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.
99 times out of 100 that ball is ruled an incomplete pass. He must make a football move. The only rationalization is the Pittsburgh fans not accepting the fact that the zebra's handed you a game. I did see one of these bang-bang catch and drops ruled a catch and fumble this season. But only saw it once. Can't remember which game. But nearly always it is ruled an incomplete pass.
The easiest way to understand how this works in practice is to state that once a catch is made, the receiver must maintain possession of the ball for at least a second in order to be eligible to fumble, otherwise the play is ruled an incomplete pass even if he has established enough possession to mormally qualify for an in-bounds catch. Now we both know this is how it works, so you can stop pretending that this non-call went against Pittsburgh.
In a sense it did go against Pittsburgh because they were getting every other call, why not this one?
Another play I'm unsure what should have been ruled was where Darrell Jackson's 2nd foot goes out of bounds and therefore no catch and TD. Makes sense. However, that 2nd foot hits the endzone pylon, knocking it down, before he steps out of bounds. I always thought the pylon was an extension of the endzone and if you hit it TD. I guess that doesn't count if you have not established possession in bounds first. Do you know for sure?
Regarding Stevens "fumble," I believe it was, but come on the Steelers wouldn't have recovered the ball until it got to 5 yard line. Even if they returned it 30 yards, there is only a 15 yard net.
When was Ben clipped? You mean when he was running in front of the ball carrier with his back turned? The blocker can hit you in the back when he is between the ball carrier and the tackler.