PDA

View Full Version : A Question for y'all



BobZag
10-21-2009, 10:05 AM
So I'm watching the Yankees-Angels playoff game and the 3rd-base ump blows three calls and the guy looks totally inept. I mean, it was a joke and just a sad commentary on what is supposed to be the highest level. And this isn't the only playoff game where umps look like fools.

Then I read John Blanchette's piece this morning regarding the Montana-EWU football game and what the refs did there.

And I don't watch the NFL anymore because it's unwatchable with phantom calls. Seemed to all begin with the Seahawks getting hosed in the Super Bowl. And Florida gets gift calls that save their bacon versus Arkansas. And I'm no Huskies fan, but the gaffes by the refs in South Bend were nothing short of atrocious.

It goes on and on.

So I ask... At what point do you lose interest in sports, be it football, baseball, basketball, whatever? At what point does it all become unwatchable and you turn your interests to other forms of entertainment? At what point do you just say, "Enough."

There you go.

IdahoTJR
10-21-2009, 11:06 AM
At least once a game you here that a certain player won't get that call. Why not?

It's a joke that traveling is never called, and don't get me started on 3 in the key.

Jordan was a great player, but you can't tell me that he did not benefit from refs. Not that he needed it.

hockeyzag
10-21-2009, 11:19 AM
Referee's and Umpire's are human, humans make mistakes. I think the sports that haven't given their refs or umpires help with instant replay could really use it. Especially those umps from last night's game.

At no point will I ever get too upset from a few calls to quit watching my favorite sports.

GoZAGsMang
10-21-2009, 11:43 AM
Is to not let the officials be put in the position of impacting the game-

What that means is do your job, finish, and whoop the other team by so much it doesnt matter.

The refs should only impact the game- if the players dont.

If you aren't good enough win with some bad calls, then you should have executed better.

You have an equal chance of a bad call helping you as you do of a bad call hurting you. Toughen up and pretend the officials are just fans with the best seat in the house.

And one more thing.....

GoZAGsMang

Eroop22
10-21-2009, 11:51 AM
At no point do you stop watching sports because of bad officiating. Bad officiating is a big part of sports. Some times it goes in your favor other times it goes against you. You complain for a while and then you move on.

mobetta
10-21-2009, 11:58 AM
I played high school basketball with a fellow, neither of us were good enough to go anywhere, many years ago, who worked his way up through the ranks to become an NBA ref. He worked NBA games for over 20 years and retired several years ago. While he is only one guy and there are lots of good refs and bad refs, there is a sense in which he is representative: most of these guys are doing the best job possible that they can.

About 5 years ago, I attended an NBA game where he was working and managed to get a note passed to him through the ushers. He sent word back to meet him in the bar of his hotel. Here is brief version of his story.

Every morning after he works a game, he goes to the airport to fly to the next city. The NBA gives him some video of the game he completed the night before. On the flight to the next city, he has his laptop, some software and that video. His job is to look in detail over every whistle blown in the game and to record his after-the-fact opinion based upon looking at the play from various camera angles. All of the refs do that.

Later that evening, in his hotel room, he goes over a summary of the controversial plays, the ones that they got wrong and the ones refs didn't agree upon and enters into a dialog regarding how they can improve upon their accuracy.

It sounded like an amazing system for achieving excellence. I was greatly impressed upon hearing his story and I have never viewed the referee's job the same again.

titopoet
10-21-2009, 12:07 PM
I just wrote a piece about abandoning Football and submitted to sojourners (http://www.sojo.net) It should be posted in the next few days. I abandoned football after reading Gladwell's essay, Offensive Play. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell) The more I thought about it the more I could not get out of my head that there is no amount of protection that can prevent the majority of players from head trauma and brain damage.

----
Visit www.life-and-faith.org (http://www.life-and-faith.org)

FuManShoes
10-21-2009, 12:10 PM
I will never lose intersest in sports because of botched calls. That said, there is a middle ground and MLB should adopt some form of "booth review" for plays outside of balls and strikes. Managers should have a challenge or two they can use for close calls at a base, the fair pole, a disputed catch, etc.

Nevtelen
10-21-2009, 12:13 PM
IMO when the refs begin to determine the outcome of the game instead of the players, that's when I stop watching because there's no point. This is easier to do in some sports than others, but it can happen in any sport. I wasn't particularly a football fan to begin with, but I stopped watching the NFL at all after the Seahawks superbowl, for example.

Eroop22
10-21-2009, 12:35 PM
IMO when the refs begin to determine the outcome of the game instead of the players, that's when I stop watching because there's no point. This is easier to do in some sports than others, but it can happen in any sport. I wasn't particularly a football fan to begin with, but I stopped watching the NFL at all after the Seahawks superbowl, for example.

I am a life long Seahawks fan and I will tell you the refs didn't determine the outcome in the superbowl. Sure the Stellers gained an advantage from some pretty questionable calls. But the Seahawks still had opportunities to win the game and didn't.

tyra
10-21-2009, 12:41 PM
Inarguably, there has been a recent run of egregiously bad calls. On the other hand, I am truly amazed at the number of MLB games I watch where I think the first base ump got it wrong but the replay shows he got it right.

whatazag
10-21-2009, 01:42 PM
Is to not let the officials be put in the position of impacting the game-

What that means is do your job, finish, and whoop the other team by so much it doesnt matter.

The refs should only impact the game- if the players dont.

If you aren't good enough win with some bad calls, then you should have executed better.

You have an equal chance of a bad call helping you as you do of a bad call hurting you. Toughen up and pretend the officials are just fans with the best seat in the house.

And one more thing.....

GoZAGsMang

Totally disagree. At the highest levels, teams are going to be pretty close, and one bad call can determine the outcome of a game. In football, 1 bad pass interference call in the 4th quarter can easily give the other team the win. And you can't say, "well, they should have just blocked that 20 yard field goal the PI set them up for at the end of the game."

Eroop22
10-21-2009, 02:11 PM
Totally disagree. At the highest levels, teams are going to be pretty close, and one bad call can determine the outcome of a game. In football, 1 bad pass interference call in the 4th quarter can easily give the other team the win. And you can't say, "well, they should have just blocked that 20 yard field goal the PI set them up for at the end of the game."

I totally disagree with you. One bad call by an official has never been the only reason a team has lost. Sure a bad call can definitely give one team the upper hand. Games are not won and lost in just the 4th quarter. There is a reason they play all 4 quarters. As an example the Seahawks didn't lose the superbowl because of the officials. They lost because they didn't execute the game plan. Willie Parkers touchdown run had nothing to do with the officials. Sure the holding call on Locklear sucked but the official didn't make Hasselbeck throw the interception afterwords. Djak touchdown was a judgment call could have gone either way. Yes it didn't look like Big Ben made it into the endzone but they most likely would have on the next play. I guess what I am saying is that refs can contribute to a loss but they are never the only reason.

willandi
10-21-2009, 02:20 PM
All that being said, is there ANY time in a baseball game where, while the ball is still in play, you tag two base runners, while you have the ball and they are off the base, that they aren't both out? I thought Scoscia should have demanded to know the rule, and all the umps to get together and discuss it, or get tossed trying. Would it have mattered last night? probably not.
And I know that there are procedures in place, in the NBA and elsewhere, that are designed to improve the skill of the Umpires/Refs. But, the call last night, at third twice, should earn that man a seat at home for the rest of this season, and maybe some of next.

maynard g krebs
10-21-2009, 02:32 PM
I quit watching the NBA by the early 90's because in my mind it had become the near- equivalent of pro wrestling. If you look at how often the two individual most hyped marquee players end up in the finals, anyone with any basic knowledge of probability and statistical analysis would be suspicious. Couple that with calls that don't pass the eyeball test...

The same is true, imo, in cbb, though to a lesser extent, but I still like the game too much to quit watching. After the Tenn. game at the Key with those SEC refs allowing mugging after mugging, I swore I wouldn't be back, but there I was for UCONN last year.

