SUPER BOWL #6 FOR THE STILLERS!

[ToLiveIsToFly]

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"?

I think he's talking about the two that were reversed, i.e. they were initially blown.

[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"?

I think he's talking about the two that were reversed, i.e. they were initially blown.

I don't think so, because neither of those went in favor of Pittsburgh.

Only truly "blown" call that went in favor of the Steelers that I can see is that, by the letter of the law, Santonio should have been penalized for his celebration in the EZ.

Only other truly "blown call" that I can think of is that Warner was not penalized, as was Farrior later, for taking off his helmet on the field to argue the fumble call (that was later reversed).

The rest are officials' judgement calls, not "blown calls".

[tanstaafl2]

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"?

TLITF is correct. There were two "blown calls" by the refs on the field that were reversed on challenge. If Arizona had not challenged that would have remained as called and would clearly have benefited Pittsburgh. One would have been a touchdown that later became just a field goal and one was ruled a turnover that was in fact a incomplete forward pass.

While I did not specifically state it in the paragraph above it was implied by the last sentence that the first two missed calls were correctly overturned by the reply booth while the last one, while a close call, appears to me at least to be a blown call on the field and the replay booth as well. We don't see that play the same way obviously and it seems unlikely we are going to. The so called talking head experts on the sports channels seem to be divided as well.

While being able to make a challenge is helpful it is not without inherent risk. You could lose timeouts or opportunities to challenge later in the game. In addition a team only has a limited number even when thay are right. I think a team should have challenges available until they are wrong twice. You should never not have a challenge available as long as you are correct in the previous challenges.

No doubt it was just bad luck that these calls all went for the Steelers and against the Cardinals because I do not believe that the officiating crew was deliberately biased towards Pittsburgh. But they are human and the fact that all the hype suggested that Pittsburgh was going to blow out the Cardinals could have contributed to the mind set of the crew such that they might tend to subconciously rule in their favor.

And I do believe that over the long haul of the history of the NFL that the "breaks" or "judgement calls" by referees do tend to favor the teams perceived to be the "good" teams over the teams perceived to be the "bad" teams. As a Falcons follower I have seen that so often as to know it is true!

There were at least two examples in this game. The roughing the passer call on Arizona was ticky tacky at best and I think should have been a no call. Or else there were a couple of similar close calls that could have been called on the Steelers. Same with the unnecessary roughing call on the Cardinal player who "ran into" the holder. The player was tripped and stumbled into the holder, he did not hit him with malice aforethought (unlike Harrison did for example). He should have tried to jump over him although being off balance maybe he couldn't. But I think it was a borderline call at best.

Besides this is football, not ballet! Once the kick is gone the holder is just another player on the field. He should be watching out for himself and not staring moon eyed after the kick so if he gets plowed into once the kick is gone and the kicker has planted his kicking foot back on the ground too bad for him. Same is true of kickers as far as I am concerned. Once his kicking foot hits the ground and he gets say one beat to recover he is fair game.

Kind of like a punt returner who is supposed to at least a beat before he gets hit, something by the way which was at least borderline when a Steeler smacked into a punt returner almost simultaneously with the ball at one point in the game. No call there either although I have certainly seen that called before.

[BigDrawMan]

the whining gets louder with each sb win.

parade at noon

[Jeemie]

There were at least two examples in this game. The roughing the passer call on Arizona was ticky tacky at best and I think should have been a no call. Or else there were a couple of similar close calls that could have been called on the Steelers. Same with the unnecessary roughing call on the Cardinal player who "ran into" the holder. The player was tripped and stumbled into the holder, he did not hit him with malice aforethought (unlike Harrison did for example). He should have tried to jump over him although being off balance maybe he couldn't. But I think it was a borderline call at best.

I agree the roughing the passer call was ticky-tack. However, I have seen Ben get decked so many times (most recent example in the AFCCG, when he was smacked in the back (completely blindsided) about 2 seconds- and about five steps by the defender- after he let go of a pass- it's what led to all the "X-ray" speculation this week) and not get a flag that I'll take it!!

However, the roughing the holder penalty was textbook. There's nothing in the rulebook that says it must be "malice aforethought"- you simply cannot run over the holder- period.

[tanstaafl2]

There were at least two examples in this game. The roughing the passer call on Arizona was ticky tacky at best and I think should have been a no call. Or else there were a couple of similar close calls that could have been called on the Steelers. Same with the unnecessary roughing call on the Cardinal player who "ran into" the holder. The player was tripped and stumbled into the holder, he did not hit him with malice aforethought (unlike Harrison did for example). He should have tried to jump over him although being off balance maybe he couldn't. But I think it was a borderline call at best.

I agree the roughing the passer call was ticky-tack. However, I have seen Ben get decked so many times (most recent example in the AFCCG, when he was smacked in the back (completely blindsided) about 2 seconds- and about five steps by the defender- after he let go of a pass- it's what led to all the "X-ray" speculation this week) and not get a flag that I'll take it!!

However, the roughing the holder penalty was textbook. There's nothing in the rulebook that says it must be "malice aforethought"- you simply cannot run over the holder- period.

Yes, I agree the rule likely says you can't run over the holder (I have had a tough time finding a definitive source of NFL rules). As I noted I would have changed that rule so that you can't have ballet dancers on the field...

Also you can be blocked into the kicker (or the holder I presume). Now he wasn't really blocked but in this case he was tripped. While it had no impact on the outcome and I suppose it was technically correct it still seemed very unfootball-ish.

But there are a number of rules I would change!

[SportsFan68]

. . .

But there are a number of rules I would change!

Not me! I would be terrified of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The only thing I would do is unload the ones that are never called, like when Center Marvin Philip hauled Big Ben across the goal line. It didn't make any difference in that case because Ben's knee hit the dirt, but what if it hadn't? Long-time football watchers say they've never seen that rule called.

[tanstaafl2]

. . .

But there are a number of rules I would change!

Not me! I would be terrified of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The only thing I would do is unload the ones that are never called, like when Center Marvin Philip hauled Big Ben across the goal line. It didn't make any difference in that case because Ben's knee hit the dirt, but what if it hadn't? Long-time football watchers say they've never seen that rule called.

I like unintended consequences. Makes the game fun to watch!

[Jeemie]

I'd get rid of the "taking off the helmet" rule (which Farrior was flagged for but NOT Warner, BTW!) and the excessive celebration rules.

They have nothing to do with the game, and I can't think of anything unintended that would be bad.

I don't like the ridiculous celebrations, and I understand the rule was initially made because the "Gastineau Sack Dance" took forever, but let players be players.

BTW- upon reviewing my DVD, Holmes wasn't flagged for using the ball as a talcum powder dispenser during his LeBron (Jordan) homage because the play had already been kicked to review, and the officials weren't looking at him. It was over in a second, so he got away with one.