Are you ready for some FOOTBALL! - Hot Stove Edition

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Ming]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The ads were pretty bad. My 7 year old didn't even laugh. I guess they were mostly adult humor, but they were too stupid for adults at the same time.

They seemed a tad violent. The touch football one, the cell phone one, and some of the others. QOTM who only watches for the commercials, was really turned off.

I really liked the one with the young clydesdale though. Not enough to drink Bud, though.

And the United one was nice, as always.

[Zopperoni]

I'd like to share with you some highlights of European Super Bowl commentating.

First from Dutch television:

"The Steelers look nervous. I think that's strange since they've been to the Super Bowl before."

"There seem to be new teams in the Super Bowl each year. I wonder why that is."
"That's a good observation. I really don't know."

And from German television:

"Which songs would you like to hear from the Rolling Stones?"
"O, definitely Satisfaction, Brown Sugar, Jumping Jack Flash, Yellow Submarine..."

"They are having the Rolling Stones perform at half-time. Don't you think that's a bit odd given that we're in Detroit, city of soul music?"
"Yes, I think that's a bit strange."

Meanwhile, Stevie Wonder is performing right behind them. You'd wonder who was really blind.

[Q Classic]

A ha! Somehow, I missed this.

In any case, I'm sorely disappointed with all the ads this year.

And, honestly, I'm ****ing sick and tired of GoDaddy's sophomoric ads.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"There seem to be new teams in the Super Bowl each year. I wonder why that is."
"That's a good observation. I really don't know."

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Good to see Ben agrees.

That quote was a bit out of context. He said that's what he told Cowher on the sidelines immediately after the play, without seeing the replay. The replay shows that the ball broke the plain. The call was correct, but people are screaming about it as if he missed it by a yard. Strange.

[SlowwHand]

The ball did not break the plane before he was tackled abd contact made with the ground. He knew it, which is why he hurriedly extended the ball.
It wasn't a touchdown, but it doesn't matter now does it?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The ball did not break the plane before he was tackled abd contact made with the ground. He knew it, which is why he hurriedly extended the ball.

Yes it did. He breaks the plane, then the defender (Lewis #54) hits the ball. Ben then fumbles it and lands on it (doesn't matter because the play ends when the plane is broken). He hurriedly pushes it up because he wasn't sure, and it's what any player with any sense would do. It was a touchdown.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
A ha! Somehow, I missed this.

In any case, I'm sorely disappointed with all the ads this year.

And, honestly, I'm ****ing sick and tired of GoDaddy's sophomoric ads.

I like sophmoric ads.

[Dis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The ball did not break the plane before he was tackled abd contact made with the ground. He knew it, which is why he hurriedly extended the ball.
It wasn't a touchdown, but it doesn't matter now does it?

the picture above proves it. I couldn't tell even on the replays because it was so blurry (couldn't tell what was his forearm and what was the ball). But he had his forearm up high (close to his shoulder) on the initial surge- as the picture shows. This is when he broke the plane. Yeah he reached it over again later, but that didn't matter. The play was over at that point.

[-Jrabbit]

Of course, you can document that the photographer was on the goal line...

[Wycoff]

The "controversial" call that makes me angry is the furor over the Locklear hold. Watching the game film, he clearly held. He hooks Haggans' arm and pulls him down. Locklear had already been called for holding Haggans earlier in the game, and he had been making consistently questionable calls. I wouldn't be surprised if the refs warned him about his holding prior to this call. If Locklear doesn't hook Haggans on that play, Hasselbeck may have left the game on a stretcher.

The controversy started because of the angle of the replay. The replay angle comes from the opposite direction, and Haggans' body mostly obscures what was going on (though you can see Locklear's fingers wrapped around his shoulder pad). It's interesting that they don't replay it from other angles... the sports media took that one angle and ran with it.

[Dis]

is that the hold in the first half? That looked okay.

the pass interference in the end zone was bull****. Seattle got cheated 7 points there for sure.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Dis
is that the hold in the first half? That looked okay.

It's in the 4th quarter.

the pass interference in the end zone was bull****. Seattle got cheated 7 points there for sure.

Jackson technically pushed off. He did it right in front of the ref, and the ref called it. I think that if the ref called that, then he should also have called Hope for illegal contact. Offsetting penalties would have caused a replay of down. They say it looks worse in real time than in slow motion, but I haven't looked at it. I would have been angry had this been called on the Steelers.