NotoriousZ
10-21-2009, 04:22 PM
I quit watching the NBA by the early 90's because in my mind it had become the near- equivalent of pro wrestling. If you look at how often the two individual most hyped marquee players end up in the finals, anyone with any basic knowledge of probability and statistical analysis would be suspicious. Couple that with calls that don't pass the eyeball test...

The same is true, imo, in cbb, though to a lesser extent, but I still like the game too much to quit watching. After the Tenn. game at the Key with those SEC refs allowing mugging after mugging, I swore I wouldn't be back, but there I was for UCONN last year.

That game just killed me...I'm surprised those refs made it out of town.

MickMick
10-21-2009, 04:31 PM
My life long love of pro football died a little bit after Super Bowl XL. The sport has never seemed the same to me since. I don't watch it nearly as often.

Another reason would be the quality of quarterback play. I have been watching pro football since the Sixties and I can never remember the overall quality of the quarterback position being so poor. Perhaps it is because quarterbacks used to be groomed for the position. Now they throw in first round picks and see if they sink or swim.

Certainly the quality of officiating (even with modern technological aid) seems to have declined as well.

hoopster777
10-21-2009, 04:50 PM
IMO when the refs begin to determine the outcome of the game instead of the players, that's when I stop watching because there's no point. This is easier to do in some sports than others, but it can happen in any sport. I wasn't particularly a football fan to begin with, but I stopped watching the NFL at all after the Seahawks superbowl, for example.

That game is ranked as one of the top ten most controversial games ever in the NFL by the NFL network, and for good reasons. Let it be known, if that was the Steelers vs. the Giants and one of those teams was snubbed as badly as the Seahawks, there would have been significantly more outrage by the media. I remember after the game ESPN commentators were even saying (as best they could on national tv) the refs didn't necessarily screw the Seahawks, but they surely did not help them.

They killed the Seahawks momentum, and though the Seahawks still could have won the game, what the refs did was a slap in the face to sports.

hoopster777
10-21-2009, 05:01 PM
I quit watching the NBA by the early 90's because in my mind it had become the near- equivalent of pro wrestling. If you look at how often the two individual most hyped marquee players end up in the finals, anyone with any basic knowledge of probability and statistical analysis would be suspicious. Couple that with calls that don't pass the eyeball test...

The same is true, imo, in cbb, though to a lesser extent, but I still like the game too much to quit watching. After the Tenn. game at the Key with those SEC refs allowing mugging after mugging, I swore I wouldn't be back, but there I was for UCONN last year.


I personally still love the NBA, but part of me feels the NBA wants to scale down to cities like Oklahoma City, Memphis, Sacramento, etc. to help the likelihood of LA, Boston, Miami, and Dallas get into the finals. I know this is a very subjective opinion. But anyone find it odd that even in the era of the salary cap, the NBA remains very unbalanced? Parody is why the NFL continues to bring back so many fans, the NBA though seems to think there is parody but in reality, that doesn't happen. Marquee free agents never go to small market teams in the NBA. Portland, Utah, Orlando, and San Antonio all have built their teams through great scouting and drafting, and a bit of luck (getting first pick to land Duncan). Although Orland was able to sign Rashard Lewis.

zagamatic
10-21-2009, 06:14 PM
Keep in mind that ref's have just a flash of a second to call a play most of the time. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen one get it wrong when the play happens slowly and involves one or two players well separated from the crowd. A lot of the time, it's hard to tell what's happened in slow motion after seeing it several times. I'm pretty sure that 99.9 percent of those who complain about calls couldn't do any better. And yes, that does include me. I have no delusions that I could do any better. Luck does play a part as to who "gets the calls". But how does that saying go? I think it's something like "luck favors the one who's most pre-pared"

willandi
10-21-2009, 06:34 PM
Keep in mind that ref's have just a flash of a second to call a play most of the time. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen one get it wrong when the play happens slowly and involves one or two players well separated from the crowd. A lot of the time, it's hard to tell what's happened in slow motion after seeing it several times. I'm pretty sure that 99.9 percent of those who complain about calls couldn't do any better. And yes, that does include me. I have no delusions that I could do any better. Luck does play a part as to who "gets the calls". But how does that saying go? I think it's something like "luck favors the one who's most pre-pared"

