Tarrytown Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Horrible game - I feel for Seattle...this really goes to show you the poor nature of the officiating...it's not just the Bills that get jobbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 There was a ball placement that they measured for in the first half, ending the Seahawk possession, I believe just before the possesion that Pitt scored on. It appeared when the player went down after the catch and run that he had the entire football over the screen generated red first down line. The ref placed it 4 inches short.  I'd like to see the player fall again. After that, the game turned around. 595670[/snapback]  What was worse, they never showed a replay. On my recollection, it was a clear first down. It may not have been, but a replay would have been nice to prove my eyesight wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Hey, it's that Dogfish Head Immort Ale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 These three calls all took Seattle out of favorable TD/FG situations. 595726[/snapback] And those are just the obvious ones because of field position. SO many of the holding calls against Seattle could have not been called. And hey, that's up to the refs...IF they are going to call them both ways. But after the first few "iffy" calls, I started paying attention, and Pitt was doing the same things, if not worse. These are plays that contributed to punts throughout the game. Â Not to mention giving Pitt that TO when the play clock had expired on that last drive! I couldn't believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 On the non-td in the corner of the end zone by the seahawks where it wasn't challenged - it seemed obvious that he was out - but then i could have sworn that his right foot hit the pylon on the way out - would this count as in bounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 On the non-td in the corner of the end zone by the seahawks where it wasn't challenged - it seemed obvious that he was out - but then i could have sworn that his right foot hit the pylon on the way out - would this count as in bounds? 595757[/snapback]  Oh boy, here we go again  He needs to establish possession on the ground in bounds first, then hit the pylon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Oh boy, here we go again  He needs to establish possession on the ground in bounds first, then hit the pylon. 595765[/snapback]  But that's not the rule, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Oh boy, here we go again  He needs to establish possession on the ground in bounds first, then hit the pylon. 595765[/snapback] Yeah, there were plenty of screw jobs tonight, but that wasn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 ok, so if he clearly has posession of the ball and gets one foot in and one foot on the pylon going out he is out of bounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 ok, so if he clearly has posession of the ball and gets one foot in and one foot on the pylon going out he is out of bounds? 595777[/snapback] The pylon is considered the "air over the endzone". So by touching the pylon, it's the same as breaking the plane. But, it is not the same as touching the actual ground. Does that make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 ok, so if he clearly has posession of the ball and gets one foot in and one foot on the pylon going out he is out of bounds? 595777[/snapback] Yeah and one knee equals 2 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 ok, so if he clearly has posession of the ball and gets one foot in and one foot on the pylon going out he is out of bounds? 595777[/snapback] Â How would you rule a player who get one foot in, and the other one inside the pylon, but still OB? Hitting the pylon does not constitute hitting the ground for a catch to be good. Â By the same token, if hitting the pylon constitutes hitting the ground, why should a player be penalized if his foot reached over the pylon and didn't touch it, on the way out of bounds? Â The confusion seems to be with hitting the pylon by a runner. On those, possession of a catch is not in dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzer32 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 ok, so if he clearly has posession of the ball and gets one foot in and one foot on the pylon going out he is out of bounds? 595777[/snapback] Before his left foot hit the pylon, his right foot had stepped out of bounds. That ended the play right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Yeah and one knee equals 2 feet. 595785[/snapback] Â Pilon is not the ground dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 But, it is not the same as touching the actual ground. Does that make any sense? Â yup, i get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Before his left foot hit the pylon, his right foot had stepped out of bounds. That ended the play right there. Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripes Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Bad calls or not...the Seahawks didn't DESERVE this game. Jeremy Stevens played timidly and soft (just as Jerry Porter predicted). The Seahawks gave up the longest TD run in SB history. Their D surrendered two first downs with six minutes left. They botched four scoring opportunities that could have provided them 12 points. The refs weren't doing them any favors, but they didn't shut the door on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzer32 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The biggest joke call of the game was the personal foul penalty on MH. How do call a tackle on the player carrying the ball a block below the waist??? These refs didn't know the difference between a tackle and a block. What a bunch of jerkoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzer32 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Bad calls or not...the Seahawks didn't DESERVE this game. Jeremy Stevens played timidly and soft (just as Jerry Porter predicted). The Seahawks gave up the longest TD run in SB history. Their D surrendered two first downs with six minutes left. They botched four scoring opportunities that could have provided them 12 points. The refs weren't doing them any favors, but they didn't shut the door on them. 595796[/snapback] Their biggest problem was their horrid clock management. They totally blew it at the end of the 1st half and didn't do much better at the end of the game. I don't know if was more Holmgren or Hasselbeck, but it was plain terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Pilon is not the ground dude. Instead of this conjecture, I'm going to try and get this question answered. I'll let you all know the results, if I get any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts