Posts: 7,289
Threads: 811
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Honestly, I think this was one of the most boring SuperBowls I have ever seen. Especially the first half... jessh. I mean, I was just expecting more out of THE superbowl... the XL superbowl at that!
2004-12-03 - Saint John/2005-09-03 - Moncton/2006-06-30 - Charlottetown/2006-11-09/10 - Montreal/2007-09-11 - Fredericton/2007-09-13 - Halifax/2007-09-14 - Sydney/2007-09-15 - Charlottetown/2008-06-30 - Charlottetown/2009-05-01/02 - Montreal/2011-06-28 - Moncton/2011-06-30 - Charlottetown/2012-06-30 - Niagara-on-the-Lake/2013-02-01 - Moncton/2013-02-02 - Halifax/2015-01-10 - Toronto/2015-02-20 - Montreal/2015-07-17 - Ottawa/2016-08-18 - Ottawa/2016-08-20 - Kingston
Posts: 1,879
Threads: 16
Joined: Nov 2004
Reputation:
0
Well, at least SB XL was close for most of the game. That's more than can be said for many SBs. Not the greatest game by any stretch, but better than many SBs I've seen. That's enough for me... I've learned to have low expectations about the quality of the SB, that way if it's even half-decent I'm happy.
About some of the calls... the Seattle TD called back for offensive pass interference was definitely weak. Maybe by the absolute letter of the law it was a penalty, but geez I've seen so many instances where the interference was much more blatant and nothing was called. Big Ben's TD also looked questionable, but it's close enough that it's a judgement call, so I don't think anyone should be that upset over it. Finally, the holding call that cancelled a Seattle 1st and goal also looked suspect, and it's a double-killer since the drive eventually led to the Hasselbeck INT. That, to me, was the turning point of the game.
All that said, neither team if they are being honest should be that excited about their performance. But if you are the Steelers, you won, so who cares, right? I'd be really upset if I was a Seahawk or one of their fans, because you had a Steeler team who overall did not play well and were ripe for the picking... except you were worse!
Oh well, no big deal to me overall, I don't mind either team, so I was indifferent to the outcome. But now no football for months... damn!
Posts: 980
Threads: 86
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation:
0
I really think the pass interference call hurt them more then this 1mm call.
They would of went up 7-0 with better momentum.
But
They lost themselves the game as well. That holding call on the completed pass to the 2 yard line was a HUGE turning point. First and goal from the 2 , or 1st and 20 from 50. They ended up punting instead of closing in and regaining momentum.
Also , how many touchdowns did that one receiver drop , including a touchdown.
They make those plays and its a whole new ball game :thumb:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thehip.com/MyConcertStats.html?LinkID=12360571443252482_733834_744">http://www.thehip.com/MyConcertStats.ht ... 733834_744</a><!-- m -->
Posts: 2,568
Threads: 80
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
Well it's a good thing for Ben the official made the correct call. I'm sure he doesn't mind that what he himself thought was wrong.
Since even today i am hearing throngs of Steeler-hating Bengal fans on local sports radio crying about this TD call, I actually had to cue this up on my digital recorder and do some firsthand video analysis. I hadn't personally scrutinized any freeze frames with my face a foot from the tv screen - until now. Here are my findings:
1. The ball, at its furthest point of progression, is not visible from the side angle. So the video is technically inconclusive, as i think we all recognize, and therefore a touchdown by rule , because that was the call on the field. (I think cfernyh pointed that out once already).
2. Be that as it may, we can still make some pretyy decent inferences from piecing together what video evidence we have to determine if the ball had in fact broken the plane of the goal, regardless of how it was ruled:
In the side angle goal line shot (where the endzone is on the left side of your screen) these things are visible: a) the goal line, both to Bens right (above his head in the camera shot) and to his left, b) Ben's ball-carrying right forearm, defined by a white wristband, when said forearm was at its furthest point of progression. Also visible, via a camera angle from behind the enzone, is the precise position of the ball in Ben's right forearm. He had it tucked against that forearm through its furthest point of progression.
Taking that all into consideration, and freeze-framing ABC's slow-motion replay of that side angle, I am completely convinced that the ball had to have broken the plane of the goal line. Not by much, but it physically must have. The frontmost part of Ben's forearm progressed to a point very near the back edge the goal-line stripe, which means that the only way the ball didn't break the plane (front edge of the stripe) would be if Ben's right forearm measures nearly eight inches in diameter where he wears his wristband (an NFL goal line stripe is 8 inches wide). Ben's a big dude and all, but.....not...that big.
So now at least i've convinced myself that it was a TD, and that lots of people here in Cincy and everywhere else are doing way too much unjustified bitching over that call.
Posts: 3,827
Threads: 363
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation:
0
there was somethin else i just remembered..in the 4th when ben called a timeout, the playclock had clearly run to 0...
hock:
There's no question that was the turning point as everything went downhill for Seattle from there.
