Replies

Again, there were calls that went against Pittsburgh despite your denial and selective memory. On a 3rd-and-long, Pitt threw a pass downfield for an incomplete pass, only the refs threw a flag on Seattle for "helmet-to-helmet" contact. That would have give Pitt a FD in Seattle territory.

I don't consider getting the call correct, as going against Pittsburgh. Name the calls that went AGAINST Pittsburgh.

I don't consider getting the call correct, as going against Pittsburgh. Name the calls that went AGAINST Pittsburgh.

Not getting the "helmet-to-helmet" call on 3rd down. It was close, just as most of the calls in question were close. On the replay I saw, it looked to me like the defender lowered his head and hit the WR on the back of the helmet. Now, if the refs "had the fix in", why did they change their minds? Was that a game-changing play? WE'LL NEVER KNOW! Pittsburgh had to punt.

Jeremy Stevens caught the ball and fumbled, only the ref had a quick whistle and blew the play dead. Clearly, Pitt would have recovered the ball. Was it a game-changing play? WE'LL NEVER KNOW! The Steelers didn't get a chance to pick the ball up and run with it. If a play like that is in doubt, the refs are supposed to swallow their whistles and let the play continue. If it turns out that it was down, it can be reversed on replay, but you can't reverse a blown whistle. If the refs "had the fix in" why blow the whistle so soon, giving Seattle a break?

Making such a big deal out of the penalty on Hasselbeck after his INT is only fair if you're going to make a big deal about the penalty NOT called on Seattle after Roethlisberger's INT.