It was very good. I watched every replay of a "bad" call, and there was only one bad one in the bunch: the Seahawks receiver who stepped out of bounds did, in fact, barely nick the pylon with his right leg, after getting possession and stepping in bounds with his left leg. That should have been a touchdown.
The offensive pass interference was clearly correct. He changed directions, straightened out his arm on the defensive player, and gave himself some momentum while taking away same from the other player. No question, correct call.
The hold on the lineman, same thing: the defensive player got past him, and he grabbed the guy's shoulder pad from behind. Absolutely no question, correct call.
Big Ben's touchdown, I am not entirely convinced was the right intial call, but I am 75 percent sure he got it across. But everyone seems to be telling me the video was not conclusive, so how can they be mad at the initial call, if you can't even tell from the video? Judgment call, can't tell from the video, so I have no problem with it.
And how come the Seahawks fans aren't talking about the interception and two missed field goals, without which they would have won regardless of these supposed "bad" calls?
Look, I complained about the bad call against the Patriots in the divisional playoff game, where the fumble clearly went through the end zone. However, I was quick to point out that Brady through an interception to put them in that situation, and their three other turnovers are what killed them.
The best team always wins, even with bad calls, because that's part of the game too. But in this case, the calls weren't bad anyway.
Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
pudge on 2006-02-07T18:50:28
I didn't care which team won and I found myself just disappointed that the refs and calls had to be such a big part of the game.
*shrug* They followed the rules. They rules are the game. I see no problem.
In this case, I don't think they should have called it because I don't think the push mattered that much.
That it mattered at all should be enough. That said, if it didn't matter, why did he do it? I see no reasonable complaint here.
There was another bad call on a phantom chop block when Hasselbeck tackled the guy running back the interception. That tacked on another 15 yards.
Agreed.
While I agree that you have to roll with the calls in any given sport, my final thought on the game was that the refs just piled up too many majorly bad calls for Seattle to overcome.
Even if I agreed with your assessment of the calls -- and I do not -- I couldn't care less. Bad calls are a part of the game. By definition, the team who wins is the best team on the given day.
In a best 2 out of 3, I bet Seattle wins the next 2 with different refs. That's why I don't think the best team won.
But, you are wrong, by definition. The best team did win, because that is what it means to win: you are therefore the best. There is no other way to measure which team is best. The goal of the team is to win, and whichever team accomplishes that goal is therefore the best team: by definition.
Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
cbrandtbuffalo on 2006-02-07T21:08:55
By definition, the team who wins is the best team on the given day.When you put it that way, it made me realize that in my mind, I don't have that absolute definition. That is, I think I have some idea in my head that in a perfectly officiated game, the winner is the best. In an imperfectly officiated game, the bad calls will fall equally because officials are human but not biased. In this case, the winner is also the best.
But I think I also hold out for the possibility that in some cases, the team that is better in terms of ability can still lose because the game wasn't played fairly. In the extreme case, this could be a fixed game with corrupt officials. In the unfortunate case it's when the majority of calls go against one team in unfortunate plays.
So I guess I've never seen the winner is the best as an absolute rule. I have some idea of the abstract ability of a team.
Maybe this is why I prefer hockey where there are seven games to sort things out. Over seven games, the luck will more likely fall evenly and there's much less room for sour grapes over a single event...
...unless of course you live in Buffalo where people still have "No Goal!" stickers.
:) Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
pudge on 2006-02-07T22:15:48
That is, I think I have some idea in my head that in a perfectly officiated game, the winner is the best. In an imperfectly officiated game, the bad calls will fall equally because officials are human but not biased. In this case, the winner is also the best.
I hear that, but a game is made of rules, and those rules include the fact of fallible human officials, and whoever wins the game in the context of those rules is the best team at this game called "NFL football."
But I think I also hold out for the possibility that in some cases, the team that is better in terms of ability can still lose because the game wasn't played fairly. In the extreme case, this could be a fixed game with corrupt officials.
Yes, but in that case, someone is violating the rules of the game. Making mistakes, as a fallible official, is part of the game. But what you describe is not, so in such an extreme case, the outcome of the game would be void.
In the unfortunate case it's when the majority of calls go against one team in unfortunate plays.
Still, that is within the parameters of the game. Just like other unfortunate things the teams cannot directly control that might benefit one team over another, like a gust of wind knocking down a last-second field goal kick.
So I guess I've never seen the winner is the best as an absolute rule. I have some idea of the abstract ability of a team.
I can't see it that way, though. I see a closed system and rules and objectives and the team that accomplishes those objectives within those rules is therefore the best.
This is amplified especially in team sports, where the "most ability" is more a factor of individual play, and not of team play. Who really thinks the Patriots have the most talent in any given year they won the Super Bowl? Maybe 2003, but almost no one gives them the nod for "best ability" in 2001 (St. Louis) or 2004 (Indianapolis, Pittsburgh). But they played the best as a team, and did what it took to win.
Maybe this is why I prefer hockey where there are seven games to sort things out. Over seven games, the luck will more likely fall evenly and there's much less room for sour grapes over a single event......unless of course you live in Buffalo where people still have "No Goal!" stickers. :)
Heh, and I think some of your reasoning about the worst team losing might be related to a certain other Buffalo team losing four straight Super Bowls... :-)
Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
djberg96 on 2006-02-10T04:29:10
But, you are wrong, by definition. The best team did win, because that is what it means to win: you are therefore the best. There is no other way to measure which team is best. The goal of the team is to win, and whichever team accomplishes that goal is therefore the best team: by definition.I'll mention that to the 1972 US Olympic Basketball Team.
Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
pudge on 2006-02-10T05:23:29
I'll mention that to the 1972 US Olympic Basketball Team.
Implicit in my comments is that no one is cheating. I, along with many others, am convinced the officials cheated to give the USSR more chances to win. But even if you aren't, the point is that the 1972 U.S. Olympic Basketball Team certainly is so convinced, and so they would see the notion of "best team wins" doesn't apply to their case.
Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
lachoy on 2006-02-07T18:53:29
What makes you think Seattle would win two out of three games? The Steelers beat the 1, 2 and 3 seeds in the AFC, which is generally acknowledged as the better conference. Pittsburgh's offense played poorly for most of Sunday which I doubt would happen in successive games. (Plus, Pittsburgh and Buffalo are practically kissin' cousins!)
I do wish we would only have one week between the conference and league championships. The break helps nobody but the media.
Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
pudge on 2006-02-07T21:21:40
What makes you think Seattle would win two out of three games?
The worst part is, it is just begging the question. Would it prove Seattle is the better team? If so, then why does one game not prove the Steelers are? If the Steelers won two, would they still not be better?
The only best team in the league is the one that wins the Super Bowl. The only best team between two in a given game is the one that wins that game.
There is a single exception I can think of: and that is when a team intentionally does not try to win, because it has playoffs locked up and wants to rest its players. The same logic applies: whichever team accomplishes their goal is the best team. It just so happens that in this game, one team was not actually trying to win. Its goal was not to win. So you can't look to which team won as a measure for which team best accomplished its goals.
And I hate it when teams do that, but there's not much that can be done to stop it.
Re:Not sure the Steelers were the better team
gizmo_mathboy on 2006-02-08T23:57:39
The NFL isn't about the spirit of the law. The rules are a huge book. It is very detailed and there isn't much spirit in its law.
If you were talking about soccer or rugby I would agree. The rule book is much thinner and is very much open to the interpretation of the ref on the field.
American football definitely reflects our attitude about law, very technical and nitpicky.
You're also forgetting the non-calls. On the critical holding penalty against Seattle, Pittsburgh was offsides. On the 3rd and 26, I heard (but have not confirmed) that Pittsburgh had men illegally downfield. The Porter horse collar. The should-have-been delay of game against Pittsburgh on 3rd and 8.
True, Seattle did get a break on the 'dropped pass' that was actually a fumble - but it was moot in the end. It was a 3rd down play, and the kicker put it through the end zone, giving it to Pittsburgh about where they would have had it anyway.
However, all that being said, Seattle ultimately screwed themselves. Holmgren's game plan sucked - why go to the pass so often when you've got the best rusher in the NFL (Alexander averaged over 4 yards per carry iirc)? Two missed (albeit long) field goals. The punter kicking through the end zone twice. That idiotic defense on 3rd and 26 where *every* linebacker was in coverage. Four dropped passes by Stevens.
The officiating sucked but the Seahawks shot themselves in the foot too many times. They could have overcome it, but didn't.
That hasn't removed the foul taste in my mouth about this game, though.
