[kevkrom]

“I didn’t know we were going to have to play the guys in the striped shirts as well.”

What a laugh. For all of the supposed "controversy", there were really only four bad calls or non-calls in Sunday's game, and three of them went against the Steelers:

1. The "incomplete" pass to Stevens that was really a catch-and-fumble. If the whistle hadn't blown, Pittsburgh would have recovered the ball. Ironically, this call could have worked doubly in Seattle's favor, but Holmgren failed to challenge the ruling on the field --if he had, the Seahawks likely would have gotten credit for the completion, and gotten yardage to the spot of the fumble, since the whistle blew.

2. Hasslebeck's fumble that was recovered by Pittsburgh should not have been overturned. The rule for down by contact specifically states: "e) when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and he touches the ground with any part of his body except his hands or feet, ball shall be declared dead immediately. The contact by the defense player must be the cause of the runner going down." [emphasis mine] Hasslebeck was already going down on his own and was not contacted on the ground, therefore by definition he was not down by contact.

3. After Big Ben's second INT, he has clearly blocked in the back during the return. This would have nullified a big chunk of the return and tacked a 10-yard penalty on top of it. This clearly cost the Steelers more field position than the Seahawks lost because of...

4. The "low block" call against Hasslebeck. I know the rule is there to protect players, but he was trying to make a tackle, not take out a blocker. Bad call.

All of the other supposed "bad calls" were either exactly correct, or at least understandable.

[beyond the sea]

Your assessments, as usual are right on. But just one question .......... you say on Stevens' catch (denied), "but Holmgren failed to challenge the ruling on the field". Is he permitted to challenge a whistled call like that?