Azazello1313 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Menudo- Your beyond annoying me now. If you think Roth was "blocked in the back" on the INT return- your an f ing moron. Period. I didn't say "does not exist on that part of the field" grrr- I said - the Sea guy was ahead of Herndon, so was Roth- and he extended his arms and blocked Roth- perfectly legal play. Happens al the time on INT returns. I need to go vote you as most annoying huddler right now........... 1313780[/snapback] if he blocked him in the back there it would be illegal. i'd have to see the whole block though, not just a picture of ben falling forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Vote me for whatever you want. John Riggins said it was a block in the back on Sirious NFL Radio. Are you claiming to know more about football than me and John Riggins ? Also, do the following search on Google - Roethlisbeger "Blocked in the back" . There are tons of analysts saying the same thing. We are all wrong and you are right. I get it. 1313789[/snapback] Yep I am saying that very thing. Why don't you stay in your 10th "Pittsburgh Steeler Champion" posts- us Sea fans venting making your female sanitary product itch? I think I will google the following: Roethlisberger & most overrated QB & NFL Menudo & waste managment Pittsburgh & ugliest women & US Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 if he blocked him in the back there it would be illegal. i'd have to see the whole block though, not just a picture of ben falling forward. 1313804[/snapback] Listen, it is the only call that went against the Steelers and SEVERAL went against the Seahawks, I can admit it. Roethlisberger was on an angle towards Herndon who was heading up the sidelines, when a player behind Ben pushed him from behind..... John Riggins and other analysts brought it up. It isn't even a big deal, but this guy said I don't know anything about football, and I guess Riggins doesn't either, because you are allowed to block in the back during INT returns ????? At least, I guess that is what he is trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 (edited) Yep I am saying that very thing. Why don't you stay in your 10th "Pittsburgh Steeler Champion" posts- us Sea fans venting making your female sanitary product itch? I think I will google the following: Roethlisberger & most overrated QB & NFL Menudo & waste managment Pittsburgh & ugliest women & US 1313812[/snapback] In other words, rather than look it up and see what the analysts are saying, and admit that you might be wrong, I will turn to 3rd grade insults and name-calling. Nice work. Edited February 8, 2006 by Menudo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Initially he laughed at the idea, and then when provided with proof he discounted it. 1313741[/snapback] Are we talking about Dubya here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaptain Winkey Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Are we talking about Dubya here? 1313818[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gdawg Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 (edited) In other words, rather than look it up and see what the analysts are saying, and admit that you might be wrong, I will turn to 3rd grade insults and name-calling. Nice work. 1313815[/snapback] Youre a butt_head and your team is stinky...you stinky butt_head Edited February 8, 2006 by Gdawg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 In other words, rather than look it up and see what the analysts are saying, and admit that you might be wrong, I will turn to 3rd grade insults and name-calling. Nice work. 1313815[/snapback] I have seen and heard ZERO anlaysts say anything on that play. I have had ZERO huddlers pisssme off as much as you do. You won the game, and yet you want to bring up your little pics of a supposed block in the back that John Riggins stated on Sirus Radio?? . Seriously, enjoy your win, let us vent- we know it won't change anything for chris sake, but it obviously struck a nerve with alot or people. 3rd grade? how about you insecure need to throw out this supposed block in the back on Roth?? You guys won the SB - your incessant need to keep coming back with these posts is a joke. Class?? save it, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I have seen and heard ZERO anlaysts say anything on that play. I have had ZERO huddlers pisssme off as much as you do. You won the game, and yet you want to bring up your little pics of a supposed block in the back that John Riggins stated on Sirus Radio?? . Seriously, enjoy your win, let us vent- we know it won't change anything for chris sake, but it obviously struck a nerve with alot or people. 3rd grade? how about you insecure need to throw out this supposed block in the back on Roth?? You guys won the SB - your incessant need to keep coming back with these posts is a joke. Class?? save it, please. 1313840[/snapback] So, you are allowed to pick out every play of the game and complain about it, and I'm not allowed to defend myself with one play that I felt was called incorrectly. O.k. I get it. Fair enough. By the way, did the Seahawks hold the combination of Bettis and Parker to under 50 yards or not ? How about the 28 points that we could just automatically put in the books for the Seahawks ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 I agree with it all except this. Inside the area known as the "tackle box" that is a legal block. Low blocks are forbidden on change of possession plays (Int returns, fumble returns, kick-offs, and punts). For example, how many times do you see a RB take out a blitzers legs? It's legal. And you didn't mention the missed offsides calls on the LOLB after Locklear's "hold". 