Are you ready for some FOOTBALL! - Hot Stove Edition

[Dis]

I usually look to see if it causes a change in direction, or causes the defender to stop when he was previously moving.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes. I was watching Haggans from the start of that play, and I thought there's no way he's not getting to the quarterback. He totally had the protection beat. Then Locklear grabbed him by the left shoulder and dragged him to the ground. Madden was oblivious, because he's senile, and then they showed a terrible replay angle, and Madden said he didn't see a hold.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The one thing lost on the *****ing about the holding call is that Haggans was obviously offsides on that play. If you had/have a DVR or TIVO, you would see that he was clearly over the line before the ball was snapped.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Yes. I was watching Haggans from the start of that play, and I thought there's no way he's not getting to the quarterback. He totally had the protection beat. Then Locklear grabbed him by the left shoulder and dragged him to the ground. Madden was oblivious, because he's senile, and then they showed a terrible replay angle, and Madden said he didn't see a hold.

I'm glad someone objective agrees with me. I was shocked when this turned out to be such a controversy... I thought it was pretty clear in the game... The sports talking heads just seem to have wanted to jump on this official angle with both feet, and for the most part haven't made an attempt at being objective. They take it as a given that this was a terrible holding call, and the only reason I can think of is that they didn't go back and watch it live.

I really think the "refs gave the Steelers the game" angle is B.S.

1. I can understand the aggravation with the OPI call. It was technically correct, but it didn't quite seem warranted. Still it happened so early in the game that no one could say how the outcome could have changed had the 'Hawks walked away with 7 there instead of 3.

2. The Ben TD looks to have been the correct call, and there's no way that it could have been overturned on review. People are acting as if he missed it by a yard. Unjustified controversy.

3. Locklear held, and that hold was crucial to the play. I don't think there's any way that Hasselbeck completes that pass if Locklear doesn't pull Haggans down. This is a completely unfair controversy, one caused by Madden and a bad replay angle. I can't understand why, when discussing this call, the talking head shows didn't go to the game film rather than the replay... perhaps they were afraid that it would ruin their story.

4. The Hasselbeck low block was a B.S. call. The league has been calling that more often this year (i've seen it called against the Steelers and the Redskins), but in this case it was wrong. Hasselbeck hit no one but Ike; it was a clean tackle. The ref who called it was at a bad angle.

These calls: 2 correct ones, 1 iffy call, and 1 bad call. Yet somehow this means the refs were hugely biased.

It's funny that no one mentions the fumble by Stevens in the first half that the refs ruled an incomplete pass. It's funny that no one mentions the obvious clip against Roethlisberger during the interception return; had that one been called, the 'Hawks get the Ball at midfield rather than near the 20. Also, even though the low block was b.s., no one cares that Locklear creamed Townsend with a huge late hit to the back after the play was over (definately would have drawn a 15 yard penalty). I think both teams had calls / non-calls go against them, yet somehow the refs were completely pro-Pittsburgh. It really makes me mad, because I feel that the media is trying to unfairly tarnish and diminish one of the greatest playoff runs in all of sports.

[Jaguar]

Imran, that's also true, although just barely. By my count, Haggans is in the neutral zone 2 frames (1/15 of a second) before the snap, and Hampton is in the neutral zone 1 frame before the snap.

That suggests to me that Seattle needed to fix their snap count. I think that a 1/15 of a second headstart is too quick for an official to notice. People might think he was offsides a little earlier than that, but he started back from the line, and began moving forward several frames before the snap. However, it took him some time to get to the line.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The one thing lost on the *****ing about the holding call is that Haggans was obviously offsides on that play. If you had/have a DVR or TIVO, you would see that he was clearly over the line before the ball was snapped.

I disagree with you here, Imran. I've watched that play dozens of times, and it just looks like he timed it well. Besides, even if it were true there would still be offsetting penalties, thus the pass to Stevens would have been negated.

EDIT: I have it taped on VHS, so I can't do the frame by frame breakdown. To get off the ball virtually simultaneously means that either the Steelers' D had their count down or that Tobeck has a "tell" that gives away when he's going to snap the ball.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please, if you didn't think Pittsburgh got the benefit of the calls, you are either a Pittsburgh fan, or blind. When it comes from ALL angles, every sports show, every forum I've been in... it isn't a media creation.

And the Stevens fumble may have HURT Seattle. It did not seem like any Steeler would have been able to get it before it went out of bounds at the 20 and then it would have been Seattle's ball at the 20!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I disagree with you here, Imran. I've watched that play dozens of times, and it just looks like he timed it well. Besides, even if it were true there would still be offsetting penalties, thus the pass to Stevens would have been negated.

He was clearly offsides.

Here is the best I can do on short notice:



Note how the ball isn't snapped and Haggans is in complete full out running motion. Also note that his hand (by the helmet) is already in the neutral zone.

He was also offsides on the sack of Hasselbeck on the same drive.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Please, if you didn't think Pittsburgh got the benefit of the calls, you are either a Pittsburgh fan, or blind.!

I am a Pittsburgh fan, and I'm not saying that they didn't get the benefit of the calls. They did. I'm saying that two of the calls were clearly right and not worth the controversy(the TD and the hold). They got the benefit of those calls, and they should have got the benefit of them.

The push off was technically right, but an iffy call. The low block was a bad call.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I am a Pittsburgh fan, and I'm not saying that they didn't get the benefit of the calls. They did. I'm saying that two of the calls were clearly right and not worth the controversy(the TD and the hold). They got the benefit of those calls, and they should have got the benefit of them.

The push off was technically right, but an iffy call. The low block was a bad call.

I don't know how you can say the TD was "clearly" right when Roethlisburger didn't think he got in. If anyone knows, it'd be him. However, it was quite obvious that the ref wasn't going to call it a TD... but then decided to afterwards for some unfathomable reason.

As for the hold, some people thought it wasn't, but the fact is that there was an offsides on the play, and the 10 yard penalty killed Seattle's momentum and the drive.

[Dis]

I do believe the better team won this year. No doubt in my mind. Even though I didn't think the Steelers had a chance in hell to beat the spread, I figured they had about a 70% chance of winning the game. They beat the #1, #2, and #3 seeds in all away games after all.

Though Ben had a bad game, so I can see why people think Pittsburgh didn't deserve to win. But the game is more than just a QB. If that were the case, the Colts would be holding the Lombardi trophy right now. This was the Steelers year. Deal with it.

I don't give them much of a chance next year. But we'll see what they do with their running game. I haven't been overly impressed with Parker this year (compared to last). And the loss of Bettis will hurt. Yeah sure he can't do what he used to, but even in the superbowl he had a couple decent runs. One for over 10 yards. Though he couldn't do his usual punch in from the 3 and 1. Oh well. I figure they will make the playoffs and go out in the 1st or 2nd round. But they might make the AFC championship game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

[Jaguar]

People are arguing about it because

1. There's absolutely nothing else interesting going on in that Superbowl
2. The officials were terrible in the NE-DEN and PIT-IND games
3. Madden was a moron and said he didn't see a penalty where there obviously was one.
4. Seattle committed a lot more penalties than Pittsburgh did, period.
5. They ruled a Hasselbeck fumble on the field. Refs tend to do this, so that if it's a fumble, play continues properly, and if it isn't, they don't have the problem of the play already being whistled dead. It's a flaw in the system itself, IMO. They should be able to keep the play live, and then still call it down before the fumble if they so choose.
6. There was a reviewed play that was very close. It was, however, right. Roethlisberger made it, just barely.
7. One penalty was just ridiculous. (Block penalty on Hasselbeck.)

Mostly, it's caused by things unrelated to actual bad officiating on the field.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I don't know how you can say the TD was "clearly" right when Roethlisburger didn't think he got in. If anyone knows, it'd be him. However, it was quite obvious that the ref wasn't going to call it a TD... but then decided to afterwards for some unfathomable reason.

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.

As for the hold, some people thought it wasn't, but the fact is that there was an offsides on the play, and the 10 yard penalty killed Seattle's momentum and the drive.

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.

[Dis]

okay, a terrible game . I forget what his final passer rating was. In the 20's. But passer rating doesn't include his rushing touchdown.