SUPER BOWL #6 FOR THE STILLERS!

[Jeemie]

Congrats to the Steelers and their fans but I gotta ask:

A) How was James Harrison not ejected?

B) How was that last play not reviewed?

Not getting it, but otherwise congratulations it made for a helluva fun game to watch...I gotta get home now....early class tomorrow...

I doubt it would have been overturned, but there is no excuse for there not being a review of the final Cardinals' offensive play.

I agree it should have been reviewed, but probably would not have been overturned.

I was feeling sick for a minute thinking it WOULD be overturned...because Farrior's penalty for removing his helmet (which I think is a gay-assed penalty) would still have counted, and the Cardinals would have had the ball at about the 35.

That would have been too much like the 1995 AFCCG for my liking.

But WHAT a fourth quarter!!!! Although- should I have expected anything different? That's how the Steelers have won games all year.

BTW- they didn't eject Qunetin Demps for his more blatant late hit of Warner in the NFCCG- they weren't going to eject Harrison there.

[Estonut]

No comments here on the winning touchdown? Every time I saw the play, it looked as if Holmes' right foot never touched the ground after he gained possession of the ball. Well, unless his right foot is 2" longer than his left, anyway.

I happened upon a photo from behind that confirms exactly what I was seeing:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/NBCSports/C ... s_full.jpg

[Jeemie]

No comments here on the winning touchdown? Every time I saw the play, it looked as if Holmes' right foot never touched the ground after he gained possession of the ball. Well, unless his right foot is 2" longer than his left, anyway.

I happened upon a photo from behind that confirms exactly what I was seeing:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/NBCSports/C ... s_full.jpg

Sorry- a still photo is confirmation of nothing.

You have no idea when Santonio completed possession of the catch from that shot.

But I ain't gonna do this again...not after XL.

Last comment on the subject.

[peacock2121]

Congrats to the Steelers and their fans but I gotta ask:

A) How was James Harrison not ejected?

B) How was that last play not reviewed?

Not getting it, but otherwise congratulations it made for a helluva fun game to watch...I gotta get home now....early class tomorrow...

I think Harrison shoulda been ejected too.

It was reviewed -- one of the announcers mentioned it. My guess is, time was so short that some PTB considered the announcement an unnecessary delay.

I hope and can get fined and does get fined.

[SportsFan68]

Should We Call This ‘Tuck Rule II’?
By George Bretherton

Did replay officials rush their decision to confirm a fumble by Arizona’s Kurt Warner?

While most of America seemed to be debating that point with five seconds left in last night’s Super Bowl — whether Arizona’s Kurt Warner had a grip on the ball as his arm was moving forward on a play that was ruled a fumble — the action on the field moved to the next play. When Ben Roethlisberger took the next snap with five seconds left and knelt down, the Steelers had won Super Bowl XLIII.

But what was the rush? The NBC announcer Al Michaels said on the telecast that the Cardinals were all saying, “Go over to the hood, go over to the hood,” to the referee Terry McAulay. N.F.L. rules state that in the final two minutes of a half, the decision to review is handled by the officials in the replay booth. As the Steelers ran the last play, Michaels said the booth officials had confirmed that it was a fumble. But what did they see that everyone else didn’t?

The real time that elapsed from the end of the play (Warner’s fumble) to when the Steelers ran the final play appeared to be just over a minute. Was that enough time for the officials to make the right decision?

Pittsburgh’s LaMarr Woodley caused Kurt Warner to lose his grip on the ball, but the question is when? (NBC Sports)After the game, Warner said he didn’t think so: “I think we all assumed that they would review it. I was surprised that they didn’t. I really felt like my arm was moving forward. I felt like I almost got the ball off. It was very surprising, especially in that situation.”

Even if the officials had deemed it clear that the ball had been jostled loose in Warner’s hand before his arm started moving forward — which wasn’t obvious — isn’t it possible that Warner could have regained his grip on the ball as he continued to move his arm forward? The ball was recovered by the Steelers 5 yards downfield even though the pressure came from Warner’s right. Wouldn’t that indicate some forward movement by Warner’s arm? Was it possible for the replay officials to determine every possibility in one minute of real time? (We’ve all seen much lengthier reviews over relatively trivial plays in the regular season.)