Thought the double play at third last night was pretty slow and obvious.
If you accept money, it makes you a professional and you have to be accountable. I am a jeweler. Do you want me to average .400 in setting YOUR diamond? I am expected to be near perfect, level, at the right height and no chips, with the proper sized prongs. I expect Refs and Umps to do what they have to do to be near perfect. Even at the college level, in all sports. If you can't cut it, don't take the money.

ronh_pm
10-21-2009, 06:37 PM
I used to watch plenty of hockey. The NHL in its attempts to "americanize" the game. That is to say, the NHL to have a game in which plenty of goals are scored, instruct the refs to create power play opportunities whenever the slightest chance arises.

It is as obvious to me, as grass is green, that though the refs do not favour one team over another, they will, like in no other sport, make "even up" calls, where one phantom penalty is followed up by another against the opposing team.

They have created rules that have changed the very essence of hockey in order to have more goals scored. It is humerous, when during the odd game I do watch, to listen to the play-by-play man try and explain find the penalty called when watching the replay..and often he cannot.

And the capper of it all is, that to have a winner every night, supposedly because Americans cannot live with a tie, the NHL totally change the rules as they go into "overtime".

First they remove a player from each team off the ice, again to increase the chance of a goal. Penalties become non-existant because the refs do not want to be responsible for the outcome. When that fails to provide a "winner" (though the "loser" gets a point?) they get even more ridiculous and have the "shootout".

Of course all of this changes in the playoffs when suddenly the power plays drop off dramatically, overtime features all five skaters and they remove the shoot out.

I would love to see baseball, in extra innings goto say a four strike at bat, or in basketball create a larger hoop for O.T. maybe the uprights could be moved out to the 10 yard line in NFL overtime...or create a fifth down?

So indirectly it is the refs that have caused me to stop watching hockey, but it is the league policy that is policing the refs. Lunancy

Bring on hoops..hey..maybe they should penalties instead of fouls...or after 5 fouls, you play a man down..or in OT a larger hoop..or...

(No disrespect for my American friends intended of course. It is just generally felt here (Canada), that in order to get hockey to be an acceptable sport in non-traditional hockey markets, the game needed some changes, namely more scoring and no ties).

maineblackbear
10-21-2009, 06:53 PM
whining about the seahawks v. r' stillers is ridiculous. that has nothing to do with what Bobzag is talking about--- if you are writing about bad calls and bad officiating you are totally missing the point:

read this article:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell

I have had this discussion on two different message boards-- no-one reads the article or on the other hand, people believe it is about bad calls.

It is about violence, mayhem and ultimately murder for your entertainment.

Football is murder. Carson Palmer argues in SI earlier that people will not react until someone dies on the field-- but football players die or are incapacitated all the time-- not just Darryl Stingley and not just Mike Webster or Lyle Alzado, but hundreds of players who never even made it.

I hate football (and find myself watching anyway, sometimes)-- it is organized violence for the sake of profit. Sometimes the beauty of the sport overcomes the sheer mean-ness of it . . . I still remember the effort of Kellen Winslow against the Dolphins in '82-- what a "beautiful" series of moments . . . yet, aren't there better ways?

Anyway, engage the central argument-- IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR PEOPLE TO HURT THEMSELVES AND DIE FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT?

No. (In my not so humble opinion)

maineblackbear
10-21-2009, 07:04 PM
and BTW, steelers pounded seahawks-- some fans act like the final score was close- nope. the "blown" calls were debatable-- (Believe me, I have friends in Pittsburgh who have NO IDEA what Seahawks fans are talking about)
and Eroop22 posted a nice article about the subjectivity of scoring NBA a few days ago . . .

this is ALL entertainment. we care about being entertained. there is almost no difference between this debate and arguing whether "For Better or Worse" is better than "Peanuts"-- all scoring-- all judging-- (in fact all grading) is subjective . . .

Batista was fouled- ball goes to Zags, and despite all the choking by all the players and staff, Zags still beat UCLA. And get to play Memphis again. And probably beat them.

