM

NFL officials unfairly criticized—let’s be fair and balanced

Wow! That is an interesting viewpoint and a classic case of cognitive dissonance. You want to believe that Seattle was a better team and won the game. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort to reconcile your view of the world with reality. Your criticism of the officials is both unfair and biased.

I listened to the Seattle radio broadcast when I watched the game and have a much different view of the game than you. ‘Here we go’ had an excellent point---the rules of the game are more complex than the casual fan or television analyst appreciates. You can rationalize either view of the game by picking and choosing the information you choose to value—there is no shortage of information for either viewpoint on the Internet and cable television. Case in point: Locklear’s hold. Which view do you choose?
1. John Madden’s observation: I didn’t see a hold there. You have to be able to jam the guy.
2. Seattle broadcaster Warren Moon: ‘That time Sean Locklear got that arm out against Haggans and they are going to call that every time.’
3. Pittsburgh broadcaster Tunch Ilkin: ‘You were right, that was a tackle but it was on Sean Locklear. Billy, you were absolutely right, there was a tackle on it, it was Sean Locklear on Clark Haggans. … Sean Locklear puts the clamps on the jersey, right on the shoulder pad, right in front of the official.”
4. Head of NFL officials—the key to the play is offensive lineman’s ‘feet are beat’—if the defensive lineman has gained the edge and with the offensive shoulder in a trail position, the offensive player’s hand contact was illegal

2 local radio broadcasters immediately called it a hold. The national television analyst said he didn’t see the hold. The Head of NFL officials thoroughly reviewed the play and agreed with the call on the field. Which view do you choose?

In search of a fair and balanced opinion, there are a couple of other points you may want to consider:
1. Listen to the Seattle radio post-game broadcast on NFL Field Pass. The immediate raw reaction of the Seattle players (Wistrom, Tatupu, Hasselback...) before they had an opportunity to check the Internet or cable television: All gave credit to the Steelers and lamented on their failure to cash in on opportunities.
2. Also consider the opinion of Tennessee coach Jeff Fisher. Fisher is respected by his colleagues for his knowledge of the rules. He is ‘the walking rule book’. Jeff Fisher has no love for the Steelers. It is well known that Bill Cowher broke Jeff Fisher leg in an NFL game, effectively ending Jeff’s career as a player.

I’m sure none of this will change your view but the explanation by the Head of NFL Officials, aired on the NFL network, is excellent and worthwhile to consider. See the link to the NFL officiating and Jeff Fisher’s statement below.

Maybe you can analyze the following plays also
1. Ben blocked in the back on the INT return.
2. Ward hit out of bounds no less helmet-to-helmet.
3. Stevens catches the ball, takes 3-4 steps, is hit, FUMBLEs, ruled incomplete?
4. Several times, Hasselbeck threw the ball away while standing in the pocket to avoid the sack. No calls?
5. per NFL officials, phantom offensive pass interference called against Pittsburgh

Posted by: Gary S at Mar 8, 2006 11:19:16 AM

No use trying to convince a stealer fan, that the game was tainted. It,s like talking to a wall.

Posted by: John at Mar 15, 2006 8:04:00 AM

Enjoy stealer fan !!!!!

Posted by: John at Mar 15, 2006 8:06:04 AM

Looks like the old saying "actions speak louder than words" will hold true again:


"The committee also is considering recommending to officials that they MAKE SURE THERE WAS HOLDING ON A PLAY BEFORE THROWING THE FLAG.

"We want to make sure they actually see the foul," McKay said.

One such play occurred in the Super Bowl. Seattle right tackle Sean Locklear was called for holding on a pass completion early in the fourth quarter that would have put the Seahawks at the Pittsburgh 1-yard line, poised to go in for the tying touchdown. After the penalty, Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck threw an interception and the Steelers eventually scored to take a 14-point lead.

The committee also wants to change the rule on hits by defenders below the knee on quarterbacks. McKay said defensive players will be told they must make an effort to avoid hitting QBs in the legs to avoid serious injuries, like the hit on Cincinnati's Carson Palmer against the Steelers in the playoffs.

