Super Bowl XLIII Thread

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hell, if the data center where I work can throw RFID tags on pretty much every one of the 10,000 servers (some costing maybe $1K max) there, I'm pretty sure the NFL can scrape together some cash to put them on players' helmets, uniforms, the ball, and more so we can get accurate readings of where everything (knee, front tip of ball, back tip of ball, etc) is for accurate calls.

SI

yeah but your servers aren't getting body slammed at a combined 40 mph either =)

[Taur]

Originally Posted by stevew

The holding in the endzone was a good call. I was actually pissed the Steelers were passing there. Try a couple runs and make them burn their timeouts. And I certainly hope they would have taken a safety in that situation on 4th. A punt would have certainly had the cards deep in steelers territory.

They tried one run that ended up barely making it out of the endzone. Passing the ball out of the endzone was the right way to go.


I don't understand what was up with all the overturned calls by the referee. I thought to overturn a call they had to see something that made the call 100% wrong. There is no way that the ref saw something like that on either the TD or fumble. He might of been 75% or 80% sure, but no way was he 100% sure. The Steelers really got screwed every time the ref went under the hood last night.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RendeR

yeah but your servers aren't getting body slammed at a combined 40 mph either =)

Says you

SI

[Arles]

IMO, the refs were terrified of the "Hochuli" call and were basically going to let every play go no matter what the normal initial call would have been. The Ben TD that was reversed, the two Warner fumbles/incompletes and even the runback by Harrison. They also let a few plays for the Cards go on (one where it looked like the WR stepped out of bounds on yard 10 of a 15 yard gain). In the end, by chance, this stance ended up helping the Steelers - but I don't think it was intended to.

So, if we're going to go with this "110%" sure mantra on overturning calls, then you can't have officials letting plays go that are 50-50 and relying on replay to sort them out (a process I actually think is a good way to go). That, IMO, is why the decision to not have a formal review on the final play was questionable.

At the end, both teams made plays to win the game, the Steelers just made a few more in the final minute. I don't think anything was stolen and think it was a very entertaining Super Bowl.

[stevew]

Living there for 4 years I agree with John. Lots of transplanted northerners too. I would suspect the Steelers skins and cowboys are the top 3 team in terms of fans

[DrAFTjunkie]

Anyone stolen Hurst's identity yet? I'd do it but I'm too stupid to speel.

[kcchief19]

I've skimmed through here but it almost seems like FOFC watched a different game than the rest of the world. No one I talked to today brought up any officiating questions and even in my readings online I've only come across two questions about the officiating. Both were on the Warner play at the end, and one of the articles was about how the call was correct.

I don't think officiating determined this game at all. The official reviews seemed to get everything right. Most of the penalties I saw called were clear penalties. The Warner fumble at the end was a fumble. I just don't get it. Maybe it's just a lot of underdog fans and rose-colored glasses.

[Kodos]

I think the personal foul hit on Big Ben was hooey.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Arles

At the end, both teams made plays to win the game, the Steelers just made a few more in the final minute. I don't think anything was stolen and think it was a very entertaining Super Bowl.

+1

[Sun Tzu]

At the gym yesterday I talked to 2 people about the game, and without provocation the first thing the both of them said to me was "the refs fucked the cardinals". Neither of them are Cards/Steelers fans either. I wouldn't go so far to say that they completely gave the game to the Steelers, but they might want to look into custom wavefront lasik.

[jeff061]

Odd. I thought Warner's interception to close out the first half fucked the cardinals. Or their inability to stop the Steelers with two minutes left fucked the cardinals.

Obviously I wasn't focusing on the game close enough.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I watched with Pats fans and Cowboys fans, pretty much all of whom were rooting for the Cards, and the only time anyone commented on a call was the roughing the passer call. I thought the refs did a pretty good job out there.

[Logan]

Remind me to stay out of Bay Area, CA gyms.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think the personal foul hit on Big Ben was hooey.

That was the main one - there was a defensive holding call that was a bit dodgy I seem to remember, but other than that there was nothing flagrant for me apart from the decision not to review what was obviously the critical fumble/incomplete pass with seconds to go (which FWIW I thought was a fumble - the ball was not loose as in clear daylight between hand and ball when the arm started forward, but was loose as in not in Warner's complete control, which, as I undestand it, is all that is needed for it to be a fumble)

Kudos to the ref (and the Cardinals' replay advisor) for spotting the knee down on Big Ben's non-TD - that was a great call.

From reading the thread through to the end of the game (page 9), it seems that the only posts of bad calling that weren't retracted (other than by rowech who slated them all ) were those about the roughing the passer call, and then the thread was full 'BS refeering ruined the game' and 'fixed' rants after the last non-review.

Just as JiMGA said that he though the last two minutes of the game made the game seem better than it was, I think the reffing was seen to be worse becaue of that non-review, whereas if you look over the game as a whole there was only one really controversial penalty.

FWIW I also liked the game as a whole - there were a couple of mistakes and chippy penalties, but IMO that adds to the game if mixed with spectacular plays and tension. If the game is all mistakes and penalties, then yes, would be classed as a poor game, but I throughly enjkoyed the whole roller-coaster ride, including the Boss who made made LOL a couple of times.