Nietszche said--there are no truths, only interpretations... In Sports, that is more so, and we should stop believing in the outcome as mattering in our lives. Its all entertainment. Even if we love our team. And when it comes to the Zags, I guess I still do-- even if its entirely chimerical . . . mbb

maineblackbear
10-21-2009, 07:12 PM
and another thing (if you are still reading, you have problems)-- I stopped watching NHL when Buffalo and Dallas tied in game 7 of the Stanley Cup playoffs, and Brett Hull broke the rules by havinghis skate in the crease while scoring the "winning" goal-- it was clearly a rule violation (and the rules were changed in the following offseason) but when reviewed the overhead officials (in Dallas) could not bring themselves to over-rule the "winning goal"-- cowards, cowards, cowards. I haven't watched an NHL game since and to be honest, I think, even more than the violence that kills, that marked my steady decline in interest in watching professional sports. Sheer cowardice-- no goal --

I still watch sports, from time to time- I love the Zags, Maine hockey (despite their current problems- please fire Tim Whitehead, the coach) and little else. I wonder, in ten years, whether I will be watching any sports at all. mbb

MickMick
10-21-2009, 08:12 PM
Hey Maine.

The Seahawk Superbowl would be a whine for me if I still loved pro football.

As it is, that game ruined the sport for me. I rarely watch it now.

You could call me a whiner if I still loved the sport like I once did. As it is, I simply don't care anymore. I don't care about the calls anymore. I don't care about the sport anymore.


I loved Eric Dickerson and Dan Fouts. Joe Montana, Joe Namath, Leroy Kelley, Dick Butkus, and Steve Largent. I watched three games a weekend since I was a child. I watched Green Bay play Kansas City in the very first Super Bowl.

For me, this isn't about the Seahawks losing a Superbowl. This is about the NFL losing a life long fan.

Pro football is forever tainted for me. Call it a whine. I simply don't care anymore.

billyberu
10-21-2009, 08:46 PM
Gladwelll's piece is propaganda. Me thinks that nerd got stuffed in a locker one too many times and is on a lifetime mission to ruin what he can. Football is a violent sport and yet less people die in football than many other endeavors. Maine, please take your tripe to another thread.

montanazag88
10-21-2009, 08:55 PM
....SR should bonus you for the traffic you've created. Nice thread on a slow news day, dude.

ZagsGoZags
10-21-2009, 09:31 PM
All sports have some room for human error and human judgment. This opens the door for honest mistakes from refs who work hard, as well as opens the door for refs who are subject to emotion, crowd pressure, and outright fraud.

The solution, in my opinion, is to keep narrowing the range of human error in all sports, but keeping it where it is necessary. Science can narrow much of it. Line calls in tennis and strikes and balls in baseball is an example. Because it is possible I would argue for going there right now. And all other areas where video can reveal the truth. There are more steps that could be taken even in areas like what's a block and what's a charge in BB, or what is holding in the NFL, with more refs manning the cams and videos.

Just my opinion, and then People like BZ would not get to justifiably upset, when that much referee slop and slippage is not necessary anymore.

CB4
10-22-2009, 12:46 AM
Blown calls, like bad hops, fan interference, injuries, stiff or loose rims, and even doctored baseballs, are part of the game IMO.

mnzag24
10-22-2009, 07:36 AM
dave libbey. 'nuff said.

maineblackbear
10-22-2009, 07:47 AM
apologies to all-- i get a little diarrhea of the mouth sometimes. it happens when i am drinking. disagree respectfully with billyberu, however-- propaganda is an appeal to faith rather than reason. the stats on brain damage to football players is quite disturbing.

back to your regularly scheduled progamming . . .

titopoet
10-22-2009, 08:01 AM
Gladwelll's piece is propaganda. Me thinks that nerd got stuffed in a locker one too many times and is on a lifetime mission to ruin what he can. Football is a violent sport and yet less people die in football than many other endeavors. Maine, please take your tripe to another thread.