Another recommendation expands the rule put in place last year against "horse collar" tackles. That violation mandated flags only when a defensive player coming from behind got his hands inside the shoulder pads of a player with the ball. If it is expanded, it would extend that to tackles inside the shirt."

Hmmm, phantom holds, horse collars, low hits on QBs. At least the NFL recognizes that last year's travesty can't happen again.

Posted by: Antoine at Mar 23, 2006 7:31:44 AM

It would be good to have discourse with Intelligent Pittsburgh fans , however from what I have seen , they are immature 15 year olds.

Lets say the rolls were reversed and Pittsburgh lost to Seattle 21-10 with all these questionable calls . How would you react , would we be photoshopping the Pittsbugh Wine ?

What most Seahawks fans wanted and didnt get was a level playing field , ticky tack calls , phantom calls and non-calls that 99% of the time went Pittsburghs way. Guys we are NOT attacking Pittsbugh or its fans (unless you want to be jerks) we are attacking the Refs and the way the game was called , because it happened to the Seahawks in the Superbowl and the NFL whitewashes it as good Refereeing. Most if any FOOTBALL fans (except 90% of the winning teams fans) can see this and know why We are being so vocal. Hell even Rothlesbeger admitted on Letterman he didnt break the plane of the goal.

If we Seahawk fans dont become vocal about this and are not bitching moaning and compaining about BAD officating so the NFL does something about it, then I honestly and truly hope the next important game your team is in weather it be a Superbowl or Conferance Championship that it gets the SECOND WORST SCREW JOB EVER BY THE REFS.

BTW - If an offencive lineman is across the LOS on a pass play before the ball is tossed it is Inellagable Reciver Downfield 100% of the time , because he is already downfield.

BTW - laying your hands on a reciver BEFORE the ball is passed is Illeagle Contact Downfield

BTW - putting a hand on someones fask mask is Hand to the Face .

BTW - hitting a reciver who is out of bounds is Unnessary Roughness - Late Hit ( if you dont know what i mean check out the pass to D-Jack after the Pylon pass )

BTW a Horsecollar is a Horsecollar is a Horsecollar ..... Its in the Rule Books ... CALL IT! ( what would have happened if Alexander was injured on the play , just ask TO the ramifactions of that)

I wont even get into the Holding call because from what I can tell it came from behond and to the side and the ref had a bad view . God i wish we could of had 360* view but we didnt so Seahawks fans will say it was bad the Pitt fans it was a hold .

And the NFL Corperate line is " OUR REFS DID IT RIGHT" Pittsburgh fans rejoice because the NFL says you won , but most FOOTBALL FANS , not just Seattle Fans say it was a badly refed game and the NFL is tossing the piss poor officating under the couch so that the compay ( read corperate America ) coming over wont see it.

Posted by: Fulch at Mar 30, 2006 12:13:00 PM

I am not trying to take any side here, I just have a few things to say. First off I am a Steeler fan, but please still read on, I will try to make this unbiased.
I agree with all that the officiating was not up to par, however, no one shows both sides of it. That is why Steeler fans think you are ragging on them.
For every item you showed on this post, I can find a legitimate counter. Not necessarily that you are wrong or I am wrong, but I can refute everything you have said.

In the D-Jack, Chris Hope pics, there is really no definitive picture of Hope in contanct with D-Jack......note that I said definitive. However if you look at Chris Hope's feet in the end zone, he is moved backwards by D-jack, look at his feet with reference to the letter E in the end zone. I did watch the game and I do know that there was contact between Hope and D-jack all the way down the field. Maybe it should have been offsetting penalties.

Max Starks inelligible down field, who was supposed to call it? there is no official look at him. Once a QB breaks containment almost no noe looks at the linemen, unless it is a designed rollout. However it should have been a penalty.

Big Ben's TD.......well maybe if they used frame by frame they might possibly have reversed the call, however all they have is TiVo, not frame by frame. Looking at it even in slow motion, can you say he wasn't in? If he had been called just short, I am sure the review would have stood that way also.

By your definition alone Miller did not hold, his arm is never fully extended, and the block was initiated with both players front sides, again not a hold, just a good block. As for Max Starks and Lofa, your speedy LB took a bad angle to a much faster RB and overran the play, then on his own power turned into Starks. It was not at any time a block by Starks, so any contact was intitiated by Tatupu, therefore there is no hands to the face. However There is no way anyone was catching Willie Parker, there are only 2 or 3 footballl players in the NFL that are as fast or faster than Slick Willie and none of them play for Seattle.

Holding on Locklear, he started in a worse blocking position than Heath Miller and both players ended up on the ground after Haggans had taken the corner. That will be called more times than it won't be called. Was it holding? Is it called a lot....YES. By the way, if you are getting your rules from John Madden about the NFL, maybe it is time for you to watch a few other games besides the Seahawks.

I know everyone wants to know also about the phantom block on is a very legitimate call. It was also 100% the correct call......however it is a very stupid rule and is not meant for that situation.

Keep in mind that I feel the officiating was terrible and I do agree with some of what is posted here, I just wanted to give you a different view. If you look close enough there are some questionable calls that went Seattle's way also.

Posted by: Bill at Apr 1, 2006 8:24:07 AM

Hey Bill: You said: "Max Starks inelligible down field, who was supposed to call it? there is no official look at him. Once a QB breaks containment almost no noe looks at the linemen, unless it is a designed rollout. However it should have been a penalty." Exactly, it should have and if the officials did their job correctly and positioned themselves correctly the call is made.
More importantly, the holding call on Locklear was total crap and the only reason you're saying it was legitimate is because you know deep down in your heart of hearts, just like I do, that if that one call, and that one call only goes the other way your Stealers lose the SB. The Hawks would've scored on the next play to go ahead 17-14 and would have just driven 97 yards on your vaunted defense and all the momentum is Seattle's. Considering the conservative nature of Cowher, the best your team gets on your next and last posession is a field goal, if your team gets even that. Following that, the Stealers tired defense gives up a game winning drive to the Hawks. The Seahawks won the time of possesion battle, the turnover battle and the total yardage battle and lost the damned game by 11, had it STOLEN by 11 points I should say.

Posted by: Mike at Apr 3, 2006 5:51:37 PM

If the Colts would have made just one field goal at the end of their playoff game against the Steelers, then Steeler fans would have felt exactly what Seattle is feeling now. A loss due to blatently POOR OFFICIATING! The NFL has a lot of work to do to insure this kind of disaster never happens again, that is if they want to continue to prosper. I for one refuse to buy NFL gear until this is corrected. The NFL would love for us to just forget about this years bad calls.

Posted by: Mike at Apr 4, 2006 5:35:04 AM

If the Steelers had somehow managed to lose a game with a 3 pt lead, first and goal,and 1:10 to go, they would have deserved to lose. Blaming officials is what losing teams fans do.

In order to be ineligible downfield, you must be at least one yard beyond the LOS. Generally , two yards is the threshold. No ineligible downfield on that play.

Posted by: at Apr 5, 2006 1:42:58 PM

If you think the officials are out of position on that play, just where do you think they should they be?

Posted by: at Apr 9, 2006 2:16:02 AM

First off, you're an idiot and so are the people that believe this garbage.

You're so called ineligible receiver downfield is incorrect, you might want to actually look up REAL NFL RULES before you comment.

The interior five players are considered ineligible to receive passes. This penalty is called if one of the 5 interior players is more than five yards past the line of scrimmage during a forward pass... You catch that dummy... 5 yards.

On the PI, DJ did push off, read the rules, that's a PI. If you also had the ability to read, you would see that a defender can put his hands on a WR if the QB breaks the pocket, Hasslebeck did that twice on that play but once you leave the pocket, it desolves...

Ben's TD, the ball did cross the plane in the air. Oh and btw, Cowher and the Bus and Ben have said they would go for it on 4th... Care to look up JB's stats on 4 and inches? LMAO

On that holding call, don't you find it curious how a OL can still have his hands on a players chest while standing behind the rusher??? Not only have his hands on his *cough* neck but bring him down, it might be because he was holding.

I'm shocked that your dumbass didn't try saying that Djack scored a touchdown at the end of the half because he touched the pylon, hahahahaha.

The problem isn't the officials, it's the dumbasses who watch games once a year and don't know BASIC FUCKING RULES.

Posted by: Corey at Jul 27, 2006 10:33:36 AM

As a Steeler fan I will say this:

Most importantly, the refs cheated me: the football fan. I could look at game tapes until I am blue in the face and probably find all kinds of blown calls on both sides. However, there is no doubt the "questionable" calls did not go Seattle's way. I feel cheated because I believe we would have won in convincing fashion. ie. Convincing meaning we would not have to see sites such as this.

A couple of observations:

If D-Jack would have continued without pushing off then I am sure Hope would have gotten called for defensive pass interference. No doubt Hope was grabbing him but it was the push off that ended up grabbing the attention of the refs. Hope baited him big time. I get sick of hearing about this play. Any coach would be proud of their DB for baiting the WR.

To me, whether or not Ben broke the plane is of little value. I am quite sure we could have picked up an inch on 4th down.

The rogue holding penalty was indeed a ticky tack foul. My bet is that 9/10 times it is a no-call. That is the point in the Super Bowl that I got angry at the refs because they were cheating me. BS call.

Hopefully, both of our teams can have Round 2 this year. I would like to have another opportunity to beat you convincingly...with no questions asked about who deserves the trophy. No offense.

Good luck to you this year. Hope to see you again down the road.

Posted by: JL at Sep 11, 2006 10:37:27 AM

I had stepped aside from this ongoing debate for a time after it degraded into a circular argument. That said I have to reiterate something - especially since this debate is far from dead (i.e., search "Seahawks got screwed" on youtube): I'm OK with the "That ref must have been BLIND" comments (I say it all the time). But the "the refs CHEATED" comments voiced as matters of fact versus opinion? Not cool...

If there are those who TRULY buy into this being blantant cheating, bias, tampering, etc. by the refs and/or anyone else, then by all means bring your evidence to your local senator (maybe they can bundle it with the Spygate stuff).

I may sound a little crass - but I mean it. If anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that intentional wrongdoing occurred in this game, then I for one would renounce my team's SBXL title.

So I look forward to one of two things: One, this issue finally being investigated and fully addressed or Two, the confirmation that all this banter of bias and such is indeed what I initially suspected: Nothing more than the rant of disgrunted Seahawk fans and their supporters....

- Tim B.

P.S. - PLEASE do not reply to me with the tired "Senator/Mr./Ms. such-and-such has more important things to do than..." excuse. Apologies for being blunt, but either step up, or step off.

Posted by: Super Bowl XL Review at Apr 29, 2008 1:45:06 PM

The Steelers just got handed another game today vs. the Ravens. A 3rd down play was ruled short of the goal line and a review overturned the call and awarded the Stealers the go ahead TD with 30 seconds left. Some things never change. Sigh.

Posted by: Colin at Dec 14, 2008 11:27:34 PM

in calculating the energy wasted by you whiners in denial, i'm almost brought to tears. then i factor in that my dog could have just as easily written nonsensical nothingness and i feel better.

thanks for the laughs, losers.

Posted by: th at Dec 10, 2009 10:32:28 AM

Wow... Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitching is all I see here. And incredibly bias bitching at that.

Posted by: Matt at Feb 7, 2010 11:49:55 AM

It's absolutely amazing that the "eternal flame" of conspiracy still burns for many fans regarding this game (see "Seahawks got screwed" video on youtube). I will say that I DO have a VHS tape of the game...I should convert it to a DVD sometime. In the meantime, check out my link for a more balanced view of the calls in question.

And I'll simply add this: If it is so "glaringly obvious" that the "fix was in" on this game, that there was intentional wrong-doing or shenanigans, then call your Senator. Let's REALLY investigate this thing and put it to bed once and for all.

And PLEASE do not use the tired "how dare you suggest such a trival pursuit when they have other pressing matters," etc. They have had enough time in their busy schedule to investigate MLB steroids and Spygate, so don't even come back with that.

FOUR YEARS...enough already! This is like watching a washed-up 80s star trying to cling to the past on one of those Celebrity Fit Club episodes. I'm not saying you have to forget how close you came the winning it all, but at some point you have to put aside the manufactured controversy...and let it go to move forward.