The ball was recovered 5 yards downfield. (NBC Sports)The hurried judgment took on greater significance when the Steelers’ James Farrior was penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct after he removed his helmet on the field. If a longer inspection of the fumble had shown that Warner in fact had possession as his arm was moving forward, the Cardinals would have run the next play from the Steelers’ 29, hardly a Hail Mary situation.

[Appa23]

Congrats to the Steelers and their fans but I gotta ask:

A) How was James Harrison not ejected?

B) How was that last play not reviewed?

Not getting it, but otherwise congratulations it made for a helluva fun game to watch...I gotta get home now....early class tomorrow...

I doubt it would have been overturned, but there is no excuse for there not being a review of the final Cardinals' offensive play.

I agree it should have been reviewed, but probably would not have been overturned.

I was feeling sick for a minute thinking it WOULD be overturned...because Farrior's penalty for removing his helmet (which I think is a gay-assed penalty) would still have counted, and the Cardinals would have had the ball at about the 35.

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

[Appa23]

No comments here on the winning touchdown? Every time I saw the play, it looked as if Holmes' right foot never touched the ground after he gained possession of the ball. Well, unless his right foot is 2" longer than his left, anyway.

I happened upon a photo from behind that confirms exactly what I was seeing:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/NBCSports/C ... s_full.jpg

It was really hard to tell, so the burden of proof for overturning could not have been met.

However, as I watched, I did think that Holmes' right foot was hindered from hitting the ground by his left foot (i.e. it was laying on top of his left foot the entire time.)

[Four Hour Stiffy]

Anyone need any suggestions on where to put that 6th ring?

[mcd1400de]

No comments here on the winning touchdown? Every time I saw the play, it looked as if Holmes' right foot never touched the ground after he gained possession of the ball. Well, unless his right foot is 2" longer than his left, anyway.

I happened upon a photo from behind that confirms exactly what I was seeing:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/NBCSports/C ... s_full.jpg

There was one ground-level replay (I believe it was the last one shown) which definitively indicated that Holmes tapped both feet to the turf before he fell out of bounds.

Being an Eagles fan, I was rooting for the Cards to win, so I would have loved for the pass to have been ruled incomplete. Given that the original call on the field was TD, I wasn't expecting it to be overturned, since most of the replays weren't absolutely conclusive either way. But that final replay made it clear the catch was good, beyond any argument.

Dammit.

[gsabc]

I doubt it would have been overturned, but there is no excuse for there not being a review of the final Cardinals' offensive play.

I agree it should have been reviewed, but probably would not have been overturned.

I was feeling sick for a minute thinking it WOULD be overturned...because Farrior's penalty for removing his helmet (which I think is a gay-assed penalty) would still have counted, and the Cardinals would have had the ball at about the 35.

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

IMO it was even less of a forward pass than the earlier sack/fumble which got challenged successfully. How far to the ground do you have to be before it becomes intentional grounding to avoid the sack?

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I agree it should have been reviewed, but probably would not have been overturned.

I was feeling sick for a minute thinking it WOULD be overturned...because Farrior's penalty for removing his helmet (which I think is a gay-assed penalty) would still have counted, and the Cardinals would have had the ball at about the 35.

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

IMO it was even less of a forward pass than the earlier sack/fumble which got challenged successfully. How far to the ground do you have to be before it becomes intentional grounding to avoid the sack?

Generally, if the trajectory of the ball is altered on the way out, they give the QB the benefit of the doubt as far as grounding goes.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I doubt it would have been overturned, but there is no excuse for there not being a review of the final Cardinals' offensive play.

I agree it should have been reviewed, but probably would not have been overturned.

I was feeling sick for a minute thinking it WOULD be overturned...because Farrior's penalty for removing his helmet (which I think is a gay-assed penalty) would still have counted, and the Cardinals would have had the ball at about the 35.

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

Seems to me that when they look at fumbles in replays (at least in all the "was he down before he fumbled" one I can think of) the question isn't about separation, but about loss of control of the ball or "when the ball started to come out". I don't know where to go for video here, but it seems plausible to me that the hit happened, and the ball started to come out / Warner lost control before his arm started moving forward, then the ball came out as his arm moved forward.

[TheCalvinator24]

I agree it should have been reviewed, but probably would not have been overturned.

I was feeling sick for a minute thinking it WOULD be overturned...because Farrior's penalty for removing his helmet (which I think is a gay-assed penalty) would still have counted, and the Cardinals would have had the ball at about the 35.

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

Seems to me that when they look at fumbles in replays (at least in all the "was he down before he fumbled" one I can think of) the question isn't about separation, but about loss of control of the ball or "when the ball started to come out". I don't know where to go for video here, but it seems plausible to me that the hit happened, and the ball started to come out / Warner lost control before his arm started moving forward, then the ball came out as his arm moved forward.

The rule is a little different for QBs on the question of fumble vs. incomplete pass. It's supposed to be governed by the "empty hand" rule. If the ball is in contact with the QBs hand as it starts forward, it's a pass attempt.

At least, that's my understanding of the "empty hand" rule. IOW, unless the ball is clearly OUT of the QBs hand before the forward motion begins, it's not a fumble,

[Jeemie]

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

You would be wrong.

Go to nfl.com and scroll through the game highlight videos.

They have a rear-angle shot that shows Warner lost control of the ball before his arm went forward.

Yes, his arm went forward, and yes the ball did too, but Warner was NOT controlling it when this happened.

This isn't Aussie Rules Football. There's no such thing as a hand pass in the NFL.

Here's the link.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000 ... d=featured

Start watching carefully at the 0:25 mark.

[Vandal]

That was a most excellent game. It reminded me of the Patriots-Panthers SB a few years back. Fairly pedestrian through three quarters, then a blizzard of activity in the fourth. No one in my living room was sitting down for the last 15 minutes.

What are the odds of two consecutive SB-winning drives being scored with 35 seconds left?

The Steeler D was good enough, but certainly not worth mentioning in the same breath as the '85 Bears, '00 Ravens or even the '02 Bucs, as several talking heads on ESPN tried to do. Giving up over 220 4th quarter yards won't get you into that club. They were, however, great when they needed to be.

Congratulations, Steeler Nation. Your team is now, officially, the second best in this decade.

[Weyoun]

It should have been called as a forward pass, and I don't get why it wasn't even looked at.

[SportsFan68]

. . . No one in my living room was sitting down for the last 15 minutes.

. . .

I was shocked during the Steelers' last drive -- I looked around, and no SteelersFan! He was so nervous, he couldn't watch. He came back in time to watch the last touchdown and the rest of the game.

[tanstaafl2]

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

You would be wrong.

Go to nfl.com and scroll through the game highlight videos.

They have a rear-angle shot that shows Warner lost control of the ball before his arm went forward.

Yes, his arm went forward, and yes the ball did too, but Warner was NOT controlling it when this happened.

This isn't Aussie Rules Football. There's no such thing as a hand pass in the NFL.

Here's the link.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000 ... d=featured

Start watching carefully at the 0:25 mark.

Looking in slow motion on the Tivo multiple times last night it looked like a forward pass to me but hard to be 100% certain. Can't get this link to the rear view of that play to work.

But those highlights do show the block in the back by 56 on 34 during the 100 yard interception run back. It is the second time he hits him at about the 12 second mark in the replay. Pushes him on the back of the right shoulder in what sure looks like the same kind of block I have seen flagged many times in the past. And probably allows the runner to score.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000 ... d=featured

I'm not convince the ball crossed the plane of the goal line before it hit the ground either but that is much harder to judge based on the replays. I replayed it many times on the tivo in slow motion but just couldn't tell.

[peacock2121]

. . . No one in my living room was sitting down for the last 15 minutes.

. . .

I was shocked during the Steelers' last drive -- I looked around, and no SteelersFan! He was so nervous, he couldn't watch. He came back in time to watch the last touchdown and the rest of the game.

I stood as well - and I had the big ass TV, so I didn't need to stand to see.

I had so much nervous energy, I could not sit.

[tanstaafl2]

Which is the reason why it was not really reviewed, because it would have been overturned, and the Cards would have been around the 30. The ball remained in the hand of Warner the entire time. The first separation of hand from ball occurred when Warner brought his arm forward. If Farrior had not remove his helmet, drawing the penalty, then the Cardianals would have been allowed that last chance to throw the ball high and just let Fitzgerald make a catch. I firmly believe that this is the truth, and I say it as a life-long Steelers fan. (I still do not understand why the Cards did not throw one up for Fitzgerald at the end of the first halves of the NFC championship game and then the Super Bowl. Bond-headed call each time.)

You would be wrong.

Go to nfl.com and scroll through the game highlight videos.

