Posted on 02/08/2006 5:18:46 AM PST by mcg2000
Please. Use a little bit of logic. Do you think the replay referee did not see Ben's shenanigans? The call was not based on that. The call was based on forward progress and it is that that the ref used to review the play.
Simple fact: there was not indisputable evidence to overturn the call.
SD
I had it on TiVO watching it in High Def on my 56" screen.
I watched the play over and over in slow motion and in frame by frame and zoom.
It was extremely close. But he didn't get in.
I think Always Right is trying to point out to some of the more silly Pittsburgh fans that it is possible to refute the arguments of Seahawks fans without drifting into absolute denial about what happened on the field.
Exactly. Fact is, nobody can tell one way or another if the ball crossed because there is no good view of a direct angle where it is not obscured by BR's arm. The official made the call and it can't be overturned because there was no evidence showing it clearly did not. That's why the call stood.
And it's just easier believing an officiating conspiracy in the most watched sporting event in the world....right?
<\occamsrazor>
Conspiracy? No. Gross incompetence with a sprinkling of bias? Absolutely.
</occamsrazor>
Why "believe" when you can know for certain?
Since you don't believe the football fans on this forum, will you believe the NFL rulebook?
1. Sidelines and end lines are out of bounds. The goal line is actually in the end zone. A player with the ball in his possession scores a touchdown when the ball is on, above, or over the goal line.
SD
No, the technical zone of the boundary for all boundary lines on the field (goal line and sidlelines) are defined as the interior edge. So one micron of the ball over the white paint of the goalline is a TD, and one micron of a shoe on (remeber you're not out of bounds until you touch) the white paint of the sideline is out of bounds.
#1, there are no silly Steeler fans here.
#2, the arguments of the Seahawk fans have been refuted ad naseum, with the rules and the facts laid out.
#3, it is the Seahawk fans, and others, who have difficulty with what happened on the field. There were some iffy calls and some bad calls. But they didn't favor one team or the other. Tell me having a turnover (pass caught and fumbled called "incomplete") doesn't change the game. Tell me missing a block in the back on the QB doesn't change the game. The Hawks start on the 20 instead of midfield and score to get within 4 points. That's a huge missed call.
SD
"One can also appear dumb by using direct insult in place of logic."
Hey, I just followed your example.
And, not to confuse you further, but the end line at the back of the end zone is treated like a sideline, i.e., any part of it is considered out of bounds.
Other than the TD call, the rest were judgement calls that are left to interpretation of the individual official. Each one of the penalties were strict interpretations of the rules. But to suggest strict adherence to the rules as conspiracy, sorry "gross incompetence", smacks of very sour grapes.
Only in the echo chamber of Pennsylvania.
I just googled for pics of the game and found this. As explained, the touchdown was made with him breaking the plane in the air. Click on the picture, "Photo Gallery," on right of page. Then click on picture #15.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/football/nfl/la-sp-penner6feb06,1,5527173.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-nfl
Correct. And had the ruling on the field been "fourth down", a Pittsburgh challenge probably would not have stood either.
I know, it's not what you would expect, is it? Which leads to grumblings of...
And whose "bias"? Any proof whatsoever?
I'm afraid the evidence is all circumstantial. We haven't found the photos of the refs at a Steelers tailgate party, if that's what you're after. Given a bunch of sketchy judgement calls, that could just as easily have not been called at all (and which usually wouldn't be called), the refs overwhelmingly made the calls that would hurt the Seahawks the most while simultaneously ignoring obvious penalties by the Steelers. The two consecutive offsides come to mind, the second of which resulted in a sack of Hasselbeck. Or how about the egregious hold that allowed Parker to burn off his record-breaking run? Steelers can point to one or two things that didn't go their way. The lop-sidedness of what happened is the problem, not the fact that one or two bad calls occurred. This is what Seahawks fans----and most non-Steelers fans----saw during the Super Bowl.
Yes, and other districts of realityland.
Which play do you wish to complain about that hasn't been explained before?
Ben's TD? Official makes the call. No indisputable evidence available. Call stands.
Holding calls? Don't hold.
Holding calls lopsided? Heath Miller was called for holding on a Steelers successful screen pass. Gave us 2nd and 20. But we scored on the drive anyway.
Hasselbeck's illegal block? Dumb rule, but called according to the rule and according to prior use this season, including a call against Pittsburgh.
Other than that, the game featured two questionable non-turnovers by the Seahawks. And one block in the back against our QB.
SD
Never happened. The DE just had the snap count timed so well that he looked like he was offsides to the untrained eye. Hasslebeck could have picked up an easy 5 yards/free play if he'd have used a hard count after the first one.
Or how about the egregious hold that allowed Parker to burn off his record-breaking run?
This is three days after the Super Bowl, and this is the first time I've heard anyone even suggest there was holding on that play. You're really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel now.
Again, no call against the Seahawks was anywhere near as egregious as the referee incorrectly overturning Hasslebeck's fumble because he didn't properly understand the "down by contact" rule.
I did not see any of those....I have no problem with the holds. To me it looked like holding. There was also separation created by the push off in the end-zone which is textbook pass interference. Would every official call it? No. But that's not the standard. A violation of the rule is the standard and they appeared to be to me. BTW, I'm from Atlanta with no dog in the fight.
Not exactly, but I have to admit I wasn't completely clear in my own expression. What I was trying to say is that making assumptions about the experience and knowledge of one's debating opponent can detract from the substance of one's arguments.
I'm sorry if my words sounded as though I was saying you are dumb. I merely intended to point out that belittling one's opponent in place of factual argument is counterproductive.
Have a good day.
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.