WORST EVER OFFICIATED SUPERBOWL!!

[Dreslough]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

1. It was pass interference. The WR stuck his hand in the DBs chest and extended the arm. It was a shove. It was right in front of the ref. Correct call.

I'm watching it on TiVo and it looks like a shove. It might be a "questionable" call, but I don't see how it's a bad call (like the holding call later in the game). I play a lot of Ultimate Frisbee -- where the rules are similar to the NFL. That is, you need to change direction on your own power, not by pushing off. If I shoved off someone like that, I'd get called for a foul 80% of the time.

It's POSSIBLE that his arm came up and touched the defender by accident, since in making the cut you usually need to raise your outside arm to transfer momentum. But if so, it's the receiver's job to make it not LOOK like a shove. Namely, keep the palm of your hand down like you are running, not up like you are shoving.

And I haven't yet seen anyone mention the horrible call that cost PITTSBURGH a turnover. With 12:26 left in the 2nd, Stevens catches a pass from Hasselbeck, turns to run downfield and is DRILLED. The ball pops out and is whistled dead ("incomplete") before the Steelers can pick it up and run it downfield.

Again, I don't have the rules in front of me. But Stevens made a "football move" (turning downfield to run with the ball). This is proven by the fact that if he wanted to, he could have instead pulled the ball into his stomach and dropped to the ground. But he didn't. He turned downfield and it led to a fumble.

(Also note my previous rant about how instant replay keeps turning good plays into "incompletions")

Clay

[Bee]

The fumble of Stevens could go either way. The whole "football move" thing is another one of those rules that can be interpreted differently by different refs and doesn't seem to be very consistent across the league. I didn't think a Steeler would be able to get to it before it went out of bounds from what I remember, but I'm going on just memory of how it bounced down the field.

[bhlloy]

That holding call was just complete and utter bullshit - maybe holding by the letter of the law but the number of times you see that play not called, and to call it in that situation in the most important game of the year - that's why I would be pissed if I was a Seattle fan because that three play sequence certainly turned the game. I don't have TIVO and didn't realise Haggans was offside also, but that makes it twice as bad.

TroyF brings up a good point about the Bettis hold (if we are thinking about the same play). One of the most blatant holds I've seen in a while and right in the LOS of the back judge and it goes unpunished. Didn't see holding by the right tackle on the Randle El TD.

The Hasselbeck play was also bullshit as he grazed the lead blocker and it was clearly an attempt to tackle the ball carrier. Not the same as the one earlier in the year when he went straight through the knees of the lead blocker to get to the ballcarrier. But really that play isn't going to change anything as Ward is just going to score anyway.

Roethlisberger TD call was the right call on replay - no indisputable evidence to overturn. But I would love to know a) what the line judge was thinking changing his mind and b) why the benefit of doubt always seems to go to the offense on those calls? To me it makes more sense to call it no TD and then if you can see the ball break the plane on replay then call it a touchdown. Rather than having a guy who is 20 yards away who may not actually be able to see the ball (or even the play if his view is obscured) make a guess, and then see if that guess is correct?

[bhlloy]

DOLA - I also agree with Dreslough. If Stevens' didn't make a football move then I don't know what is. That is a big play that the Seahawks crowd are missing that went in their favour.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

DOLA - I also agree with Dreslough. If Stevens' didn't make a football move then I don't know what is. That is a big play that the Seahawks crowd are missing that went in their favour.

If Pittsburgh could have recovered. It was discussed earlier on the radio here in DC and they were calling it another bad call against Seattle because they also thought it went out of bounds before a Steeler could recover it.

[Bee]

Dola -

BTW, I still think Seattle lost it and the bad calls really didn't change that. Every team gets games where you have bad calls against you and you have to overcome that. Pittsburgh did it in their playoff game and Seattle couldn't.

[theclassic]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I realised as such, but my aim was to try and point out that exaggeration and over-emphasis of the officiating is hiding the fact that the Seahawks blew their game far more than the officials did.

But overall the flags and decisions were right: the calls against the Steelers in the IND were way worse, but they won. Seattle lost, get over it.

The Seahawks did blow the game, only because the officials blew it for them first. The Seahawks know or felt that they didn't have the officials on their side. That changes the way you play the game. Granted the coaching staff should have told them to just calm down, but how could the coaches say such things when they weren't calm themselves, and for right reasons.

It wouldn't have been so bad if the Steelers were called on so-so penalties once in awhile, but the Steelers got away with breaking a few rules, while the Seahawks weren't given the same benefit. It's most interesting too, that the biggest blown calls happended on the Seahawks biggest plays of the game. Blown and bogus calls are made all the time in football, but they ussually aren't made in such frequency on such game changing moments. That's where the refs screwed up.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Dreslough

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Brady got called on the same penalty after an INT (and Brady was LIVID). It turns out there's actually a rule against offensive players making certain kinds of tackles on INT returns. It's a DUMB RULE, IMHO, and should be changed (as it's a rule that penalizes QBs that make good plays). But it seems like the officials are getting the call right given the way the rule is written. (Sorry but I don't have the rulebook in front of me).

The rule is not against making certain kinds of tackles. After turnovers and on kick returns, you are not allowed to take out blockers by going low on them. Hasselbeck went through a potential blocker to make the tackle. It was a poor interpretation/application of the rule.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by theclassic

The Seahawks did blow the game, only because the officials blew it for them first. The Seahawks know or felt that they didn't have the officials on their side. That changes the way you play the game. Granted the coaching staff should have told them to just calm down, but how could the coaches say such things when they weren't calm themselves, and for right reasons.

If this is the case then Seattle deserved to lose. The officials are making bad calls against you? Suck it up and keep playing. Show me one game that has ever been played where there wasn't a bad call somewhere. This is nothing new. If the officials are throwing you off your game, then you never had a chance to win because you're obviously not mentally prepared.

All of this is quite funny to me. You make it sound like every time Seattle ran a play or stopped Pittsburgh there was a flag thrown. Let's face it: the Steelers beat them. Seattle won in the stats department, but Pittsburgh won on the scoreboard.

How come no one is bringing up the Randle El play? How was Seattle not prepared for that? Everyone and their dog knew it was coming, but the Seahawks didn't? Or was that the refs' fault as well?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Dreslough

And I haven't yet seen anyone mention the horrible call that cost PITTSBURGH a turnover. With 12:26 left in the 2nd, Stevens catches a pass from Hasselbeck, turns to run downfield and is DRILLED. The ball pops out and is whistled dead ("incomplete") before the Steelers can pick it up and run it downfield.

Maybe no one talks about it because on the next play Seattle punted and PIT got the ball on the 20... on the Stevens fumble, they would've been able to return the ball to... maybe the 30 or so, maybe less or more. That 10 yard swing would've been HUGE!!!!!

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

DOLA - I also agree with Dreslough. If Stevens' didn't make a football move then I don't know what is. That is a big play that the Seahawks crowd are missing that went in their favour.

Actually it didn't go in their favor. The fumble ended up around the Steeler's 10, while the ensuing punt went for a touchback.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Actually it didn't go in their favor. The fumble ended up around the Steeler's 10, while the ensuing punt went for a touchback.

I guess, but I doubt that went through the player or the referees minds at the time. 90% of the time that non-call is in Seattle's favour if it's elsewhere on the pitch. If Rouen had pinned them at the one with the punt, and they had then got a safety it certainly would have been in Seattle's favour.

As a coach, I'd rather guarantee possession of the ball on my 10 yard line rather than wait for a 4th down where there is a small chance something will go wrong and I won't get the ball at all, and a decent chance I will be in the same or worse field position anyway.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I guess, but I doubt that went through the player or the referees minds at the time. 90% of the time that non-call is in Seattle's favour if it's elsewhere on the pitch. If Rouen had pinned them at the one with the punt, and they had then got a safety it certainly would have been in Seattle's favour.