1313457[/snapback] Yes, I did #7. I did this strictly off of memory so my timing might have been off as far as when it happened. I didn't want to watch the game twice. Once was enough for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispirons Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 cue "dead horse"... the problem with this game was that ALL the iffy "judgment calls" went against seattle, and they ALL seemed to happen at absolutely CRUCIAL points in the game. the cumulative effect is a snowjob worth about 11 points on the scoreboard. i doubt it was intentional, but it was there nevertheless. iffy calls don't usually determine the outcome of the game, but the fact that they all went against one team and all at key moments makes this an exception. it's a bummer for the game of football to have it happen in a super bowl. 1313445[/snapback] i think this paragraph sums it up pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Very good original post ..quite solid but I have to go back to some items in this game that did determine the outcome clearly which the Refs had nothing to do with : 1. Two missed field goals by Brown ...He makes those ( yes they were long but they were kicked in a dome with no elements ) and some of these bad calls may not more matter as much ... 2. score is 7-3 at half ...seattle is down but still this is a very winnable game for Seattle ...on 2nd play of 3rd quarter , willie parker runs 75 yards barely touched ...That was a momentum killer more than any call in first half 3. score 14-10 , game is still very winnable for Seattle yet they fall for a trick play ( randle El TD pass ) ...knowing that pitssburgh runs almost one trick play a game and that seattle had 2 weeks to prepare for this game , being fooled on that play was pretty inexcusable ...now the score is 21 -10 This does not excuse the poor jobs by the ref ...they were bad ..and it does not take away from fact it hurt seattle ( some have felt it hurt them more than others ) because it did ...i do not believe however that the refs single handedly cost Seattle the game ...I think Pitt had alot to do with it as well as some inefficencies by seattle ( listed above ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEdway Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 It's obvious now...after the exposure of the NHL gambling ring. If they got a State Trooper in their pockets....how hard would it be to get a few NFL refs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 It's obvious now...after the exposure of the NHL gambling ring. If they got a State Trooper in their pockets....how hard would it be to get a few NFL refs? 1317143[/snapback] Obviously it was not to hard. the more I think about it I have come to the conclusion that after trying to rob Pittsburgh against Indy they decided to give them some makeup calls so they did not make a stink of it during the offseason. looks like they may have screwed it up for themselves by doing so. If nothing else next years refs will be under more scrutiny than ever before.that is good for the league. at least something is coming out of that superbowl cheat we all witnessed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Obviously it was not to hard. the more I think about it I have come to the conclusion that after trying to rob Pittsburgh against Indy they decided to give them some makeup calls so they did not make a stink of it during the offseason. looks like they may have screwed it up for themselves by doing so. 1317166[/snapback] I find that hard to believe, it was just a poorly officiated football game, lots of blown calls, and every questionable call went one way. If nothing else next years refs will be under more scrutiny than ever before.that is good for the league. at least something is coming out of that superbowl cheat we all witnessed.1317166[/snapback] The only statement the NFL has released that I'm aware of was "It was a well officiated football game. No doubt about it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) Yup, just like the NFL hoped, it will be swept under the carpet. Edited February 10, 2006 by NoSupe4You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Obviously it was not to hard. the more I think about it I have come to the conclusion that after trying to rob Pittsburgh against Indy they decided to give them some makeup calls so they did not make a stink of it during the offseason. looks like they may have screwed it up for themselves by doing so. If nothing else next years refs will be under more scrutiny than ever before.that is good for the league. at least something is coming out of that superbowl cheat we all witnessed. 1317166[/snapback] I find that hard to believe, it was just a poorly officiated football game, lots of blown calls, and every questionable call went one way. The only statement the NFL has released that I'm aware of was "It was a well officiated football game. No doubt about it." 1317175[/snapback] Yup, just like the NFL hoped, it will be swepted under the carpet. 