One of the best SBs in the last 15 years for me.

[Honolulu_Blue]

While I thought the officiating was pretty bad, I don't think the Cardinals were screwed because of it. The bad calls went both ways really. I certainly wouldn't say the Cardinals lost because of the officiating.

[EagleFan]

The refs fucked the Cardinals? Was that at halftime? I thought Warner was walking funny when he came back onto the field for the second half.

Overall I wold guess that the Cardinal got the worst end of the calls, they were playing the Steelers after all and they are given most of the calls usually.

With that said the call that stands out to me was the first touchdown that got reviewed. I personally didn't see enough reason to overturn that call. Hell, there was more reason to overturn the touchdown against the Seahawks a few years back and that call stood. I thought that should have been a case where whatever the call on the field was there would be not enough evidence to overturn (like the call against the Ravens a few weeks back should have been).

I bet the ref really got in trouble for overturning that call to go against the Steelers...

The only thing that didn't make sense to me was not reviewing the last play (second to last play officially). I think it was a fumble but due to the importance of that play it should have at least been looked at. The announcers to say that it was looked at was just to appease the people watching as there is no way in hell they don't make a TV moment out of that replay and decision by the ref.

As for the question about the end of the first half play (and without reading everything since there so forgive me it it was mentioned) I think there are a few things to look at. There is a rule that a player can go out of bounds but has to make a reasonable attempt to get back in bounds (this rule was made the same time they started calling the penalty on blocking someone who was out of bounds to keep the defender from running down the sidelines to avoid being blocked). Based on that if Fitzgerald was running down the sidelines for as long as it sounded (based on the decriptions in the posts I saw mentioned) then he should have received a penalty. For the Steelers player who was on the sideline and is said to have bumped him, I thought by rule players not on the field were not allowed to be on the white part of the sidelines during a play. If that is the case it shouldbe a penalty. However if you put the two of them together and if Fitzgerald was already breaking the rules by running on the sideline I think it is a very good no call.

[Logan]

Your last paragraph is a bit off...for one, if you see the post I linked from another board, both penalty rules for being OOB deal specifically with kick coverage and a WR being the first to touch the ball. There's no penalty on an ordinary defensive play. Second, that play went down the Arizona sideline... Fitzgerald bumped into his own guy, Antrel Rolle, who was too far out on the white.

[Sun Tzu]

FOFC - where homers don't read entire posts before responding to them.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

FOFC - where homers don't read entire posts before responding to them.

wtf, I read books all the time.

[BrianD]

There seems to be a popular misconception that a well-refereed game will end up with an equal number of penalties on both sides. In truth, it just means that the rules were interpreted correctly and that the calls match observations. It seemed like the Cards were getting a lot of calls against them up until the middle of the 4th quarter, but in many cases the replays showed the obvious penalties. This wasn't a perfectly called game (none are), but it did look like a well called game and a fairly called game.

[henry296]

Stevew,

I did read today that Tomlin would've taken the intentional safety if the pass was incomplete on 3rd down.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by BrianD

There seems to be a popular misconception that a well-refereed game will end up with an equal number of penalties on both sides. In truth, it just means that the rules were interpreted correctly and that the calls match observations. It seemed like the Cards were getting a lot of calls against them up until the middle of the 4th quarter, but in many cases the replays showed the obvious penalties. This wasn't a perfectly called game (none are), but it did look like a well called game and a fairly called game.

Yes, it's something that you hear in all sports, whether it be penalty counts, free throws, or whatever.

I think that there was definitely something to most of the penalties called all game on the Cardinals. Replays showed that, especially the holding calls. I'd argue that the bumping in to the holder was really the only one called that shouldn't have been. The roughing of the passer was close, but the way he shoved him after the contact probably made that a no-brainer.

The issue I had was with the ones that weren't called, or weren't called correctly, and I think the Cardinals potentially lost out with two big ones - when Big Ben stepped out of the pocket and threw the ball away and it wasn't called, and the fumble at the end, which was at least close enough to warrant a review at that stage of the game.

Still, I was a little peeved at the time, but that was because I lost money. Now that some time has passed, I think I appreciate how much of an exciting game it actually was. Doesn't top last year's for me, but a great game with some highlights we'll see over and over again.

[remper]

Originally Posted by BrianD

There seems to be a popular misconception that a well-refereed game will end up with an equal number of penalties on both sides. In truth, it just means that the rules were interpreted correctly and that the calls match observations. It seemed like the Cards were getting a lot of calls against them up until the middle of the 4th quarter, but in many cases the replays showed the obvious penalties. This wasn't a perfectly called game (none are), but it did look like a well called game and a fairly called game.

I've stated in a previous post that I am definitely biased, but I just wonder what people think about this non-call on the INT return. This appears to me to be a pretty blatant block in the back.

I'm not calling conspiracy by pointing this out, just that the refs were definitely NOT on top of the game at all. I don't think perfection in reffing games is possible, but this block in the back is right in the midst of the action. How does this not get called? And the thing is I'm sure that others here can point out some plays that didn't get called on the Cards. Again, the refs were not on their A game.


