Thread on Officiating at ESPN.com is almost up to 1000 posts.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Craig S.

The officiating was no worse in last night's game than it has been all season. The problem, I believe, has nothing to do with fixing games. It has to do, instead, with a decline in officiating due to too many loose rule interpretations, sloppy work, and an attitude of, "Oh, well, we'll fix it on replay."

I've been frustrated with this situation for the past two years, so last night's game didn't seem particularly bad.

if that's an example of football officiating, I'm glad I'm not a fan. That makes the game unwatchable, and this is coming from a hockey fan so that should say everything right there.

Thankfulyl it's not beyond saving.....yet. If the NHL can get their act together, the NFL has a chance.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

If the NHL can get their act together, the NFL has a chance.

The NHL isn't on the same planet as the NFL. And it never will be.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

Agreed.

If the only thing you have to talk about the game is the officiating, don't talk about it at all. I've seen four or five people on here say "I don't watch the NFL, but the officiating last night was horrible!" If you don't watch it, why do you care?

GET OVER IT.

I really wonder what would be said right now if they hadn't called that pass interferance on Jackson, leaving it as a touchdown, and allowing Michaels and Madden to sit and chatter for the rest of the game about "that really could've been called interference". What do you people want? Perfection? We're dealing with human beings here, people. I find it very hard to believe that anyone bitching about the officiating could put on the shirt and do a better job.

that's the thing though, we're not officals, they are. They are supposed to be held to a higher level of professionalism. From the reactions to this and other games, they're not cutting it. If it was all Seahwak fans pissing and the rest are like wtf?, then that's sour grapes. But youv'e got fans from all sides saying the officiating sucked in that game; Seahawk fans, Steeler fans, hell even fans that didn't give a **** who won. That is the telling aspect of how it's lacking right there.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

that's the thing though, we're not officals, they are. They are supposed to be held to a higher level of professionalism. From the reactions to this and other games, they're not cutting it. If it was all Seahwak fans pissing and the rest are like wtf?, then that's sour grapes. But youv'e got fans from all sides saying the officiating sucked in that game; Seahawk fans, Steeler fans, hell even fans that didn't give a **** who won. That is the telling aspect of how it's lacking right there.

But what do you want them to do? The calls just so happened to be borderline calls. If they had all gone in favor of the Steelers, we'd be having this same stupid debate. Would you rather them huddle before each call and say "well, we gave the last close one to Seattle, so let's give this one to Pittsburgh"?

Using the referees as the reason for the outcome of a game is the easiest excuse in the book. If you make plays on the field, you're going to beat your opponents whether the referees are making it difficult for you or not.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

The NHL isn't on the same planet as the NFL. And it never will be.

I didnt say it was. There isn't nearly the same fanbase, and probably never will be.

However the officating that I saw in the Super Bowl reminded me WAY too much of officiating pre strike. One person even commented up here that it was like watching a Toronto Maple Leafs-Ottawa Senators game, and that's the worst insult that you can get. That's what I'm referring too, the rulebook seem to be referred to either arbitarity, or completely chucked out the window. Thats' why I made the comparision, and it's defiantely not one that you want to be linked too.

Thankfully there is hope, but whether something will be done is a different story. GUess we'll see.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

But what do you want them to do? The calls just so happened to be borderline calls. If they had all gone in favor of the Steelers, we'd be having this same stupid debate. Would you rather them huddle before each call and say "well, we gave the last close one to Seattle, so let's give this one to Pittsburgh"?

Using the referees as the reason for the outcome of a game is the easiest excuse in the book. If you make plays on the field, you're going to beat your opponents whether the referees are making it difficult for you or not.

no as I referred to in another thread, these borderline calls need to be removed, if possible. Sure it's a game of inches, but it's because fo that that cap like this goes down. Either soemthing can be done, or we can have this same discussion ad neasum every game. Which is better?

And there was only one play that I can remember right now that was borderline. Other stuff like the Hasselback tackle, or the pass interference with Jackson in teh end zone....what the hell was that? That shove couldn't knock over a five year old? Are you jsut supposed to let the guy walk in front of you without interference? Is this baseketball all of a sudden? Seemed extremely odd to me.

[Craig S.]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

if that's an example of football officiating, I'm glad I'm not a fan. That makes the game unwatchable, and this is coming from a hockey fan so that should say everything right there.

Thankfulyl it's not beyond saving.....yet. If the NHL can get their act together, the NFL has a chance.

I'm a Canadian and big hockey fan too, but I'd have to say that the level of officiating in the NFL, even with their current problems, is still far better than the pre-strike NHL.

In each NFL game, I now expect 1-3 incorrect calls regarding possession, penalty calls/non-calls, and whatever else, along with at least one discussion among several officials before making any call at all. Even with that, however, it doesn't approach the state of the "old" NHL, where you really had no idea - beyond obvious stick infractions - of what was going to be called. And thank goodness the NFL officials don't turn into those old NHL refs in the fourth quarter and refuse to call any penalties at all.