As a coach, I'd rather guarantee possession of the ball on my 10 yard line rather than wait for a 4th down where there is a small chance something will go wrong and I won't get the ball at all, and a decent chance I will be in the same or worse field position anyway.

If I'm remembering the play correctly, I'm thinking no Steeler gets to that ball before it goes out of bounds, so then it's Seattle's ball at the Pittsburgh 10.

[Desnudo]

But it didn't happen that way. Just pointing out that the call ended up favoring no one at best.

[John Galt]

I think the worst call against the Steelers ended up not mattering. No one seemed to notice that on the Steeler's last first down, they got a ridiculously bad spot. Ben ran the little bootleg and dove well past the first down marker. The spot was so bad, that they had to bring out the chains and only made it by the length of the football. As I said, it didn't matter, but it was a horrible spot against them, IMO.

The big holding call (with Stevens going to the 1) was pretty clear holding, IMO. You couldn't see it at all on the replay angle they showed, but I saw it in real time from the normal camera angle. I went back with TIVO and watched it and I thought it was clearly holding, but the replay angle sure didn't make it look that way.

I wonder if the block below the waist on the return was a "point of emphasis" this year. I remember seeing it a few times throughout the season and it always seemed to be a weak-ass call.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I can't be sure what would have happened on the fumble-that-wasn't, because the Steelers stopped chasing the ball when the play was blown dead. I'm not sure they wouldn't have gotten to it if they hadn't pulled up.

[BrianD]

The fumble that was blown dead and the spot on Ben's dive were both also bad calls. All of this goes into the original point that this was a very poorly officiated football game.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think the worst call against the Steelers ended up not mattering. No one seemed to notice that on the Steeler's last first down, they got a ridiculously bad spot. Ben ran the little bootleg and dove well past the first down marker. The spot was so bad, that they had to bring out the chains and only made it by the length of the football. As I said, it didn't matter, but it was a horrible spot against them, IMO.

The big holding call (with Stevens going to the 1) was pretty clear holding, IMO. You couldn't see it at all on the replay angle they showed, but I saw it in real time from the normal camera angle. I went back with TIVO and watched it and I thought it was clearly holding, but the replay angle sure didn't make it look that way.

I wonder if the block below the waist on the return was a "point of emphasis" this year. I remember seeing it a few times throughout the season and it always seemed to be a weak-ass call.

I'll agree he got a bad spot, but he also didn't score a TD earlier so I guess it balances out.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I'll agree he got a bad spot, but he also didn't score a TD earlier so I guess it balances out.

I think it is pretty hard to argue that on replay review that call should have gone the other way. While I don't have Bee's 120" HDTV setup, mine is 100" and it looks convincing to me that the nose of the ball crossed the line (before Ben got pushed back). It may have been hard to reverse the call the other way, but there was no way it should have been overturned as it was called.

[kingfc22]

Chris Hope after the game, "I felt the push on my back. He had to make the call. It was a great call.


Ummm, Jackson touched you in the chest. Obviously there was no PI if you can't even remember where he "pushed" you.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Obviously there was no PI if you can't even remember where he "pushed" you.

I think you are trying to be funny. Even if he thought he got pushed on his package, the push was still there.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Dreslough

And I haven't yet seen anyone mention the horrible call that cost PITTSBURGH a turnover. With 12:26 left in the 2nd, Stevens catches a pass from Hasselbeck, turns to run downfield and is DRILLED. The ball pops out and is whistled dead ("incomplete") before the Steelers can pick it up and run it downfield.

Have you watched football in the last two years? Possession of the ball and two feet down no longer constitute a catch, you must make a "football move" with possession of the ball before you have caught it. Stevens did not do this and that call was the proper one by today's rules.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

I think you are trying to be funny. Even if he thought he got pushed on his package, the push was still there.

Now that's a penalty.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Now that's a penalty.

What's missing from this conversation is that even if he kicked him in the gonads, the defender was not going to prevent the TD catch.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Have you watched football in the last two years? Possession of the ball and two feet down no longer constitute a catch, you must make a "football move" with possession of the ball before you have caught it. Stevens did not do this and that call was the proper one by today's rules.

I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.

We all know Stevens can't catch so this is impossible.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

What's missing from this conversation is that even if he kicked him in the gonads, the defender was not going to prevent the TD catch.

It is probably missing because there is no way to know that.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.

Me too. He even brought it into his body before turning.

I'd love to know what else now constitutes a "football move". A pirouette? Maybe those dumbass spin animations in Madden?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by BrianD

It is probably missing because there is no way to know that.

I know it. I guess if you chose not to look at the play, you might not know it. Unless you're talking about the gonads part, which is hypothetical.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

This is a stat chart minus all the seahawks dime and nickel plays, and well i decided to take away mots of their yards, and give them some more turnovers. Looking at it, the Steelers just totally dominated them.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

What's missing from this conversation is that even if he kicked him in the gonads, the defender was not going to prevent the TD catch.

So if the defender can't prevent the catch it doesn't matter what the receiver does to him? You push a guy away so you can make a catch, that's offensive interference. Did the receiver need to push-off? No, but he did it so you have to throw the flag. Next time keep your hands to yourself.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

So if the defender can't prevent the catch it doesn't matter what the receiver does to him? You push a guy away so you can make a catch, that's offensive interference. Did the receiver need to push-off? No, but he did it so you have to throw the flag. Next time keep your hands to yourself.

No, just pointing out that the movement really didn't matter. He had the cut, had the steps anyway, etc.. For the overall play, I'm on the side of: if you don't call it all year, don't start calling it now.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Comp-Att 1-290 10-21

The Seahawks attempted 290 passes? That's gotta be a record.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The big holding call (with Stevens going to the 1) was pretty clear holding, IMO. You couldn't see it at all on the replay angle they showed, but I saw it in real time from the normal camera angle. I went back with TIVO and watched it and I thought it was clearly holding, but the replay angle sure didn't make it look that way.

What you have obviously missed is that the end he was holding was clearly offsides on this play as well as the next two! So lets say they get that right and it's offsetting penalties. Still first and 10. Big difference. Then it becomes 1st and 5 on the incomplete pass and 1st and 10 on the next offsides and no interception. The score was 14-10 at that point. With the obviously correct calls had they been made the Seahawks have the ball inside the 15!! That was the biggest effect that the zebras had on the game.

Were I an impartial viewer I would have ranked this as one of the all time stinkers of superbowls that was not a blow out....

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

I figured him turning after catching the ball counted as a football move.

He started to turn, but had hardly completed doing so. The ball came out before he got his foot back down. I think this is what they use as criterion. I think the way this has been called, it was the right call. I have seen guys hold onto the ball lots longer before dropping it and have it be called incomplete.

[WSUCougar]

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by G-Man

What you have obviously missed is that the end he was holding was clearly offsides on this play as well as the next two! So lets say they get that right and it's offsetting penalties. Still first and 10. Big difference. Then it becomes 1st and 5 on the incomplete pass and 1st and 10 on the next offsides and no interception. The score was 14-10 at that point. With the obviously correct calls had they been made the Seahawks have the ball inside the 15!! That was the biggest effect that the zebras had on the game.

Were I an impartial viewer I would have ranked this as one of the all time stinkers of superbowls that was not a blow out....

I didn't look at the offsides carefully (I had to get back to live action), but it looked to me to be pretty close. It looked like he started a couple steps back and was accelerated when the ball was snapped. It wasn't clear that he was over the line when the center moved the ball. But as I said, I didn't look at the TIVO replay carefully on that issue.

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

thank you. neeext!

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

No, just pointing out that the movement really didn't matter. He had the cut, had the steps anyway, etc.. For the overall play, I'm on the side of: if you don't call it all year, don't start calling it now.

I don't think it's that clear, though. Jackson was in a better position to catch the ball, but when he pushed Hope (and you can see Hope's weight getting shifted to his back foot because of it), he prevented Hope from making any kind of play at all. Jackson didn't need to push-off, but he did. You have to throw the flag there especially when the play happens right in front of you.

