NFL Says SB Properly Officiated!

[MTK]

Please, some of you are acting like Seattle played a great game and had the game stolen from them by the refs.

Can anyone honestly say the Seahawks played a better overall game than the Steelers?

-Seattle was 5/17 on 3rd downs (29%) compared to the Steelers who were 8/15 (53%)

-Seattle was penalized 7 times for 70 yards compared to the Steelers who were penalized 3 times for 20 yards.

Yes some of the calls were iffy.

The push off in the endzone was iffy but hey, he did clearly push off so it really wasn't a horrible call.

The only outright horrible call I saw was the low block on Hasselbeck. You can argue about the holding calls, some were legit, some weren't, but those types of calls are made all season. How many phantom holding calls did we see this year both for us and against us??

Ben's TD was a very close call that could have went either way. I don't think anybody can say with 100% confidence that he did or didn't get in.

-Seattle missed 2 FG's.

-Jerramy Steven's 4 dropped passes caused several drives to stall out.

-Hasselbeck's INT in the 4th quarter killed any chances the Seahawks had of coming back.

-The Steelers scores boiled down to 3 key plays. Willie Parker's 75 yard run, Roethlisberger's 37 yard pass to Ward on 3rd and 28, Randle El's reverse toss for a TD. There wasn't any "ref interference" on any of these plays, the Steelers simply made these big plays when needed and Seattle couldn't stop them.

As some have already said, complaining about the refs is what losers do. Once the dust settles on this whole thing, the Seahawks only have themselves to blame and they know it.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Please, some of you are acting like Seattle played a great game and had the game stolen from them by the refs...

Matty: I respect your opinion and you have issued valid points however I would like to bring your attention to the following sequence of events

1. Seattle has the ball in I think it was the 3rd or maybe 4th quarter. Hasselbeck drops back to pass and completes inside the 10 yd line. Play is called back for holding penalty. I will grant that from the official's viewpoint the holding is a valid call. However, it appeared the Pitt linebacker had jumped offsides. The offsides was never flagged but the holding was. Same two players/field of view was involved.

2. After the holding penalty was assessed, Hasselbeck throws an interception. During the return, Hasselbeck is flagged for an illegal block (?) while tackling the return man. This gives Pitt the ball and places the ball near midfield.

3. A couple plays later, Randle El takes a pitch and runs around right end, then throws and completes a pass to Heinz Ward for a TD.

I would submit that without the two key calls made here (the holding and illegal block) that (1) Seattle scores at least a field goal, and probably a touchdown and (2) Pittsburgh does not score. Would that be reasonable or not? Others feel free to chime in on this one too!

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Can anyone honestly say the Seahawks played a better overall game than the Steelers?


-Seattle was penalized 7 times for 70 yards compared to the Steelers who were penalized 3 times for 20 yards.


As some have already said, complaining about the refs is what losers do. Once the dust settles on this whole thing, the Seahawks only have themselves to blame and they know it.

i honestly do think seattle out played pitt. pitt. made 3 plays on offense the entire game. pitt's defense had trouble stopping seattle's offense without the help of those "questionable" penalties.

i'm not even going to comment on the penalties. i'm pretty sure you know how i feel about that. i will say this, those penalties decided the outcome of that game.

i don't think complaining about the refs is what losers do, if they have legitament complaints. which i feel they most certianly do. i seem to remember a lot of folks on this site complaining about the officiating during the first skins- dallas game of 2004 (pass interferrence) also the skins-bucs game of 2005 (alstott's td). that doesn't make those who complained losers because they had legitament complaints. but because it's seattle those same people don't care as much, they just say "oh well, seattle just didn't play good enough to win".

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i honestly do think seattle out layed pitt. pitt. made 3 plays on offense the entire game. pitt's defense had trouble stopping seattle's offense without the help of those "questionable" penalties.

i'm not even going to comment on the penalties. i'm pretty sure you know how i feel about that.

i don't think complaing about the refs is what losers do, if they have legitament complaints. which i feel they most certianly do. i seem to remember a lot of folks on this site complaining about the officiating during the first skins- dallas game of 2004 (pass interferrence) also the skins-bucs game of 2005 (alstott's td). that doesn't make those who complained losers because they had legitament complaints. but because it's seattle those same people don't care as much, they just say "oh well, seattle just didn't play good enough to win".

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?

part of it was the refs and the other part was jeremy stevens. i've been pretty consistant in my belief that the game was lost by seattle because of the refs and jeremy stevens not playing well.

a team doesn't have to win the 3rd down % of success in order to win a football game, just look at some of the skins stats from this year and last years as well.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

part of it was the refs and the other part was jeremy stevens. i've been pretty consistant in my belief that the game was lost by seattle because of the refs and jeremy stevens not playing well.

a team doesn't have to win the 3rd down % of success in order to win a football game, just look at some of the skins stats from this year and last years as well.

It makes it awfully tough to convert on third down when the ref's are putting a team in 3rd and long, I also saw a questionable spot that forced Seattle to punt where the ref came up and had his foot on the yellow line and then spotted it behind his foot, I was waiting for a challenge on that play it looked like a bad spot.

It's not like Pitt wasen't doing the same things on third down, it's not like Pitt didn't drop passes, how about we make it a level playing field, let's give Pitt the same penalties on their big play's as seattle recieved and see how well they played once you take them away? let's say just 2 big play's, the 3rd and 28 conversion to the 1, and the TD to ward, just 2 play's and Seattle wins, even with all those ridiculous penalties.

The fact is there was no interference by the ref's when Pitt needed a big play, but it sure seemed like they were Johnny on the spot when Seattle was on the move.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?

my reasoning for not focusing on the 3rd down % is because i don't feel it had anything or at least, very little to do with the out come of the game.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

my reasoning for not focusing on the 3rd down % is because i don't feel it had anything or at least, very little to do with the out come of the game.

You can't tell me converting on just five 3rd downs has very little to do with the outcome of the game. Those are stalled drives, lost opportunities, and most importantly lost scoring chances.

Steven's 4 drops, Hasselbeck's INT and 2 missed FG's were far more damaging in the overall outcome than the refs in my opinion.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I notice you didn't try to explain why Seattle went 5/17 on 3rd downs.

Teams that win Super Bowls don't convert on just 29% of their 3rd downs.

Was that all on the refs too?

jeremy stevens dropped at least, 4 passes that would have resulted in a first down and that "holding penalty" took away a first and goal.

add those up and seattle would have been 10/17 , thats pretty good but once again, the reason i think they lost is because of stevens and the refs.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i honestly do think seattle out played pitt. pitt. made 3 plays on offense the entire game. pitt's defense had trouble stopping seattle's offense without the help of those "questionable" penalties.

i'm not even going to comment on the penalties. i'm pretty sure you know how i feel about that. i will say this, those penalties decided the outcome of that game.

i don't think complaining about the refs is what losers do, if they have legitament complaints. which i feel they most certianly do. i seem to remember a lot of folks on this site complaining about the officiating during the first skins- dallas game of 2004 (pass interferrence) also the skins-bucs game of 2005 (alstott's td). that doesn't make those who complained losers because they had legitament complaints. but because it's seattle those same people don't care as much, they just say "oh well, seattle just didn't play good enough to win".

Saying that they only made 3 plays doesn't really support your point. That's what EVERY team does to win a game. When the Skins blew out Dallas, they made 5 plays to win. Outplayed or not, Pittsburgh won the game. Dallas outplayed the Redskins the first time around, but the Skins came up with BIG PLAYS with it counted. Do you think Dallas deserved to win that game?

[offiss]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Saying that they only made 3 plays doesn't really support your point. That's what EVERY team does to win a game. When the Skins blew out Dallas, they made 5 plays to win. Outplayed or not, Pittsburgh won the game. Dallas outplayed the Redskins the first time around, but the Skins came up with BIG PLAYS with it counted. Do you think Dallas deserved to win that game?

You kind of make his point with that statement MC, If 3 0r 4 plays deciede a game, then thats all it takes for a officials to determain the outcome of a game, all it takes is 3 or 4 timely bad calls and there you have it. And that is what happened in this game, take away those very questionable penalties and Seattle wins, THERE IS NO DOUBT!

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Saying that they only made 3 plays doesn't really support your point. That's what EVERY team does to win a game. When the Skins blew out Dallas, they made 5 plays to win. Outplayed or not, Pittsburgh won the game. Dallas outplayed the Redskins the first time around, but the Skins came up with BIG PLAYS with it counted. Do you think Dallas deserved to win that game?

i'm not quite sure what your trying to get at.

maybe i didn't explain myself well enough. my point was that i thought seattle outplyed pitt. overall, it's my opinion, that seattle played better on offense and on defense. i'm not saying seattle deserves to win because they outplayed pitt, i'm just simply saying seattle outplayed pitt. defensivly pitt had trouble stopping seattle, the officialls did a much better job then pitt did. offensivly pitt didn't do a whole lot, outside of those three plays. were those 3 plays enough to win ? yes but not because they outplayed seattle. like i said, this is just my opinion.

i hope i did better at explaining my reasoning. if not, i'm sorry.

[skinsguy]

Thank you Matty!

Complaining doesn't help matters.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I found a clip online of that play from some bitter Seahawks fan the other day and the guy that supposedly jumped offsides had PERFECT timing. He went RIGHT when the ball moved and the holding clearly prevented him from sacking Hasselbeck. And Matty's point really is this (and my mantra lately is "can't see the forest for the trees):

If Seattle deserved to win, you think they would have been able to stop that long run by Parker. If Seattle deserved to win, Stevens wouldn't have dropped those passes. If Seattle deserved to win, they wouldn't have been burned on that play by Randle El that you HAD to know was coming. Even the announcers called it.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

If Seattle deserved to win, you think they would have been able to stop that long run by Parker. If Seattle deserved to win, Stevens wouldn't have dropped those passes. If Seattle deserved to win, they wouldn't have been burned on that play by Randle El that you HAD to know was coming. Even the announcers called it.

The crux of my argument is that officiating interfered heavily with the outcome of the game. Obviously, you don't see it that way and your argument is simply that Seattle didn't play well enough to win and Pittsburgh did. Personally, I enjoyed watching Seattle being abused. I think they're in a soft division with no real competition and I think Chicago or Carolina might have represented the NFC better.