steeler

The Huddler's Refuge and BOTNH leagues need a new member.

I'm sure I contributed to that feeling and I'm sorry about that Skip.

Thanks for your input, but no.

It's a pretty stupid thing to do because I'm sure Sarge's IDP report is more important to the huddle than my $14 bucks, but I guess that's what I'm doing. I don't want to leave the huddle as I have been a loyal member since the begining... but I just can't understand how Sarge can get away with his antics as a member of the huddle staff.

I'm waiting to see the outcome of this, but I'm pretty sure I know what's going to happen.

As I said, you are essentially complaining that you wanted the officials to "let them play" on the holding call against Seattle... so you should leave the non-holding call on the Parker TD alone because that dilutes your "let them play" argument.

I watched the game again this morning, and the only two flags that I think affected the game were the PI and the hold I mentioned. Both were judgement calls that went against Seattle, but both were not blatantly wrong. And again, this stems from my feeling that you can't blame the officials for the outcome of the game as untateve described better than I did. It's bothersome to me that the refs are being blamed for the lose.

It is my concern if the huddle still employs you as a writer.

Do you want to let them play or not?

The only penalty that really stopped a Seattle drive was the holding call when Stevens caught the ball at the one.... and I admit that was a huge play in the game... but it was a judgement call.... not a totally blown call as some have said. Dude got beat enough that he had to get into a position where a judgment holding call could be made and it was.... had the call not been made, I certainly wouldn't be sitting here bitching about it. And after that penalty, the Steelers got a sack, the Seattle inexplicably ran Alexander on 2nd and 30 or whatever, then Hass threw his terrible pick. So again, Pitt was helped by the judgement call, but they also made the plays after that call and Seattle didnt.

Apparently he did

Maybe their plan was to play a more bend-but-dont-break style against Seattle? After all the Steelers blitzed much less that they had against Denver and Indy. It was apparently an excellent game plan as Seattle could only muster 3 points that didn't come off a turnover.

My comments and Sarge's aren't even remotely similar.

Let me ask you this then.... if the sentiment is to let the players play the game, why the complaining (and I'm not sure if you've done this... just a general statement) about the non-holding calls against Pitt? I understand that you want it to be call equitablly on both sides of the ball, but if you are asking for the officials to "let them play", focus on the calls where you think that didn't happen... don't cloud your argument by saying some holding calls didn't go your way.

Then you acknowledge that it is a penalty on occassion... so we agree.