[Desnudo]

Except they never call the push off. It happens constantly in games, right in front of officials. If you don't call it, don't call it.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Except they never call the push off. It happens constantly in games, right in front of officials. If you don't call it, don't call it.

Hyperbole much? Of course they call the push off. I've seen a number of OPI calls this season. They may not see it all the time, and they may not see it most of the time, but if you are right in front of the ref where he can see both players and the offensive arm very clearly, you have to expect the penalty.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Except they never call the push off. It happens constantly in games, right in front of officials. If you don't call it, don't call it.

I have never seen it happen right in front of the official and not have it called interference. Certainly seen it not called when it's away from the official. But right in front of the official? Always called (at least in every game I've seen)

Originally Posted by Bee

If Pittsburgh could have recovered. It was discussed earlier on the radio here in DC and they were calling it another bad call against Seattle because they also thought it went out of bounds before a Steeler could recover it.

What the ball did is kind of irrelevent, though, isn't it? The ref blew it dead right away, not after seeing it skip down the field. So, for all the ref knew, that ball drops dead, a Pitt player picks it up and takes it 50 yards. Or, even if he did think it would skip forward, that still could have happened since know one knows how a football is going to skip down the field. If the refs were working in Pitt's favor, don't you think he would have let that go for a few seconds before deciding to call it incomplete?

(Not saying you are saying that the refs were, just more a general question)

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

...but when he pushed Hope (and you can see Hope's weight getting shifted to his back foot because of it)...

Anyone have a link to video of this play and of the holding/no offsides called plays?

While I think it's correct to say that the Seahawks hurt themselves as much as they didn't get the benefit of the doubt on a lot of key penalties called or not called, anyone that thinks those decisions didn't affect the outcome of the game are kidding themselves.

If that OPI isn't called on Jackson, the Seahawks have an early 7-0 lead and the momentum is clearly on their side.

On the completion to Stevens down to the 1 yard line when Locklear was called for holding, if the Steelers are called for offsides instead or if the ref lets that "block" go, the Seahawks are on the 1 yard-line with a great chance to go up 17-14 and continue the momentum shift that happened after the Herndon interception and the subsequent Stevens TD catch.

Whether or not you think those were the correct calls, you can't argue that if they'd been called differently the game wouldn't have been impacted in a major way. Maybe the Steelers still win the game, but the way things played out would've been different and would've improved the Seahawk's chances of overcoming their own mistakes.

The Seahawks had clear control in the first half of the game, but as is so often the case, the fact they couldn't convert that control to the scoreboard was a bad omen. Add to that the horrible clock management/play calling at the end of the 1st half by the Seahawks and there was a definite case of the Seahawks not taking advantage of the opportunities they'd given themselves.

Give credit to the Steelers - despite a poor game by Roethlisberger, despite the Seahawks stuffing the Steelers running game, they made two critical plays - the long TD run by Parker at the start of the 2nd half (perfectly executed by Pittsburgh, and perhaps they benefited from a hold that wasn't called) and the well-designed WR reverse and pass by Randle El that was again perfectly executed (and perhaps they benefited from a hold that wasn't called). They did what they had to do to win the game and the Seahawks couldn't overcome their mistakes and the calls that went against them.

But, as a Seattle fan, it was tough to watch the Seahawks lose a tight game when so many critical plays were affected by calls or non-calls by the officials that were questionable.

As others have pointed out, by the letter of the rulebook you could say they were guilty of the calls made against them - the offensive pass interference, the holding call, the call against Hasselbeck's low tackle attempt. But the OPI and holding calls were ones that are frequently not called (and there's some question that the Steelers may have been offsides on that play and the following one that resulted in a sack), so there's a consistency issue and the Hasselbeck call was just a bizzare rule that should be thrown out.