YouTube - James Harrison 100 Yard Interception Return Super Bowl 43..HD..Arizona vs. Pittsburgh


At 12 seconds in Woodley makes a what appears to be a pretty obvious call.

[Dr. Sak]

I know I'll get hell for this but that is really close. The defenders momentum is going forward but if you watch it looks as if he hit him in the side of his shoulder. Btw I am not a Steeler fan, and actually pulled for the Cards in this one.

I've seen a play like this called it called a block in the back before but it isn't as blatant as many are making it out to be. Since the defender falls forward because he was running that way I think it makes it look worse.

But Im sure there are a few others on here will disagree which is fine. Perception is part of the game.

[remper]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I know I'll get hell for this but that is really close. The defenders momentum is going forward but if you watch it looks as if he hit him in the side of his shoulder. Btw I am not a Steeler fan, and actually pulled for the Cards in this one.

I've seen a play like this called it called a block in the back before but it isn't as blatant as many are making it out to be. Since the defender falls forward because he was running that way I think it makes it look worse.

But Im sure there are a few others on here will disagree which is fine. Perception is part of the game.

Yeah, and don't get me wrong. Despite my complaints about the refereeing, at the end of the game I still think Pittsburgh earned the win.

[stevew]

According to the NFL head official.

If Harrison's TD would have been overturned, the Steelers would have been kicking a FG. The flag on the play on the Cards was a personal foul and the half can't end on one.

[RainMaker]

While I don't think the officiating was bad, one thing that bothered me was the last turnover. The announcers said it was reviewed, and I heard on the radio that a ref said it was reviewed too. But it happened so fast, there was no stoppage in the game, and it didn't follow procedure.

Warners arm seemed to be going forward but it was real close. I just don't know why in the biggest game of the year they decided to rush a review (if they even reviewed it).

[Logan]

I agree that the push by Woodley was as much from the side as it was from behind.

But in all honesty, it probably could've been a clean shove between the numbers and it wouldn't have been called. All the officials were in the end zone to start the play, except the ref, and they just can't keep up with these athletes when the play suddenly goes in the other direction.

[jeff061]

I don't get the uproar about the fumble. Who cares if it was reviewed or not. The right call was made.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

While I don't think the officiating was bad, one thing that bothered me was the last turnover. The announcers said it was reviewed, and I heard on the radio that a ref said it was reviewed too. But it happened so fast, there was no stoppage in the game, and it didn't follow procedure.

Warners arm seemed to be going forward but it was real close. I just don't know why in the biggest game of the year they decided to rush a review (if they even reviewed it).

There actually was a break in play, as the Steelers were flagged for excessive celebration (removal of a helmet on field).

[jonesz]

They had NFL VP of officiating Mike Pereira on the NFL Network last night to review some of the plays. Here's some points he hit on:

- The end of the game fumble was reviewed. It is the review officials job to review all of the plays upstairs in the last 2 minutes. Only, if after reviewing, they are unsure, then do they send it downstairs for the referee to review. He stated that, after the replay official looked at it upstairs it became very clear that it was in fact a fumble, so there was no need to review downstairs. The rule states that the QB must have complete control of the football before his hand (not arm) is moving forward and the ball came loose prior to that happening. Pereira did say, that in hindsight, they maybe should have sent it downstairs so everyone knew that they did review it and he would take that away as a learning for future.

- On the Harrison fumble return and what would have happened if he was tackled short he said that there was a 15 yard facemask also called on the Cardinals prior to the interception. In that case, the penalty would have been tagged on to the end of the play and, as the penalty was a personal foul, the rule states that the half or game cannot end on a personal foul, so there would have been an additional play allotted even though no time would have potentially been on the clock. He did not mention a clip by the Steelers that some saw, so I have no idea what would have happened with offsetting penalties, one being a personal foul... He also did not mention why Fitzgerald was not flagged for using the out of bounds as an expressway and not trying to get in bounds, per the rule.

- He did say that Holmes' celebration with the ball should have been called a penalty. He said they simply did not see it because of the time that elapsed between the end of the play and the celebration. He showed the refs standing over Holmes and watching the post-play celebration for a good 10-15 seconds, before moving on to spot the ball for the XP as to which time Holmes did his Lebron impersonation.

- As far as the unecessary roughness penalty on the sack of Ben, he said that was a tough one because he got hit in the back and of their mandate to protect the QB. Maybe, in hindsight after watching multiple angle replays, it was a borderline call, but taken in the context as live at the time he felt the call was warranted.

- Overall he said there were a lot of penalties, but they were warranted. He stated the officials can only call the game as it comes and sometimes there are a lot of fouls, sometimes there is not.

Overall I thought it was really refreshing for the VP of officiating to stand up and review these plays...now if only the NHL would do this.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by jonesz

- He did say that Holmes' celebration with the ball should have been called a penalty. He said they simply did not see it because of the time that elapsed between the end of the play and the celebration. He showed the refs standing over Holmes and watching the post-play celebration for a good 10-15 seconds, before moving on to spot the ball for the XP as to which time Holmes did his Lebron impersonation.

Finally, I was right on something.