As I say in my website, I also follow the Vikings (losers of FOUR Super Bowls and the last NFC Championship). There were bad calls against them in that game, too. But I have managed to let it go....

Posted by: Tim Balderramos at Feb 18, 2010 10:22:30 AM

Updated link (check with SHB for whether they are going to update their link):

Posted by: Tim Balderramos at Feb 18, 2010 10:25:41 AM

That excites me more! Awesome game!

Posted by: modeling women at Jan 20, 2012 3:23:49 AM

My Photo
Patriot 'Dillo!

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

Ron L - Wisconsin election watchdog and hilariously fun grandpa.

James Pell - Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class - American hero with stories to tell about Iraq, Kosovo, and Bosnia.

Emcee - "Don't encourage him!" Jeff Goldstein

November 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Recent Posts


Site Info
Powered by TypePad

Blog design by:

Header art by: Coby Cyr

Ann Coulter
The most brilliant journalist of our age - does heavy lifting

Black Five
Want to know what is really going on in our armed services? Matt does tell. He's a man of honor and gives tribute to men and women who serve all of us around the world.

Blogs For Terri
Terri Schindler Schiavo - We will NEVER forget!

Master photographer Jan shows off spectacular photos around the Pacific Northwest.

Commissioner Hugh Hewitt
The man! Inspirer of blogs, flogger of the currently most important.

Common Sense and Wonder
Great group blog - full of common sense penned by very talented people. I wonder...

Cream of the Crock
Diana once killed me in a place of wisdom. We've made up. One of my favorite experts.

Day by Day
Chris Muir provides the best first place for you to spew your coffee every morning

Digital Brown Pajamas
Sleepy Stormtroopers of the Religious Right. Plus Jeff is just a great guy. And Steve! Don't forget Steve! Oh no, where'd you guys go?

Evangelical Outpost
What can I say? I like Joe.

File it under...
These guys are animals. I mean it, they are animals.

Hamilton's Pamphlets
The Federalist Papers are still alive - and so is Alexander ...

Huffington's Toast
Hilarious answer to Arianna Huffington's psuedo-blog

In DC Journal
Bill is positively InDC, occasionally InDCent, always Bill

Jihad Watch
Lead by Robert Spencer - dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world.

Laura Ingraham
Find her on the radio and listen - does heavy lifting

Matt Rosenberg
Culture and current affairs from Seattle journalist and musician - and contributor to Sound Politics and Redstate - all in one very productive guy.

Michelle Malkin
Conservative goddess - does heavy lifting

MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Beth has a terrific blog AND she's my favorite Bama fan. (Which for an AU guy is like we've overcome class warfare, you know?)

Nerf Coated World
Friend Matt's wisdom tech and politech

Ninme, tenme, elevenme, just don't two-time me

Pillage Idiot
Replacing the creator of worlds - do you miss Allah? Go see Attila.

Pixie Lair
I'm a Pixie. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. (It's Shell - Look what God made!) - Found her again!

The triumvirate. I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!

Protein Wisdom
Jeff's menagerie of extreme thoughts, well said.

Scribal Terror
Gail can write! And make you do your English homework!

Sissy Willis
'Wiley' Willis cats and thoughts.

Sondra K
Like Special K - only better

Sound Politics
Shark and friends dig out the unsound

Tapscott's Copy Desk
Mark Tapscott, Director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy. Solid good read all the time. Moved to Examiner now...

The incomparable Ace of Spades HQ
The truth in spades!

The Jawa Report
Dr. Rusty and pals. Find original fisking and research here.

The Mighty Beldar
Crusty trial lawyer, bemused observer of politics & internet dilettante from Houston, Texas

the pragmatic chef™
Scott is a connoisseur of food and life! He really knows what seared means...

The Radio Equalizer -Brian Maloney
Could Brian be the next conservative heavy lifter? My money's on him.

The Truth Laid Bear
TTLB Ecosystem host and esteemed pundit.

Timothy Goddard
Brilliant analysis - plus Red State WA!

Great conservative commentary and about some kind of Weblog awards or something like that

Fellow traveler McGehee's musings