Congrats to the Steelers. The Seahawks just have to do a better job to rise above adversity next time.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I have never seen it happen right in front of the official and not have it called interference. Certainly seen it not called when it's away from the official. But right in front of the official? Always called (at least in every game I've seen)

What the ball did is kind of irrelevent, though, isn't it? The ref blew it dead right away, not after seeing it skip down the field. So, for all the ref knew, that ball drops dead, a Pitt player picks it up and takes it 50 yards. Or, even if he did think it would skip forward, that still could have happened since know one knows how a football is going to skip down the field. If the refs were working in Pitt's favor, don't you think he would have let that go for a few seconds before deciding to call it incomplete?

(Not saying you are saying that the refs were, just more a general question)

It almost always happens right in front of the official, usually on the sidelines. How many times does a guy catch the ball and there isn't at least one official within 10-15 yards? It's a call that rule book lawyers can defend, but is rinky dink in reality.

[Hurst2112]

alright G-man. How much will it cost to get you to delete this thread?!

jeepers!

[Kozure]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Sorry, just thought I'd point out that a Denver fan thinking the officiating sucked in a game that Pittsburgh won is hardly anything worth even mentioning.

And...

(1) The bogus PI call that cost the Hawks 4 poinnt (7-3).

He pushed off, textbook offensive pass interference. Get over it,

(2) The bogus TD by Ben when he did not get in and lest say they get only 3 another 4 points.

All the ball has to do is BREAK the line, which it did, TD.

(3) The TD near halftime whne the Hawks WR hit the dang pylon, that is 7 points!

A foot hitting a pylon does not cound as a foot being in bounds.

(4) The bogus holding call on Stevens catch at the 1 yard line in the 4th quarter. & points there.

He had is arm across the defender's chest. Holding.

I agree. All the call made were the correct calls. Darrell Jackson used the defender to HELP make the cut back to the ball. That's illegal. If the call wasn't made, I believe people would be saying that officiating was bad because they missed the call. It's the superbowl, I would rather have the officials calling a tight game. Let fair play decide the game.

Both of the holding calls that negated some nice gains for Seattle were correctly called. The lineman had his arm, in both instances, draped across the neck and chest of the linebacker. You do not have to have your fingers grabbing jersey for a holding penalty to be called.

Rothlesberger's TD run, tn replay, you couldn't tell if it touched or passed the goalline because the angle of the camera was in the endzone, not on the goalline. But the official right at the goalline could see it perfectly, and I bet to him, it looked like a good inch over.

But when it gets down to it, any team that gives up a third and 28 deserves to lose the game.

The Steelers played terrible, and they still looked better than the Seahawks. Great teams still win when they play poorly, and that showed today.

[G-Man]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

alright G-man. How much will it cost to get you to delete this thread?!

jeepers!

apologizes to Seattle and all football fans for the horrendous exhibition of officiating yesterday.

[MikeVic]

I don't want to read this whole thread or any other whine-fest, but I just wanted to know if the majority of people think the Seahawks lost because of the refs? Or is all of this talk just general complaining that the officiating sucked this year in the NFL?

[Hurst2112]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I don't want to read this whole thread or any other whine-fest, but I just wanted to know if the majority of people think the Seahawks lost because of the refs? Or is all of this talk just general complaining that the officiating sucked this year in the NFL?

Refs didn't allow Stevens to come up limp. Refs didn't keep Holmgren from stinkin up the joint.

[terpkristin]

I think the Seahawks lost because they stunk up the joint.
They didn't capitalize on any "key plays" they made (such as key interceptions), showed poor clock management, and frankly, have nobody but themselves to blame for the loss.

I mean, ok, MAYBE the Ben R. TD wasn't a TD. I think it was, I do believe that the ball crossed the plane of the endzone, but I'm human thus imperfect. Even without that, the final would have been 14-10. The other calls I think were dead-on, even the so called "phantom tackle/cut" by Hasslebeck. It's one thing if you lead with your arms and head like you're going to tackle. IMO, Hasslebeck didn't look like he was trying to tackle, based on his arms/body position. Maybe I'm biased in that I've been a high level soccer ref in the past, and have seen similar types of things there.

In the end, any coach will tell you that you should be able to win despite the refs. Seattle didn't do that. End of story.

/tk