Super Bowl 43 - Page 4

Sdpm100 · 02-02-2009, 05:39 PM

This is a little odd aside from the pregame show on WDIV-TV in Detroit.
Detroit's Channel 4 Hasn't Forgiven Matt Millen for What He Did to Lions - NFL FanHouse
If I'm NBC I'm contacting WDIV and asking if they would like to tear up their affiliate contract if they're going to spam the network coverage with this type of stuff.

Rangersfan · 02-02-2009, 06:08 PM

Coming from a unbiased observer the Cardinals got hosed in that game and here is why.

1.Horrible call on roughing the passer that led to steelers FG

2.No penalty on Holmes for using the ball as a prop after his TD catch.

3.No review on Kurt Warner's fumble at the end of the game. To me it clearly looked like an incomplete pass. Why that was not reviewed? I mean come on this is the Super Bowl you HAVE to review that.

Ktulu · 02-02-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

2.No penalty on Holmes for using the ball as a prop after his TD catch.

Clearly, that's why the Cardinals lost.

Le Grande Orange · 02-02-2009, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktulu

Clearly, that's why the Cardinals lost.

Yeah, giving up a 100-yard interception return for a TD at the end of the first half, that clearly had nothing to do with too...

rudel.dietrich · 02-02-2009, 10:04 PM

After finally watching the game here is what I took from it.

The Cardinals completed every single 'talking' point laid out for them by every football expert before the game. Yet they still lost.
Warner threw for almost 400 yards. The Cardinals big receivers had big games. They even got a little bit of a ground game going.
The Steelers defense to be so vaunted did not look so good. Warner shredded it in the fourth quarter and every time that he had a little time in the pocket. When they went to a no huddle there was no stopping them.

Ultimatly the game came down to penalties and the Arizona defense and the one big play at the end of the first half.
The roughing the passer and roughing the holder penalties were pretty tacky penalties. Arizona also shoot themselves in the foot on several other penalties.
In the end though the game loss has to be firmly put onto the shoulders of the Arizona defense. When you have a lead late in the game and the opposing team has the entire field to march down. You go out and stop them. Their defense did not. The Steelers do not have a world beating offense. Their rushing game was also pretty much a non factor and besides a good first quarter and good last two minutes their passing attack was also a non factor.
So to me the loss is squarly the blame of the Arizona defense.

dsvitak · 02-03-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

So to me the loss is squarely the blame of the Arizona defense.

This works for me as well.

They had the lead, two minutes left, and the opportunity to win.

vistaman44 · 02-03-2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangersfan

Coming from a unbiased observer the Cardinals got hosed in that game and here is why.

1.Horrible call on roughing the passer that led to steelers FG

2.No penalty on Holmes for using the ball as a prop after his TD catch.

3.No review on Kurt Warner's fumble at the end of the game. To me it clearly looked like an incomplete pass. Why that was not reviewed? I mean come on this is the Super Bowl you HAVE to review that.

Harrison should have been tossed for what he did to Francioso (sp?), too. Why is no one talking about that?

BaseballMan · 02-04-2009, 04:05 PM

I agree that Arizona's defense should take the blame for the last drive
but i disagree that Arizona's big receivers were much better. The cardinals defense was keeping them in the game when the Cardinals receivers werent doing anything for 3 qrts. Only when Pitt had the big lead and the safetys were way back did Arizona's passing game start to come alive.
Yeah the passing stats look nice overall but if was working earlier they might not have needed the defense to make a last stand.
Sure the defense failed on the last drive but the Cardinals had other chances.

dsvitak · 02-04-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vistaman44

Harrison should have been tossed for what he did to Francioso (sp?), too. Why is no one talking about that?

Yepper, that was pretty bad.

As the NFL Defensive Player of the Year, and stud superstar of the Super Bowl, his ignorant play is being completely glossed over.

I would hope that he gets a huge fine for this...but I'm not holding my breath.

mikev · 02-05-2009, 12:34 AM

Whoopsies!

Splitter24 · 02-05-2009, 09:16 AM

This one's better. Ufortunately, I haven't seen a still photo that would absolutely prove he got both of them down. But fortunately, the final replay on the TV showed clearly that he did indeed have both sets of toes on the ground after catching the ball.

mikev · 02-05-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter24

This one's better. Ufortunately, I haven't seen a still photo that would absolutely prove he got both of them down. But fortunately, the final replay on the TV showed clearly that he did indeed have both sets of toes on the ground after catching the ball.

Here's one

Jason Moyer · 02-07-2009, 11:00 AM

Watching the highlights on NFL.com, I thought all the plays that seemed iffy during the live broadcast were pretty obviously the right call. Well, except the holding call in the endzone, but that's more because I'm not sure they called the penalty on the right player when the entire offensive line was wrestling people to the ground.

Prodigal Son · 02-07-2009, 12:05 PM

I thought that Pitt got the break on a lot of calls, but I don't know if it was intentional or just the way the game got called out of randomness. A couple roughing the passer calls went against AZ on both sides of the ball (called on AZ, not called on Pitt) that were noticeable. Some ticky-tack stuff downfield on AZ was called. Stuff that is borderline, maybe bad enough to get called, but just borderline enough to give pause.

Unfortunately, in a game that close, those calls can make the difference. Then again, Arizona's defense could have made the difference. Or its running game. Or its offensive line. When your entire gameplan relies on Kurt Warner getting rid of the ball in less than two seconds before he gets creamed while you have no running game to keep the pass rush at bay, no defense, and a bad offensive line, well...it's hard to blame officiating for a loss. When your QB throws for 400 yards, 3 TD's against just 1 pick against the best defense in the league and your team loses...well, that's probably not on the officiating.

Ragnar · 02-07-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

I thought that Pitt got the break on a lot of calls, but I don't know if it was intentional or just the way the game got called out of randomness. A couple roughing the passer calls went against AZ on both sides of the ball (called on AZ, not called on Pitt) that were noticeable. Some ticky-tack stuff downfield on AZ was called. Stuff that is borderline, maybe bad enough to get called, but just borderline enough to give pause.

Unfortunately, in a game that close, those calls can make the difference. Then again, Arizona's defense could have made the difference. Or its running game. Or its offensive line. When your entire gameplan relies on Kurt Warner getting rid of the ball in less than two seconds before he gets creamed while you have no running game to keep the pass rush at bay, no defense, and a bad offensive line, well...it's hard to blame officiating for a loss. When your QB throws for 400 yards, 3 TD's against just 1 pick against the best defense in the league and your team loses...well, that's probably not on the officiating.

I agree with most of this. How many times did the left tackle on AZ get flagged for holding? 4 times? He should have been flagged 15 times. AZ did get hosed on the roughing the passer and running into the kicker calls, but I think the safety at the end made up for it.

Jason Moyer · 02-07-2009, 01:33 PM

It was "roughing the holder" not "running into the kicker". That's one of the calls I didn't find remotely questionable - the guy blatantly drove him into the ground from behind.

Edit: Actually, I guess it was "unecessary roughness" but basically the idea is that you can't piledrive the holder like that without a 15 yard penalty.

Ragnar · 02-07-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rangersfan

Coming from a unbiased observer the Cardinals got hosed in that game and here is why.

1.Horrible call on roughing the passer that led to steelers FG

2.No penalty on Holmes for using the ball as a prop after his TD catch.

3.No review on Kurt Warner's fumble at the end of the game. To me it clearly looked like an incomplete pass. Why that was not reviewed? I mean come on this is the Super Bowl you HAVE to review that.

There is a good Utube clip of this play. There are several, but the one that is actually on the news shows the best up close angles.

YouTube - superbowl XLIII-warner fumbles

To me it looks like the defender hits the ball before his arm starts moving forward. So when his arm starts forward he does not have complete control of the ball. I'm assuming they consider that a fumble.

mikev · 02-07-2009, 03:43 PM

I'm not sure on the exact rule, but it seems fairly obvious by that youtube clip that the ball does not come out of Warner's hand until his arm starts moving forward -- specifically look at the replay at 0:30, and then look at 0:42. Warner's hand/arm are no longer in contact with the defender and he's still holding the ball.

The very last super slo-mo replay is very clear. Both of the defenders hands try to swipe the ball, then both of his hands start trying to wrap up Warner, while Warner tries to get the pass off.

Ragnar · 02-08-2009, 02:47 PM

I see what you're saying. I guess they are saying that Warner did not have control of the ball as he was moving it forward. It was still clearly in his hand. I'm just not sure he had full control, nor am i sure of the rule. Because the defender does make contact with the ball before he starts forward.

mikev · 02-08-2009, 06:23 PM

Wouldn't that make it a blocked pass and not a fumble? I mean, the ball is clearly still in his hand when his arm goes forward through the throwing motion.

02-05-2009, 12:34 AM	#70
mikev Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 4,014	Whoopsies! __________________ Global Unified Baseball Association - Vice Commish and Oakland Oaks GM

02-05-2009, 09:16 AM	#71
Splitter24 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Willsboro, NY Posts: 2,895	This one's better. Ufortunately, I haven't seen a still photo that would absolutely prove he got both of them down. But fortunately, the final replay on the TV showed clearly that he did indeed have both sets of toes on the ground after catching the ball. Attached Images __________________ Currently Reading: The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen "Well, the game is afoot. I’ll take anal bum cover for 7,000." - "Sean Connery" SNL Celebrity Jeopardy R.I.P. Tommy Holmes 1917-2008 Last edited by Splitter24; 02-05-2009 at 10:03 AM.

02-07-2009, 11:00 AM	#73
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,111	Watching the highlights on NFL.com, I thought all the plays that seemed iffy during the live broadcast were pretty obviously the right call. Well, except the holding call in the endzone, but that's more because I'm not sure they called the penalty on the right player when the entire offensive line was wrestling people to the ground. __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

02-07-2009, 12:05 PM	#74
Prodigal Son All Star Starter Join Date: May 2006 Location: Iahiodo a.k.a. the flyover Posts: 1,635	I thought that Pitt got the break on a lot of calls, but I don't know if it was intentional or just the way the game got called out of randomness. A couple roughing the passer calls went against AZ on both sides of the ball (called on AZ, not called on Pitt) that were noticeable. Some ticky-tack stuff downfield on AZ was called. Stuff that is borderline, maybe bad enough to get called, but just borderline enough to give pause. Unfortunately, in a game that close, those calls can make the difference. Then again, Arizona's defense could have made the difference. Or its running game. Or its offensive line. When your entire gameplan relies on Kurt Warner getting rid of the ball in less than two seconds before he gets creamed while you have no running game to keep the pass rush at bay, no defense, and a bad offensive line, well...it's hard to blame officiating for a loss. When your QB throws for 400 yards, 3 TD's against just 1 pick against the best defense in the league and your team loses...well, that's probably not on the officiating. Last edited by Prodigal Son; 02-07-2009 at 12:06 PM.

02-07-2009, 01:33 PM	#76
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,111	It was "roughing the holder" not "running into the kicker". That's one of the calls I didn't find remotely questionable - the guy blatantly drove him into the ground from behind. Edit: Actually, I guess it was "unecessary roughness" but basically the idea is that you can't piledrive the holder like that without a 15 yard penalty. __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech Last edited by Jason Moyer; 02-07-2009 at 01:34 PM.

02-02-2009, 05:39 PM	#61
Sdpm100 Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2005 Location: Cheltenham, England Posts: 7,644	This is a little odd aside from the pregame show on WDIV-TV in Detroit. Detroit's Channel 4 Hasn't Forgiven Matt Millen for What He Did to Lions - NFL FanHouse If I'm NBC I'm contacting WDIV and asking if they would like to tear up their affiliate contract if they're going to spam the network coverage with this type of stuff.

02-02-2009, 10:04 PM	#65
rudel.dietrich Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 8,608	After finally watching the game here is what I took from it. The Cardinals completed every single 'talking' point laid out for them by every football expert before the game. Yet they still lost. Warner threw for almost 400 yards. The Cardinals big receivers had big games. They even got a little bit of a ground game going. The Steelers defense to be so vaunted did not look so good. Warner shredded it in the fourth quarter and every time that he had a little time in the pocket. When they went to a no huddle there was no stopping them. Ultimatly the game came down to penalties and the Arizona defense and the one big play at the end of the first half. The roughing the passer and roughing the holder penalties were pretty tacky penalties. Arizona also shoot themselves in the foot on several other penalties. In the end though the game loss has to be firmly put onto the shoulders of the Arizona defense. When you have a lead late in the game and the opposing team has the entire field to march down. You go out and stop them. Their defense did not. The Steelers do not have a world beating offense. Their rushing game was also pretty much a non factor and besides a good first quarter and good last two minutes their passing attack was also a non factor. So to me the loss is squarly the blame of the Arizona defense.

02-04-2009, 04:05 PM	#68
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,670	I agree that Arizona's defense should take the blame for the last drive but i disagree that Arizona's big receivers were much better. The cardinals defense was keeping them in the game when the Cardinals receivers werent doing anything for 3 qrts. Only when Pitt had the big lead and the safetys were way back did Arizona's passing game start to come alive. Yeah the passing stats look nice overall but if was working earlier they might not have needed the defense to make a last stand. Sure the defense failed on the last drive but the Cardinals had other chances.

02-07-2009, 03:43 PM	#78
mikev Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 4,014	I'm not sure on the exact rule, but it seems fairly obvious by that youtube clip that the ball does not come out of Warner's hand until his arm starts moving forward -- specifically look at the replay at 0:30, and then look at 0:42. Warner's hand/arm are no longer in contact with the defender and he's still holding the ball. The very last super slo-mo replay is very clear. Both of the defenders hands try to swipe the ball, then both of his hands start trying to wrap up Warner, while Warner tries to get the pass off. __________________ Global Unified Baseball Association - Vice Commish and Oakland Oaks GM

02-08-2009, 02:47 PM	#79
Ragnar Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 3,657	I see what you're saying. I guess they are saying that Warner did not have control of the ball as he was moving it forward. It was still clearly in his hand. I'm just not sure he had full control, nor am i sure of the rule. Because the defender does make contact with the ball before he starts forward.

02-08-2009, 06:23 PM	#80
mikev Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 4,014	Wouldn't that make it a blocked pass and not a fumble? I mean, the ball is clearly still in his hand when his arm goes forward through the throwing motion. __________________ Global Unified Baseball Association - Vice Commish and Oakland Oaks GM