1317205[/snapback] Congrats on your NFC Championship and a great season ! ......there isn't much left to say that hasn't been said already, but, I don't think I took the time to say that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) Its easy, Pitt deserved the title before the game started because of the 3 teams they beat, but were beaten in every phase of the game in the big game, but the refs reversed TDs, and virtually every big play, but gave TDs that were not earned, and decided not to throw the flag vs Pitt on any of their big plays where penalties obviously happened. COngrats Pitt, you now have the best Championship the refs can hand you. That was the only way Pitt was going to win that game, and nothing can be said to change my or about 50 million other fans minds. What I do not get is usually when a thief takes something, they go into hiding. I guess that doesnt apply to Pitt fans, when they are given something that was stolen. Edited February 10, 2006 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Its easy, Pitt deserved the title before the game started because of the 3 teams they beat, but were beaten in every phase of the game in the big game, but the refs reversed TDs, and virtually every big play, but gave TDs that were not earned, and decided not to throw the flag vs Pitt on any of their big plays where penalties obviously happened. COngrats Pitt, you now have the best Championship the refs can hand you. That was the only way Pitt was going to win that game, and nothing can be said to change my or about 50 million other fans minds. What I do not get is usually when a thief takes something, they go into hiding. I guess that doesnt apply to Pitt fans, when they are given something that was stolen. 1317224[/snapback] : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Itals Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) First, let me say that I am a Seattle Seahawk fan but, more importantly, I am a fan of the game. I want to share some of my insight about Super Bowl 40. 'The Professor" 1313411[/snapback] #1: You might be right. So why did D-Jax put his hand on Hope in close quarters, then extend it off his body, take his hands off Hope and then catch the ball, when he could have just taken two steps to the left and caught the ball? Don't get me wrong, I'm a Cowboys/Michael Irvin fan. There is no such thing as an offensive push off/interference in my book. At worst, D-Jax made it LOOK like he interfered. That makes him an inferior receiver. You can't make it look obvious. #2: I didn't think he got in. The line judge thought he did. I couldn't see where the ball was on review which would DEFINITEVLY prove he didn't. Touchdown stands. Tough break. #3: As that play developed, I screamed "Holding" at the top of my lungs in front of my friends as we watched on the big screen. He briefly grabbed the defender and then let go. Slow-mo replay made it lood ticky-tacky. I thought it looked worse in real time. I can't blame the ref's for that. #4: They didn't call the horse collar tackle the last 8 games of the regular season. Why start calling it now? I thought you wanted the refs to keep ther nose outta the player's business? #5: Horrific call which shows the ref's fundamental misunderstanding of the game. Inexcusable. #6: Not a penalty unless the defender is engaged above the waist. Yer reaching here. #7: Nope. The refs let this go all day. Why start now and interfere with the style of play? To call it now would have been unfair and an interference of the game. #8: Ok. You could be right. But, if that's the worse, you don't deserve the game. Especially when Leavy so badly mis-interpreteded the NFL rules and reversed the Hasselbeck fumble which the Steeler's recovered. (Yes, I'm the lone person on the face of the earth that believes that the original call was actually correct.) Finally, congrats to the Seahawks on their superb season. As a 'Boys fan, I believe they deserved it along with their win over my team earlier in the season. The Steelers are the clear World Champions. Congrats to them. Edited February 10, 2006 by General Itals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Especially when Leavy so badly mis-interpreteded the NFL rules and reversed the Hasselbeck fumble which the Steeler's recovered. (Yes, I'm the lone person on the face of the earth that believes that the original call was actually correct.) 1317259[/snapback] Actually, I think the reversal was correct to the LETTER of the rule, but IMO that touch had little to nothing to do with Hass going down. I'd agree that the reversal of the fumble was a bad call - which makes it ANOTHER bad call the refs made, except amazingly enough that one went AGAINST the Steelers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 #3: As that play developed, I screamed "Holding" at the top of my lungs in front of my friends as we watched on the big screen. He briefly grabbed the defender and then let go. Slow-mo replay made it lood ticky-tacky. I thought it looked worse in real time. I can't blame the ref's for that. 1317259[/snapback] Never mind the fact that the nose tackle was lined up in the nuetral zone on the play. So the official could see a split second grab (which frame by frame I couldn't see) but not a guy statically in an illegal position for 5+ second before the ball is snapped? (and yes I know these responsabilities fall to 2 diferent officials but still.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.