The NFL needs to do something about their officials, but I think it needs to start in the league office. They need to clarify for the officials exactly what a "football move" is, for example, because it seems like every game now includes an obvious catch (last night), interception (Polamalu against Indy), or other possession that is unbelievably ruled incomplete or not a fumble. The officials now will apparently not give you possession unless you take 3 steps, make a move, bow towards the sidelines, and wave your arms in the air saying, "I caught it!" It happened again last night, and it's embarassing.

So, anyway, I don't think the NFL officiating has bottomed out, but it definitely needs fixing. NFL fans are becoming more vocal about it, and Tagliabue usually does whatever will keep the NFL on top. But we're not yet close to the old style of hockey, where every call seemed arbitrary.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

or the pass interference with Jackson in teh end zone....what the hell was that? That shove couldn't knock over a five year old? Are you jsut supposed to let the guy walk in front of you without interference? Is this baseketball all of a sudden? Seemed extremely odd to me.

From the NFL rulebook:

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:
(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.
(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.
(c) Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.
Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:
(a) Incidental contact by a receiver’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball.
(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.
(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved players.


Jackson, while facing the ball coming towards him in the end zone, reached out with his hand in an attempt to gain separation. Was it a brut, physical shove? No. But, by definition, was it enough to garner a pass interferance call? Yes, it was.

It didn't look like incidental contact -- it looked like he reached out to try and get a little bit of room between himself and the defender. Whether or not he leveled the defender or was over-physical with him is not the question.

[Craig S.]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

And there was only one play that I can remember right now that was borderline. Other stuff like the Hasselback tackle, or the pass interference with Jackson in teh end zone....what the hell was that? That shove couldn't knock over a five year old? Are you jsut supposed to let the guy walk in front of you without interference? Is this baseketball all of a sudden? Seemed extremely odd to me.

The Hasselbeck call was awful, and those are the kinds of decisions that should be overruled by an off-field official.

The call on Jackson, I believe, was correct. It wasn't a hard shove, but it didn't need to be in order to get seperation. It might not get called often, but you're going to get flagged for it if you do it while standing in front of an official in the end zone.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Craig S.

The Hasselbeck call was awful, and those are the kinds of decisions that should be overruled by an off-field official.

The call on Jackson, I believe, was correct. It wasn't a hard shove, but it didn't need to be in order to get seperation. It might not get called often, but you're going to get flagged for it if you do it while standing in front of an official in the end zone.

while I can undrstand the reasoning for such a rule, if your'e not Jerry Rice, hwo many people do you know can catch teh ball one handed? To me its' like their handcuffing themselves if they're trying to push teh guy awy while catching.

From what I remember of the play (stop laughing), he would have been able to reach the ball without the shove, and it woudlnt' ahve helped enough to use the guy as a springboard to push against to make the catch. Thats my understanding of the rule, and hence why I didn't get the call. If he used the guy to push against to make teh game, most defiantely there's a flag, but I wasnt' seeing it there.

As for the NHL pre-strike being the bottom of the barrel amen brother. Games especialyl in the playoffs were just unwatachable because of that.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

From the NFL rulebook:

Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:
(a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.
(b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.
(c) Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.
Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:
(a) Incidental contact by a receiver’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball.
(b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.
(c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved players.


Jackson, while facing the ball coming towards him in the end zone, reached out with his hand in an attempt to gain separation. Was it a brut, physical shove? No. But, by definition, was it enough to garner a pass interferance call? Yes, it was.

It didn't look like incidental contact -- it looked like he reached out to try and get a little bit of room between himself and the defender. Whether or not he leveled the defender or was over-physical with him is not the question.

now to me, it looked like he was trying to keep him from getting in front. Not enough to get a holding call, but should he realyl jsut let the guy walk in front of him without being challanged? Sounds like basketball to me.

I was told that he got the call because he pushed against the guy to "springboard" enough to get teh ball. That's nto what I saw, he had enough momenteum to get that ball regardless. It looked more reactionary then pre-planned, and wouldnt' ahve made a difference in teh play, hence the questioning of the call. If it was extremely close and that was done, that's a different story and hence a penalty, but it wasnt' close, hence the confusion.

[swampdragon]

I thought the interference call was clearly correct, as the interference contributed to the touchdown. It was a little push, but that was what the receiver needed to get the ball. The first half TD was really too close to call. Did the front of the football get to the front of the line? Probably, but I couldn't tell for sure, even in slow motion.

I thought the call against Hasselbeck for making the tackle was horrid, and the holding call was questionable, as many of them (called and uncalled) are. The Seattle receiver at the end only had one foot in bounds.

All in all, Seattle was unlucky in that the calls all seemed to go one way. They clearly outplayed the Steelers in the first half, but I thought they looked a little lost the second half. The game had three key plays: 1) the Rofflesberger scramble and pass that led to the first TD, 2) the 75 yard run by Parker, and 3) the trick play TD. All of those were legitimate plays that were enough to win a game otherwise dominated by the defenses.

