Squeegiebo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Blah, blah, blah You saw the exact same Steelers team last night that you've been seeing all year long. blah, blah, blah The Steelers team I saw all year long didn't start playing prevent defense with 10 minutes left in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Maybe you need to read the rest of the thread...or are you still sore from a couple years ago?? That would ceratinly help explain your obvious bias... As a fan of the NFL I expect that the officiating to be as fair as possible for both teams. I don't expect the officials to be perfect but I do expect the NFL to follow the guidelines of their own rules and clearly they did not on the Warner fumble/incompletion. As far as being "sore" about the Seahawks loss 3 years ago ... No, I'm over that. I'm a Vikings fan anyways so I've had my share of dissapointments through the last 25 years. Any objective viewer of the Steeler/Seahawk SB 3 years ago and the Steeler/Cardinal game yesterday would point out the obvious that the Steelers were awarded advantages through both games by poor officiating. The poor calls in the Seahawk SB changed momentum and turned that SB into a joke and the calls yesterday were pretty one sided also. (Running into the holder, the roughing the passer penalty, the non-call on the hold during Harrison's TD return, the PI on Hood as he covered Holmes across the middle, the non-review?) I've never liked the "celebration rule" but that could have been called and did Holmes get penalized for using the ball as a prop? I don't remember him getting called for that but maybe he did? It clearly should have been a penalty as he did use the ball as a prop. I'm not whining as I too, had no Dog in the fight and I respect the Steeler franchise for their fan support and tradition but I, like most fans want the game to be decided on the field and the reality is that this one, like the one 3 years ago, wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm guessing/hoping that many of the posters here are (1) on a major fishing expedition, (2) anti-Pitt, (3) conspiracy theorists, and/or (4) poorly educated football fans. But, based on the facts that (1) even Arizona themselves did little complaining about the call, (2) the overwhelming concensus amongst the general sports population that the official got the call right, and (3) proper protocol was indeed followed,....I am wondering which of the above choices is most accurate? #1 - You're not paying attention #2 - You're not paying attention #3 - You're in denial and you're making things up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I hear you. I didnt have a horse in the race . I didnt direct anything at people that were simply looking for a harder look at the fumble which is what you were doing. It is the broadstroke Pitt got handed a ring stuff that kills good conversation I think it's okay to wish that the game was less affected by the officiating. It's not like it's just people here at the Huddle: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9168548...-XLIII?MSNHPHMA Terry McAulay should be headed to Disney World this morning. He should be the toast of Pittsburgh, a guest on PTI and Jim Rome's Jungle and driving whatever luxury vehicle that is awarded to the Super Bowl's MVP. McAulay outshined Santonio Holmes, James Harrison, Big Ben Roethlisberger, Larry Fitzgerald and Kurt Warner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm a Eagles fan anyways so I've had my share of dissapointments through the last 48 years. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziachild007 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm guessing/hoping that many of the posters here are (1) on a major fishing expedition, (2) anti-Pitt, (3) conspiracy theorists, and/or (4) poorly educated football fans. But, based on the facts that (1) even Arizona themselves did little complaining about the call, (2) the overwhelming concensus amongst the general sports population that the official got the call right, and (3) proper protocol was indeed followed,....I am wondering which of the above choices is most accurate? I (1) don't see the point in picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight (2) think the Pitt fans should be proud of their team (3) don't need to develop a theory when a conspiracy doesn't exist and (4) feel confident in my grasp on football since I have watched, played, and officiated. But I disagree with you matter of factly saying it was a without a doubt fumble since (1) Arizona did complain about the call, but doesn't do much good when the confetti is already falling (2) I think you would find that the "general overwhelming concensus" is not quite as overwhelming as you are making it out to be and (3) the usual protocol was not followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Um, no, that's not how review works in the final 2 minutes. It is a review by the dudes up in the booth only. Check the rules, moran. Just another classy post by the Squeege man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Ryan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 As a fan of the NFL I expect that the officiating to be as fair as possible for both teams. I don't expect the officials to be perfect but I do expect the NFL to follow the guidelines of their own rules and clearly they did not on the Warner fumble/incompletion. As far as being "sore" about the Seahawks loss 3 years ago ... No, I'm over that. I'm a Vikings fan anyways so I've had my share of dissapointments through the last 25 years. Any objective viewer of the Steeler/Seahawk SB 3 years ago and the Steeler/Cardinal game yesterday would point out the obvious that the Steelers were awarded advantages through both games by poor officiating. The poor calls in the Seahawk SB changed momentum and turned that SB into a joke and the calls yesterday were pretty one sided also. (Running into the holder, the roughing the passer penalty, the non-call on the hold during Harrison's TD return, the PI on Hood as he covered Holmes across the middle, the non-review?) I've never liked the "celebration rule" but that could have been called and did Holmes get penalized for using the ball as a prop? I don't remember him getting called for that but maybe he did? It clearly should have been a penalty as he did use the ball as a prop. I'm not whining as I too, had no Dog in the fight and I respect the Steeler franchise for their fan support and tradition but I, like most fans want the game to be decided on the field and the reality is that this one, like the one 3 years ago, wasn't. Holy cow..... I actually agree with every word of this. You know its bad when me and Gilligan agree on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 While I'm not discrediting Pittsburgh for their win by any means, or making any accusations of a conspiracy theory... I would like to reiterate Marshall Faulk's post-game observation that there was a blatant no-call on Santonio Holmes using the ball as a prop that would have put Arizona 15 yards closer on the kick return... Would this have made a difference with 29 seconds on the clock? Probably not.... Just interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The Steelers team I saw all year long didn't start playing prevent defense with 10 minutes left in the game. Whatever, nice comeback. Quite simply, how do you know that was prevent D? To be honest, if pressed, I bet that Lebeau would tell you that's not what they were playing. Rather that the 4th quarter was the culmination of AZ showing different looks and stretching things out with all their weapons to the point where they could finally break through. Blitzing Warner has never made much sense because he's really good at finding the hot read and you need all the guys you can in protection. Remember how the Pats beat him in the SB? By dropping a ton of guys into coverage. You could say that what they were doing early was working, but maybe they couldn't just keep doing it as AZ's game plan evolved. As for your earlier post about them failing to convert in the Red Zone. During the regular season, Pitt scored TDs on 55% of their redzone possessions. Last night? 2 for 4. Sounds pretty much par for the course. Failing to convert because you can't punch it in close? Pitt was horrid in short yardage all season and, btw, was dead last in 4th down conversion rate and middle of the pack in 3rd down, so this shouldn't come as much of a surprise either. Seriously, if you actually watched the games all year, as you claim to have, you might have noticed that Pittsburgh made a habit of pulling games out of their asses. Which, when you look at how they won last night, on the strength of a 100 yd INT return and engineering a last minute drive where they accounted for more than 1/4th of their entire output for the whole game, that is exactly what they did again. Hats off, a win is a win and sometimes it's more impressive that teams just find a way. Just don't pretend for a second that it was anything but that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The guy that shines my shoes told me that he heard on the street that the refs didn't want all that victory crowd control planning by the Pittsburgh Police department to go to waste. The refs knew that the Pittsburgh Police expected a victory and the refs delivered it to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The fans deserved a better explanation on how the refs called that play. It looked like a covert operation the way it played out. Did they review it? Did they secretly review it to see if it needed to be officially reviewed? We're still working on the grassy knoll thingy. They needed to manage this game better than they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Whatever, nice comeback. So I point out how the Steelers played differently last night than they have all season after you assert that they played the same as they have all season and your response is the above. Impressive. I'm surprised you're not a lawyer. Go watch the game again, then tell me whether the Steelers played a very different D in the 4th quarter than they did in the previous 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 So I point out how the Steelers played differently last night than they have all season after you assert that they played the same as they have all season and your response is the above. Impressive. I'm surprised you're not a lawyer. Go watch the game again, then tell me whether the Steelers played a very different D in the 4th quarter than they did in the previous 3. except for the first quarter, when the steelers held the ball with two nice long drives and the cards' only possession was stalled by a holding penalty, it seemed like the cards pretty much carved up their defense all night long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) So I point out how the Steelers played differently last night than they have all season after you assert that they played the same as they have all season and your response is the above. Impressive. I'm surprised you're not a lawyer. Go watch the game again, then tell me whether the Steelers played a very different D in the 4th quarter than they did in the previous 3. You've got to be kidding me. So, after I point out some very clear examples of how this was classic Steelers vintage 2008-2009 and you back pedal from your initial assertion that this was, in general, a sub-par performance and start fixating on one element, you have the nerve to pull one line out of my response and critique it? For starters, you really deserve no better, considering the fact that you almost never make a point and always end up resorting to childish antics no better than covering your ears and yelling when your baseless arguments are exposed. Regardless, back to the issue at hand. Taking you on your word and not letting you get away with fixating on the fact that they might have gone to the prevent, surely you'd be happy to show me a few examples of the Steelers laying convincing wins on good football teams? Let's define "convincing" as never leading by less than a TD in the 4th quarter. I'll make it easy on you: Houston 38-17 Cinci 38-10 Wash 23-6 Cinci 27-10 NE 33-10 Clev 31-0 SD 35-24 So, on that list I see SD and NE. So, when you say they didn't look as good as usual, don't you need to be able to point to maybe more than 2 games as an example? If your point is that they didn't make it look as easy last night as they did vs NE. I'll give you that. Edited February 2, 2009 by detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Holy cow..... I actually agree with every word of this. You know its bad when me and Gilligan agree on anything. You're finally coming around. Thanks Penguin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 We should have seen this coming as soon as Obama picked the Steelers to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 We should have seen this coming as soon as Obama picked the Steelers to win. And the game was played in Florida to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjpro11 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 i am going to add one final thought to this whole debate. if nobody can still figure out whether it was a fumble or not, dont you all