Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Super Bowl: Picture Proof of Big Ben's TD
Fox Sports Pittsburgh ^ | February 7, 2006

Posted on 02/08/2006 5:18:46 AM PST by mcg2000



TOPICS: Sports
KEYWORDS: blurryinconclusive; nfl; pittsburgh; seahawks; seattle; steelers; superbowl; touchdown; whocares
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-291 next last
To: Wyatt's Torch
Yeah, which blurry part is the ball?

You can't see the ball, and the call on the field can't be overturned unless the video is conclusive.

Case closed.

161 posted on 02/08/2006 9:48:03 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G

I wish we'd won without so much help from Seattle. I think the official blew calls in both directions and I'm not worried about that. It definitely would have been nice to have come out like our previous playoff games and gotten a bonecrushing lead in the first half instead of needing Seattle to leave 16 points on the field in that half to leave us with a skinny lead, would have left me less stressed in the 2nd half. But there is no difference between a W because your offense did well and a W because the other offense did more poorly than yours.


162 posted on 02/08/2006 9:48:17 AM PST by discostu (a time when families gather together, don't talk, and watch football... good times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I am absolutely correct on this and you have zero evidence that refutes it.

Riiiight.

The is great video evidence, but none shows the ball breaking the plane.

I saw it on television. I suggest you review the tape.

163 posted on 02/08/2006 9:50:11 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
Not to mention, what's saying that Pittsburgh doesn't score on 4th-and-an-inch on the next play, anyway, even if the original call had been that he was marked short (and not overturned by replay)?

That's true. Or Bettis could have fumbled, there is always that 1 in a 1000 chance that could happen again. Reguardless if you are going to count on getting questionable calls, you don't deserve to win. Seattle did not do enough to deserve to win and probably would not have won even if they got some of the calls.

164 posted on 02/08/2006 9:50:58 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It would have been absolutely impossible for the line judge to see the ball breaking the plane from 20 yards away.

It's done all the time. You need a new screenname.

165 posted on 02/08/2006 9:51:45 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith
I wonder if you are a smart ass to those who can get their hands on you? I was not whining I was stating a fact. The Oilers were screwed by the refs many times when playing the Steelers. Easy for you to keep posting crap from the safety of your keyboard, fight on STEALER.

stupid yankee

166 posted on 02/08/2006 9:52:47 AM PST by TWfromTEXAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G

that's a cool photo... but your photo interpretation skills are much better than mine.


167 posted on 02/08/2006 9:53:17 AM PST by birbear (You know what? This is crap. We're going to stop this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I saw it on television. I suggest you review the tape.

The frame posted is the best evidence available. That is at the point where Ben had made is furthest forward progress. It clearly shows the wristband did in fact score. Whether the ball behind that arm crossed the line is anyones guess.

168 posted on 02/08/2006 9:53:18 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The frame posted is the best evidence available.

The frame posted is late.

169 posted on 02/08/2006 9:54:37 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

If it was just one bad touchdown call, the Seahawks fans would be over it by now.


170 posted on 02/08/2006 9:57:49 AM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: TWfromTEXAS
I wonder if you are a smart ass to those who can get their hands on you? I was not whining I was stating a fact. The Oilers were screwed by the refs many times when playing the Steelers. Easy for you to keep posting crap from the safety of your keyboard, fight on STEALER.

stupid yankee

And I thought that Seattle was the Whine Capital of America . Yeah, Tex you prove the point that everybody's a tough guy hiding behind a computer monitor.

171 posted on 02/08/2006 9:58:23 AM PST by Beowulf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
It's done all the time. You need a new screenname.

It is done all the time, but the ball is spotted incorrectly more times than not, often by a foot or more. You watch any play and you will see errors on almost every spot. It is the most imprecise ruling in the game, but we must live with the human judgement. Calling the touchdown was not a bad call. It just may not have been the correct call, but it was within the margin of error of what you can expect from a human being.

172 posted on 02/08/2006 9:58:30 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I think the official blew calls in both directions and I'm not worried about that.

You Pittsburgh spinmeisters should go into politics. But really, just saying that the officiating didn't favor one side over the other-----no matter how many times you say it-----doesn't make it so.

173 posted on 02/08/2006 9:59:23 AM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It just may not have been the correct call...

It was the correct call.

174 posted on 02/08/2006 9:59:40 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The frame posted is late.

Why would someone who spent the time to try to prove Pittsburgh scored, not post the frame that shows the most forward progress? If there is an earlier frame I would like to see it, but this looks like the frame just miliseconds before the Seatle defender hits him, which would be the furthest Ben got.

175 posted on 02/08/2006 10:01:36 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G
But really, just saying that the officiating didn't favor one side over the other-----no matter how many times you say it-----doesn't make it so.

Of course just saying that doesn't make it so. It is so, independent of whether anyone says it. Truth is truth, and its veracity is not dependent on one or more proclamations as such.

176 posted on 02/08/2006 10:01:52 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The ref was fooled. It was a good move by Ben to scoot the ball over the line.

This is just silly. No one can be seriously arguing that the ref spotted the ball and upheld the spot based upon Ben's way-after-the-play movement of the ball.

Hello? A ref who is fooled by such tomfoolery happening right in front of him would not be in the NFL for very long.

And hello? The video was clear that Ben landed outside of the end zone and then moved the ball forward. An official who could not see that on the video would earn an extra deduction on his 1040 for being blind.

The dispute was where his forward progress stopped. Not where the ball ended up after the play. Ben's optimistic movement of the ball after the play was over was not a factor.

Please.

SD

177 posted on 02/08/2006 10:02:30 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Then why don't you post the frame that isn't late, the one that shows the ball breaking the plane? Oh, that's right-----because it doesn't exist.


178 posted on 02/08/2006 10:02:33 AM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G
But really, just saying that the officiating didn't favor one side over the other-----no matter how many times you say it-----doesn't make it so.

Of course, the converse is also true. Saying that the officiating did favor one side over the other doesn't make it so, either.

The fact is, the only truly bad call that went against the Seahawks was the "low block" call against Hasslebeck. I consider that less egregious than the fact that the referee apparently doesn't know what the "down by contact" rule is, according to his incorrect overturning of Hasslebeck's fumble in the second half.

179 posted on 02/08/2006 10:04:11 AM PST by kevkrom ("...no one has ever successfully waged a war against stupidity" - Orson Scott Card)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: TWfromTEXAS; steelyourfaith
TW

steelyourfaith's answer to everyone who disagrees with him/her/it is to say they are whining, let it go. I've told you before not to wallow in the mud with pigs, they like it.

On another subject - are you missing a class, statistics perhaps? ;-)

180 posted on 02/08/2006 10:04:42 AM PST by HoustonCurmudgeon (Justice and "The Law" are not always the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-291 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson