Are you ready for some FOOTBALL! - Hot Stove Edition

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ben didn't just have a 'bad' game, Dis . That'd be giving him too much credit .

Ben had an atrocious game... his worst passing game as a pro. Had he put a little more on his first interception, El gets a touchdown. More importantly, if he makes a halfway decent throw to Wilson, the touchdown is scored, the Steelers go up 21-3, and no one is talking about the officiating. He made a few key plays, but he'd have undoubtedly been the goat had they lost.

EDIT: Dis, I'm not overly concerned about the running game next year. Staley will be back, and he's an upgrade over Bettis. Verron Haynes is severly underrated. It'll be a "thunder & lightening" approach, and I think it'll be at least as effective as it was this year.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wycoff
It's obvious in the sense that it could not have been overturned on review. The reaction has been as if he missed it by a yard and the refs overlooked it.

That's different than obvious. That's just inconclusive.

Like I said, the hold happened. The offsides was so instantaneous that it would be almost impossible to call live, but even if it had, the penalties would have offset. The "killing momentum" isn't an excuse that can be pinned on the refs. The 'Hawks still had three down to get things done.

Please.. 1st and 10 is far different than 1st and 20. I've seen many a team get bogged down because of a holding penalty kills their drive (mainly because short yardage plays become a total waste instead of something postive).

And no, the offsides wasn't so instantaneous. He was over the line easily when the ball was snapped... twice on that drive, actually.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's different than obvious. That's just inconclusive.

When doing a review, inconclusive IS obvious. The ref obviously had no grounds to overturn the calling. There was obviously no conclusive evidence requiring the overturn. His initial TD call wasn't obvious, but it was obvious that he couldn't overturn it once it was reviewed. It doesn't hurt that it looks like he made the correct initial judgement call.

Please.. 1st and 10 is far different than 1st and 20. I've seen many a team get bogged down because of a holding penalty kills their drive (mainly because short yardage plays become a total waste instead of something postive).

That's true. 1st and 20 is harder than 1st and 10. Players can't blame the refs and give up, though. The same thing happened to the Steelers in the 1st half. Offensive pass interference on Miller (not exactly sure what happened here, didn't see him on the screen and they didn't show the replay) after a screen pass to Bettis pushed the Steelers to 1st and 20. Ben was sacked, making it 3rd and 28. Ben completed a 30+ yard pass to Ward, getting a 1st a goal. 1st and 20 is tough, but it's not an excuse.

And no, the offsides wasn't so instantaneous. He was over the line easily when the ball was snapped... twice on that drive, actually.

I'm going to watch it a few more times. 1/15 of a second is not easily perceptible. I've been arguing with people for two days, and this is the first time anyone has argued that there was clear offsides.

[Dis]

so how long will we continue to ***** about the refs?

we got a big game this sunday. The pro bowl. everyone loves the pro bowl, right?

Okay I almost never watch the whole thing. Now the hard part 7 months without football.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Dis
Okay I almost never watch the whole thing. Now the hard part 7 months without football.

It's NFL draft season... almost as exciting as the regular season!

[-Jrabbit]

Intersting post-mortem, guys. I just want to make one point to Wycoff --

Any competent high school line judge would have caught and called the offside. Yes, 1/15th of a second is quick, but this is a simple yes/no decision. Did he break the plane at the nose of the ball before the snap? Yes.

If I saw it in real time, the ref should have seen it.

It was a blown call.

FWIW, I don't think the officiating was biased. I just think it was terrible.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Any competent high school line judge would have caught and called the offside. Yes, 1/15th of a second is quick, but this is a simple yes/no decision. Did he break the plane at the nose of the ball before the snap? Yes.

If I saw it in real time, the ref should have seen it.

It was a blown call.

FWIW, I don't think the officiating was biased. I just think it was terrible.

I still have a hard time seeing the offsides in realtime. He's moving, but, in real time, it looks like he steps in the neutral zone just as the ball is snapped. He's moving before the ball is snapped, but he's so close to the snap that you have to go frame-by-frame to actually see him cross. They either had the snap count down or Tobeck has a tell.

Locklear's Holding play

Anyway, both teams played sloppy games. Maybe they need to cut the extra week out of Super Bowl week. I thought the refs made some mistakes, but they weren't as catastophically horrible as some are making them out as being, and most of the "controversial calls" weren't so controversial.

I wouldn't really care if people would at least acknowledge that the refs made mistakes on both sides... I'm just upset that people are using the refs as an excuse to devalue everything that the Steelers did this post season. The coverage seems very skewed and emotional; the heads bloviate about the plays, but they don't break them down. People then parrot what the talking heads say. Did some big calls go the Steelers' way? Yes. On review, should those calls have gone their way? Most of them, yes. Did the refs miss some big calls that would have helped the Steelers? Yes. In the end, the Seahawks blew more chances than the Steelers did. It was an ugly game with a few bright spots, but it wasn't fixed or crooked.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wouldn't really care if people would at least acknowledge that the refs made mistakes on both sides

They made far more mistakes that cost the Seahawks. Every big play they had, the refs blew a whistle. It'd be as if the refs called holding on both Willie Parker's 75 yard run and Randle-El's pass to Ward, bringing them back while hardly calling holding on Seattle.

I mean really... Pittsburgh was hardly flagged and got the benefit of the doubt all night.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I mean really... Pittsburgh was hardly flagged and got the benefit of the doubt all night.

True enough... but let's put the blame for the Seattle loss where it truly belongs... WITH SEATTLE.

They had their chances and blew it. They played an awful game, and the coaching was terrible. Play selection and time management are two real easy things to point at.

Did Pitt get the better part of the officiating... Yes.
Did Seattle suck... Yes as well.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I wouldn't really care if people would at least acknowledge that the refs made mistakes on both sides

They made far more mistakes that cost the Seahawks. Every big play they had, the refs blew a whistle. It'd be as if the refs called holding on both Willie Parker's 75 yard run and Randle-El's pass to Ward, bringing them back while hardly calling holding on Seattle.

I mean really... Pittsburgh was hardly flagged and got the benefit of the doubt all night.

They would have called them back had Faneca grabbed a blizting Tatupu by the arm and gave him a toss during those plays...

[Jaguar]

The top is the last frame where the ball remains stationary. The bottom is the next frame after that. Haggans is definitely in the neutral zone in the bottom shot. However, the ball had already begun to move (even though it's still on the ground.)

That gives the illusion that Haggans was blatantly offsides.

Whether he's in the neutral zone in the top frame is a little harder. I'm inclined to say he still might be, but it's a hell of a lot closer than people think it was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How can you say the ball began to move in the bottom shot? It doesn't look as though it is moving at all. It's at the same exact position.

[Asher]

This reminds me of the game 6 controversy last season of the Stanley Cup.

Anyway:

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How can you say the ball began to move in the bottom shot? It doesn't look as though it is moving at all. It's at the same exact position.

When I go between the two frames, I see the ball move pretty clearly. The easiest way to tell the ball is moving in the second shot is to note how much blurrier it is in that shot then in previous ones.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The first shot of the ball looks fairly blurry to me as well. And the ball is exactly in the same spot in both shots. It hasn't moved an inch.

If you'll notice, the second shot is the same as the picture I posted. All it looks like is the center put the ball up at a greater angle, getting ready for the snap. Perhaps that could explain why you see it as blurry.