They have a rear-angle shot that shows Warner lost control of the ball before his arm went forward.

Yes, his arm went forward, and yes the ball did too, but Warner was NOT controlling it when this happened.

This isn't Aussie Rules Football. There's no such thing as a hand pass in the NFL.

Here's the link.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000 ... d=featured

Start watching carefully at the 0:25 mark.

Looking in slow motion on the Tivo multiple times last night it looked like a forward pass to me but hard to be 100% certain. Can't get this link to the rear view of that play to work.

But those highlights do show the block in the back by 56 on 34 during the 100 yard interception run back. It is the second time he hits him at about the 12 second mark in the replay. Pushes him on the back of the right shoulder in what sure looks like the same kind of block I have seen flagged many times in the past. And probably allows the runner to score.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000 ... d=featured

I'm not convince the ball crossed the plane of the goal line before it hit the ground either but that is much harder to judge based on the replays. I replayed it many times on the tivo in slow motion but just couldn't tell.

Well, I finally figured out that the back side view you note is the second part of this highlight. I wasn't watching it long enough. That was the view I looked at on the Tivo last night and it clearly shows the ball was propelled forward by the forward motion of Warner's hand. Did he have full control of it? Certainly not. But it wasn't a case of his hand going forward and the ball going forward because it was knocked forward by the defender. His hand wasn't empty, it had the ball in it as it went forward and it was the motion of his hand that propelled the ball forward, even if it happened to be sideways in his hand at that point and down around the heel of the palm. I have certainly seen similar plays where the QB didn't have control of the ball called a forward incomplete pass in the past. Heck I have seen one or two of those caught for a completion before.

Sure looks to me like a forward pass to me and this view only serves to confirm that just as I thought last night looking at it on the Tivo. I would have to exactly see how the rule is worded to know how it should be interpreted. But it certainly looks like a forward pass. And it should have been clear to the replay ref as well from that view.

Would it have made a difference? Who knows as the Cards still had to convert it into a TD with little time left. And it wouldn't have even come to that if the Cards defense had been able to stop the Steelers on that final drive instead of playing a "prevent" (the win) defense.

But it looked like yet another blown call to me. That would make it 3 for 3 for the refs on blown calls in favor of Pittsburgh. Only this time the replay ref seems to have blown it as well.

[lilclyde54]

Congrats to everyone in Steeler Nation. Quite an accomplishment.

[Bob78164]

I tivo'd the game so I could skip all the commercials. I have one rules-type question. The Steelers kickoff that ended up going through the end zone and was a touchback.

Why wasn't it a safety? It looked like it touched somebody on its way. I thought the rule was that you could only down the ball (or let it go through) for a touchback if your team hadn't already touched the ball outside the end zone.

The rule is based on "impetus." The ball's impetus still came from the kicking team, so even though it touched a member of the receiving team before reaching the end zone, the kicking team was still responsible for its entry into the end zone. Therefore, the play was a touchback, not a safety.

That's why a blocked punt that goes through the end zone is a safety, not a touchback, even though the receiving team was probably the last team to touch it. The kicking team provided the (redirected) impetus that put the ball in the end zone in the first place. --Bob

[Bob78164]

I tivo'd the game so I could skip all the commercials. I have one rules-type question. The Steelers kickoff that ended up going through the end zone and was a touchback.

Why wasn't it a safety? It looked like it touched somebody on its way. I thought the rule was that you could only down the ball (or let it go through) for a touchback if your team hadn't already touched the ball outside the end zone.

The touch was officially a 'muff'. In other words he never had possession. On a kickoff, a muff does not affect status of the ball.

On a punt however, it is a different story.

The references I've found via a quick search say that a muffed punt that reaches the end zone is a touchback. --Bob

[Jeemie]

But it looked like yet another blown call to me. That would make it 3 for 3 for the refs on blown calls in favor of Pittsburgh. Only this time the replay ref seems to have blown it as well.

What were the other two "blown calls" that "went in favor of Pittsburgh"?

[mellytu74]

It's funny, I got pretty much everything I wanted from this game.

1) Larry Fitzgerald had a fine game, but

2) The Steelers won, and

3) Bill Bidwell was denied his championship, thus keeping the Curse of the Pottsville Maroons intact.

(I think the Curse of the Maroons will damn the Eagles from ever winning a Super Bowl, although Jeffrey Lurie has taken up the cause of the Maroons in recent years).