I may have issues with Gladwell, (His story about Basketball was so weak, and lacked an understanding of the sport. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell ) Yes, football is violent. The question is can it be played without major damage to the majority players? The evidence is says no. If not, then are we asking too much from the young men playing the game? Basketball is also a tough sport, but the majority of the people playing the sport will not suffer traumatic brain injury. The same issue is faced in soccer.

----
visit www.life-and-faith.org (http://www.life-and-faith.org)

johno
10-22-2009, 08:39 PM
After the clearly biased officiating in the 2002 Western Conference Finals between Sacramento and the Lakers (hell, even Ralph Nader wrote a letter to the David Stern), especially game 6 with the phantom calls, 27 called on the Kings in the final quarter, I just lost interest. To me it was clearly a case of the NBA wanting the Lakers, with Shaq and Kobi, in the finals. I'll watch if there is a Zag playing, that's it.

titopoet
10-28-2009, 09:26 AM
I may have issues with Gladwell, (His story about Basketball was so weak, and lacked an understanding of the sport. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell ) Yes, football is violent. The question is can it be played without major damage to the majority players? The evidence is says no. If not, then are we asking too much from the young men playing the game? Basketball is also a tough sport, but the majority of the people playing the sport will not suffer traumatic brain injury. The same issue is faced in soccer.

----
visit www.life-and-faith.org (http://www.life-and-faith.org)

Sojourners posted my piece on why I am giving up football. (http://blog.sojo.net/2009/10/27/offensive-play-why-ive-watched-my-last-superbowl/)



----
visit www.life-and-faith.org (http://www.life-and-faith.org)

Robzagnut
10-28-2009, 10:32 AM
I am a life long Seahawks fan and I will tell you the refs didn't determine the outcome in the superbowl. Sure the Stellers gained an advantage from some pretty questionable calls. But the Seahawks still had opportunities to win the game and didn't.

I agree.

Seahawk fans alway forget the dropped passes by Jeremy Stevens and his critical fumble that killed a drive and changed the momenteum of the game.

They forget that the goal line TD call for Ben Roethisberger wasn't on 4th down and Pitt had THE best short yardage back in Jerome Bettis just waiting for his turn.

They forget the Willie Parker broke an 80 yard TD on the 2nd play of the 2nd half that had nothing to do with the refs.

They forget that Josh Brown missed 2 field goals.

They forget how they let Pittsburgh get a 1st down on a 3rd and 28 that setup the first TD.

I watched the NFL channel 2 days after the SB and the head of the NFL refs has his own segment that explains calls throughout the week. He explained how all the calls against the Seahawks were correct and why, except the one against Hasselback.

They forget that in the last Super Bowl when the Steelers played the Cardinals, they started the winning drive with a holding penalty that was identical to the one against Locklear. But, they over came that critical mistake instead of blaming the refs.

The Seahawks dominated the first half, but let the Steelers hang around. The Steelers had 3 big plays that got them 3 TDs, while the Seahawks made mistake after mistake until it was to late.

Robzagnut
10-28-2009, 10:51 AM
Why I don't watch the NBA as much as I used to.

Was watching the Lakers and Timberwolves game. Wally Szerbiak (sp?) was a rookie and he steps in front of Kobe to take a charage. Looks like he's there in time. He gets called for blocking.

Danny Ainge the color guy declares, "Rookie, you'll never get that call against a Superstar, but you'll learn."

So, I'm sitting there thinking, "Isn't a charging foul a charging foul no matter who is doing it?" The ref should be blind to who is involved, but they aren't and everyone knows it.

NotoriousZ
10-28-2009, 11:20 AM
I agree.

Seahawk fans alway forget the dropped passes by Jeremy Stevens and his critical fumble that killed a drive and changed the momenteum of the game.

They forget that the goal line TD call for Ben Roethisberger wasn't on 4th down and Pitt had THE best short yardage back in Jerome Bettis just waiting for his turn.

They forget the Willie Parker broke an 80 yard TD on the 2nd play of the 2nd half that had nothing to do with the refs.

They forget that Josh Brown missed 2 field goals.

They forget how they let Pittsburgh get a 1st down on a 3rd and 28 that setup the first TD.

I watched the NFL channel 2 days after the SB and the head of the NFL refs has his own segment that explains calls throughout the week. He explained how all the calls against the Seahawks were correct and why, except the one against Hasselback.

They forget that in the last Super Bowl when the Steelers played the Cardinals, they started the winning drive with a holding penalty that was identical to the one against Locklear. But, they over came that critical mistake instead of blaming the refs.

The Seahawks dominated the first half, but let the Steelers hang around. The Steelers had 3 big plays that got them 3 TDs, while the Seahawks made mistake after mistake until it was to late.

The call against Hasselbeck was utterly bizarre. If that was the only bad call then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The other questionalbe calls leading up to that one, especially the "push off" in the endzone that cost us a touchdown, combined with the call against Hasselbeck would have you thinking, "are the refs going to let us win this game?" if you're a Seahawk.

But as bad as that game was officiated, the Steelers got an even worse "hose job" by the officials in the AFC championship game against the Colts and the NFL's superstar, Payton Manning. But they were able to overcome the NFL's attempt to get their poster boy into the Superbowl, so I give them credit for that. The refs in the Superbowl were probably told to make sure the Steelers didn't get screwed again, and maybe the "Bettis returns home to Detroit" story helped influence that decision also.

The NFL looked really, really bad that year, and I think they lost more than a few fans because of it. There are terribly officiated games in college hoops, especially in intra-conference games, but it could be worse. Much worse.

willandi
10-28-2009, 11:28 AM
All of these stories point out the deficiencies of officiating as it now stands. There could be offensive line holding called on almost every play, as there could be pass interference/illegal contact. The determination becomes an officials call on how egregious the foul is. That needs to be taken out of the game, but how? Maybe make the O-line wear thumbless mittens, and remove that call. An arm tackle of a defensive player could still be called. No downfield contact? thats a hard on because of incedental contact. That was one of the bad calls in the Seattle/Pitt SB. The offensive man pushed off in the end zone, but it was after the defensive man had allready had illegal contact. In B'ball, take away the extra step, and call the game straight, a charge is a charge, and if replay shows the wrong call was made, than the Ref has a penalty of some sort. It goes on and on, but there must be ways to take officiating out of the determination of the outcome of sporting events.

Robzagnut
10-28-2009, 01:28 PM
The other questionalbe calls leading up to that one, especially the "push off" in the endzone that cost us a touchdown,

Interesting.

I thought the push off call was the least controversial of them all. The Micheal Irvin 'arm bar' rule had been in place for years, so it was blatantly obvious that he was going to get called on it. What got the Seahawk fans upset was the fact that it took so long for the ref to get the flag out of his pocket.

LongIslandZagFan
10-28-2009, 01:30 PM
I am a life long Seahawks fan and I will tell you the refs didn't determine the outcome in the superbowl. Sure the Stellers gained an advantage from some pretty questionable calls. But the Seahawks still had opportunities to win the game and didn't.

I'm not one to complain about refs... but IMHO you are dead wrong on this one...

The ball never got near the line on Big Ben's touchdown.

The pass interference call on DJack that took away a TD... and some momentum.

The outrageous holding call that wasn't even close to holding in the 4th qtr (even that fat blob Madden had issues with that call) that killed their drive.

Lastly, even though it had nothing to do with the outcome as the other calls had already done enough damage to assure the Steelers of a win, is the great "Chop Block" call. Hey... Zebra-boy... when the other team has the ball it isn't a block, it is a tackle... which means it CAN"T BE A CHOP BLOCK!!!!!

OK... done now... got it out of my system.

NotoriousZ
10-28-2009, 01:43 PM
Interesting.

I thought the push off call was the least controversial of them all. The Micheal Irvin 'arm bar' rule had been in place for years, so it was blatantly obvious that he was going to get called on it. What got the Seahawk fans upset was the fact that it took so long for the ref to get the flag out of his pocket.

This was a call which could have gone either way. The defender was all over Jackson and could have been called defensive holding or pass interference. And many times a play like that doesn't get called as a penalty for either team. I fully understand this was the least controversial call, but as a call that could have gone either way, it was perhaps the most damaging to the Seahawks because it took away a touchdown.