[LongTooth]

All I'll say is that was the worst Superbowl I've seen and I've watched around 20 of them. I'd rather have an honest blowout than an official determinated result. I can't say I think Seattle would have won if the officiating was better, but I can't say Pittsburgh would have either. Personally, I'm just going to look at it as if there was no champion this year. Sure, it ended up being somewhat exciting with some good plays, but it was like a long sex session without ultimately getting off.

[What!]

So far the penalties in question are the interference call, the Roethlisberger Td, and the holding call. The interference call was interference he extended his arm on the defender. Is it called a lot in the NFL no but is it a penalty yes. The Roethlisberger TD I think he got it in when he was in the air but if he didnt it is 4th and one inch not a yard but an inch one qb sneak away. The holding call might have been the wrong call but that happens. Look at the Steelers they had a lot of calls not go their way in the playoffs.

Also Seattle did not play well enough to win the game. They made no big plays, had bad play calling, and made mistakes. Pittsburgh played poor for most of the game as well especially on offense but made the big play when they had to. Even Roethlisberger who might of had his worse game of the season made big plays through the air and blocking. Seattle got a good team and im not taking away from them but they did not come up with the play when they had to and the Steelers did on offense and defense. Seattle had a great year and will probably be in contention in the NFC for several more years but the Steelers where better this year and will be looked at as the greatest run through the playoffs.

[What!]

For those who think Seattle got screwed and deserved to win the game I found your kind have fun whinning until next year.

http://mb8.scout.com/bseahawksinsider

[GCCWolverine]

Honestly, I agreed with a lot of the questionable calls:

- Offensive pass interference - yeah, it wasn't much, but it was clear that he pushed off. If they're going to call defensive interefence if the corner breathes on the WR, you have to call that.
- Ben's run - IMO, the corner of the football just crossed the front of the plane of the end zone. The tackle pushed it back, and then Ben put it across. It was close, but I think he made it - you can't say it was an obvious screwup.
- The hold that Madden swore up and down wasn't...was. The lineman clearly had the Steeler under the shoulder pad, then let go as he was falling.

[marc]

I'm not gonna get into a big pissing match over here about the officiating in the game last night. I had no cheering interest either way, I couldn't have cared less who won the game.

That being said, IF I was a Seattle fan, I don't think I could help it but feel a bit robbed. The personal foul on Hasselbeck was the worst of them all, one of the absolute worst calls I've ever seen and if people don't think that call had any effect on the game they are nuts.

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by marc

I'm not gonna get into a big pissing match over here about the officiating in the game last night. I had no cheering interest either way, I couldn't have cared less who won the game.

That being said, IF I was a Seattle fan, I don't think I could help it but feel a bit robbed. The personal foul on Hasselbeck was the worst of them all, one of the absolute worst calls I've ever seen and if people don't think that call had any effect on the game they are nuts.

Sure that call had an effect on the game. You know what else had an effect on the game, as was pointed out somewhere before? All the dropped passes by Stevens, giving up a 75-yard touchdown run, the safety not realizing a reverse being run put the ball in the hands of a college quarterback the Steelers loved using in trick plays while a receiver was streaking down the field, absolutely atrocious clock management at the end of both halves, a kicker missing field goals, an interception while driving to potentially take the lead (which was far more damaging than the bad call at the end of that play, I would think), and Darrell Jackson having trouble keeping his feet in bounds a couple of times.

The other calls are obviously questionable. If they weren't questionable and were just bad, you wouldn't have so many people sitting here right now saying they weren't bad calls. They were borderline, and Seahawk fans are upset (and understandably so) about what side of the border they were decided on.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Sublimity

Sure that call had an effect on the game. You know what else had an effect on the game, as was pointed out somewhere before? All the dropped passes by Stevens, giving up a 75-yard touchdown run, the safety not realizing a reverse being run put the ball in the hands of a college quarterback the Steelers loved using in trick plays while a receiver was streaking down the field, absolutely atrocious clock management at the end of both halves, a kicker missing field goals, an interception while driving to potentially take the lead (which was far more damaging than the bad call at the end of that play, I would think), and Darrell Jackson having trouble keeping his feet in bounds a couple of times.

The other calls are obviously questionable. If they weren't questionable and were just bad, you wouldn't have so many people sitting here right now saying they weren't bad calls. They were borderline, and Seahawk fans are upset (and understandably so) about what side of the border they were decided on.

That's fine and great but mistakes happen by the players over the course of the game, the Steelers made some too and didn't have to overcome some poor officiating.

For the record, the reason WHY the call on Hasselbeck effected the game is because the Steelers never run that trick play from their own 25, the field position that was given to them by that call allowed for the trick play.

Football/Coaching 101, the best place to run a trick play is from the middle of the field after a sudden change (turnover).

[Sublimity]

I still say the Seahawks inability to defend the trick play was worse for them than the ball being placed at the exact spot on the field the Steelers could run it from. But maybe that's just me.