think it would be equally unfair if they actually overturned the call on the field? i have yet to see or hear anyone say they saw indisputable evidence that it was an incompletion.. all i keep hearing is "I think" "I think" "I think".. or was it that everyone was hoping it would be overturned, whether it was correct or not, just so that could see a time-expiring heave and hopefully have the cinderalla story end in a happy ending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 i am going to add one final thought to this whole debate. if nobody can still figure out whether it was a fumble or not, dont you all think it would be equally unfair if they actually overturned the call on the field? i have yet to see or hear anyone say they saw indisputable evidence that it was an incompletion.. all i keep hearing is "I think" "I think" "I think".. or was it that everyone was hoping it would be overturned, whether it was correct or not, just so that could see a time-expiring heave and hopefully have the cinderalla story end in a happy ending? Excellent question. I for one cannot see the ball the whole time during the play...so to say there is irrefutable evidence that he had control of the ball is at best an educated guess. I would think that most here think that the play could have been upheld, but wanted the booth to stop play and let the ref review it with all the camera angles and close ups....I am in that crew. But, from what I saw...and I am no the ref...I couldn't see the ball the whole time so to overturn it would be speculative. Now, I think a question that could be asked of yourself is why did the officials get so many calls so wrong that Arizona was perfect on challenges. Not saying it was a conspiracy...I think not actually....but coincidental for sure. Also....why no penalty on the last touchdown....the 15 yards would have been hugh for Zona....that would have put that last play at the 30 instead of the 45...so less time for Woodley to get there....I think that is a fair question. I would guess the excitement of the Super Bowl mitigates some of the excessive celebration....but aren't rules rules. Congrats to Pitt....they looked like the Bears....LOL But hey, a win is a win is a win....right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 i am going to add one final thought to this whole debate. if nobody can still figure out whether it was a fumble or not, dont you all think it would be equally unfair if they actually overturned the call on the field? i have yet to see or hear anyone say they saw indisputable evidence that it was an incompletion.. all i keep hearing is "I think" "I think" "I think".. or was it that everyone was hoping it would be overturned, whether it was correct or not, just so that could see a time-expiring heave and hopefully have the cinderalla story end in a happy ending? Did they overturn Holmes non-TD in the Ravens game? Just asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Whatever world swammi lives on must be only him and a few die hard Steeler fans. In my world, everyone agrees that it was a incomplete pass too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorttynaz Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) i am going to add one final thought to this whole debate. if nobody can still figure out whether it was a fumble or not, dont you all think it would be equally unfair if they actually overturned the call on the field? i have yet to see or hear anyone say they saw indisputable evidence that it was an incompletion.. all i keep hearing is "I think" "I think" "I think".. or was it that everyone was hoping it would be overturned, whether it was correct or not, just so that could see a time-expiring heave and hopefully have the cinderalla story end in a happy ending? Warner's arm was moving forward with the ball in it. That there is reason enough to review it. Was the ball secure? No. But when was it knocked loose? It was knocked loose just as his arm was pulled all the way back and he was beginning his forward motion. The fact of the matter is, it wasn't reviewed. Overturned or not, it doesn't matter - but if the Cardinals HAD the ability to challenge it, don't you think they would have? Even if it were their first play of the game instead of last, it would have been challenged.. That's the reason this whole post was started. And for anyone who keeps saying it was reviewed.. BS!!! The official never went and put his head under the hood and put on the headset to speak to the officials upstairs. THAT constitutes of a review. When he comes out on to the field and says, "After further REVIEW, the call on the field stands," or, "After further REVIEW, the quarterback's arm was moving forward with the ball in it - resulting in an incompletion." THAT'S A REVIEW, and it didn't happen when it should have. The thing that gets under my skin is 99% of the people who are defending it and saying it didn't warrant a review are fans of sh!ttsburgh. Obviously in that case, the call was right and didn't warrant a review. But heaven forbid if the teams were reversed. You're lying through your teeth if you're telling me that you would be fine if Big Ben would have done the same thing and the officials didn't review it. You would be calling for the ref's heads just as well.. Edited February 3, 2009 by Shorttynaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I really feel bad for all the Pitt fans who feel the need to perform rationalization gymnastics to justify another trophy. The whole situation is a shame. It was a bad non-review and a bad call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) are fans of sh!ttsburgh. Obviously, you have no bias By the way, I think the last play should have been reviewed by the official on the field. They should have taken the time to let the ref look at it. I'm close to 100% sure that the call would have stood. It is a shame that they didn't do an on-field review. I also think that Holmes should have been called for excessive celebration and I thought the roughing call on Arizona was WEAK (although, I see those weak roughing calls made often) I really feel bad for all the Pitt fans who feel the need to perform rationalization gymnastics to justify another trophy. The whole situation is a shame. It was a bad non-review and a bad call. I appreciate the sentiment, but, seriously, do not feel bad for us. I can't speak for all Steeler's fans, but, I haven't stopped smiling since the replay confirmed that Holmes feet were in bounds. (In live speed, I didn't think there was a chance in hell that he kept his feet in) Edited February 3, 2009 by Menudo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts