[Super Bowl] Does Any One Else Suspect The Game Was Rigged?

I hate to say it but I agree with Fatty - Cat, you'll have to show me some kind of proof on that.

 

This Superbowl was the highest rated Superbowl since the last Steelers Superbowl. So either a lot of people love or a lot of people hate the Steelers. They sure didn't tune in for the Seahawks.

 

The 70/30 margins weren't who people wanted to win... that was who people thought would win. A vast majority of both the people I talked to in person and the message boards I visit (including this one) had the same sentiment... wanted the Seahawks to win, but thought the Steelers would win.

And yes, of course the stadium supported Pittsburgh... Pittsburgh is 300 miles from Detroit while Seattle is around 2,500. There's a shock. It's like claiming there are more Bobcat fans than Laker fans if the Lakers come to Charlotte and a majority of fans support the Bobcats.

Furthermore, polls are inherently misleading on these types of topics. The uneducated person, before this game, thought Pittsburgh would win easily based on much of the hype. So, when average Joe gets asked who he wants to win the game, he chooses... the team that he's conditioned to believe will win, so he can be right! But when the game gets going, and the underdog does well, things have a way of changing. If you guys are seriously denying that a majority of Americans generally cheer for underdogs in championship games, I don't know how to respond to that. I simply disagree.

 

Here is Haggans with a jump and approaching a sack of Matt Hasselbeck:



Then, something funny happens a split-second later. See those white fingers on the hand of the Seattle right tackle? Take a look where they are.



That's what you call a hook. Haggans had a lead to the quarterback... until the Seattle RT saw he was beaten, stuck his arm around the right shoulder of Haggans, and tugged on the shoulder pads of Haggans in an attempt to bring him down. By my book, that's an easy hold.

Now, pretend you're a referee in the end zone of a major game, and you're looking at this. It's a play where the defender has position on a potential throw.



Then, a second later, you see this.



Jackson extends his forearm directly into the chest of the cornerback, creates separation, and catches a pass. Was that contact enough to create all that separation? Debatable. But how mad can you really be when offensive pass interference is called on a play where the receiver fully extends his forearm directly into the chest of the nearest defender to hold him off?

 

^^^^^^^

Dude, you're wrong. Period. I don't know what game you were watching, but you saw it differently than almost everyone else.

Look. I didn't care who won. I had no money on this game. I watched it like most people did; as a neutral observer.

Seattle got hosed. It's not Pittsburgh's fault, but Seattle got hosed.

Here's another read for you:

In case the football fans of the Pacific Northwest aren't sick enough in the aftermath of the big game, they may want to know that no Super Bowl loser has ever dominated a title game like the Seahawks did on Sunday.

I was so sure that Seattle's edge in total yards, time of possession and takeaways in a losing effort was unprecedented that I scoured all 39 previous Super Bowl box scores to prove it. Yep, just as I suspected, no losing team had ever matched the Seahawks' trifecta. Quite a few teams had won the time of possession battle and lost. A handful had put up more total yards and lost. And a couple had even won the turnover battle and lost. But no team had ever done all three and come away with an L.

Not until Sunday. Not until the Seahawks outplayed the Steelers on the vast majority of plays and still lost, thanks largely to two dubious penalty calls that cost Seattle a TD and a first-and-goal at the 1.

This was a historic, first-of-its-kind Super Bowl loss. I don't want to take anything away from the Steelers, except, of course, the Lombardi Trophy.

Seattle outgained Pittsburgh 396 yards to 339. Only five times in Super Bowl history had the loser gained more yards than the victor. And only twice — in Joe Montana's first win over the Bengals and Tom Brady's first win over the Rams — had a team been outgained as badly as the Steelers and won. (I guess this bodes well for Ben Roethlisberger.) But in both those victories, the Niners and Patriots had been +3 in the turnover battle. Pittsburgh was -1. More on that later.

Seattle had the ball for over 33 minutes, building a large time of possession edge as Pittsburgh failed to get a first down in the game's opening 19 minutes. While 10 teams have won the time-of-possession battle and lost the Super Bowl, only four losers surpassed the Seahawks' 6:04 edge in possession. And only twice in the history of the big game had a team gained more yards and led in time of possession and lost. Brady's Patriots were not only outgained by the Rams, but Kurt Warner's quick-strike attack actually held the ball for seven more minutes than New England. The lone other time this statistical quirk occurred was when Pittsburgh lost to Dallas in Super Bowl XXX. So maybe Sunday was a kind of karmic payback for the Steelers, who outgained the Cowboys 310-254 and held the ball for 7:38 more than Dallas in 1996.

Of course that loss was marked by the fact that Neil O'Donnell kept throwing the ball to Larry Brown. The Steelers were -3 in turnovers in that loss to the Cowboys, just as the Rams were against the Patriots.

Winning the turnover battle has been the single best harbinger of victory in Super Bowl history. Only twice prior to Sunday had a team given the ball away more than it had taken it away and yet still taken home the trophy.

In Super Bowl V — the ugliest Super Bowl of all time — the Cowboys managed to lose to the Colts despite a +3 edge in turnovers. The game featured a record 11 turnovers, an astounding seven by the somehow victorious Colts. Dallas also had a slight edge in possession (+2:46), but Baltimore had a substantial — 329-215 — edge in total yards.

The only other time the turnover winner had lost was in Super Bowl XIV when the Steelers overcame three Terry Bradshaw interceptions and a -2 turnover deficit to beat the Rams and win their fourth championship (one for the pinkie?). Despite the three picks, Bradshaw was named MVP because he threw for 309 yards as Pittsburgh compiled a 393-301 edge in total yards.

So the only two times a team had coughed the ball up more than its opponent and won the Super Bowl, it did so by handily outgaining the loser. But turning the ball over more while being outgained? Surely Roethlisberger's two interceptions to Matt Hasselbeck's one would sink the Steelers.

Not on Sunday. Super Bowl XL was the perfect storm for stormy Seattle. The Seahawks moved the ball better than the Steelers. They kept the ball longer than the Steelers. They held onto the ball more securely than the Steelers. They had six more first downs than the Steelers (20-14), a feat surpassed only twice by losing teams in SB history.

And yet the Seahawks lost.

Seattle fans have a right to feel sick. Their team just suffered the most unjust loss in Super Bowl history.

I'm guessing knowing that the previous 25 teams to gain more yards, keep the ball longer and not lose the turnover battle all won the Super Bowl won't make them feel any better.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5311792

 

Roethlisberger admits: 'I don't think I got in'

Before David Letterman got to shave Ben Roethlisberger's beard Monday night, he got the Steelers' Super Bowl-winning quarterback to admit a little something that might rankle Seahawks fans even more.

Roethlisberger told Letterman that he didn't think he scored on a controversial play in the second quarter that put the Steelers ahead for good 7-3. Roethlisberger dove toward the end zone but didn't appear to get the ball to touch the goal line. But officials on the field signaled touchdown.
"I told Coach, 'I don't think I got in,'" Roethlisberger told Letterman. "But we were getting ready to go for it on fourth down anyway, and I would have run it again. So we would have found a way to get in."

The play infuriated Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren and has provided Seattle fans plenty of fodder for their fury over the game's questionable calls.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5313884

 

I'm wrong because... why? Some sports reporters and fans have written commentary disagreeing with me? Guess what? Most sports reporters (several on ESPN) and a majority of fans claim Michael Jordan would've won eight straght championships if he didn't retire and, as such, the Rockets wouldn't have won those two championships. Do you agree with that? Or is it possible that people can be wrong?

The "because other people say so" argument is unverifiable (who has taken a national survey to accurately reflect all people who watched the game?) and is also irrelevant (I don't think you want to go through a listing of historical things that a majority of the public supported at one point in time).

Furthermore, remember the NFL? The most watched, most respected professional league in sports? They know more about the rulebook than any of us. They weren't afraid to admit to a mistake three weeks ago with the Polamalu interception against the Colts.

So, why hasn't there been an admission of wrongdoing in the last two days from the NFL office? It's simple. None of the calls were indisputable enough to tell with complete certainty that the call was incorrect. All were open to interpretation.

 

The title, of course, is misleading. Roethlisberger is the last person in the world to know whether that was a touchdown. He's looking at the defense, attempting to brace for the hit, looking for blockers... he doesn't know the precise location of the goal line and he doesn't know the exact point of which he had the ball and whether it came in contact with the goal line. The only people in position to accurately tell on that are the side officials and the television viewers who can see the play from a side angle.

Now, if Roethlisberger still thought as of last night that it wasn't a touchdown, that's one thing. But he didn't say that. He said he thought that after the play... which has almost no relevance.

EDIT: Apparently, Ben said this afternoon on Rome is Burning that after viewing the replay, he thinks he was in. What is more relevant - what he thought during the play, or what he thought after being able to view it multiple times from better angles? I'm taking the latter.

 

Holmgren's probably gonna get fined for this, but he had to say it:

Link

Holmgren rips officials


The Seahawks were still stinging yesterday from a few officials' calls that went against them in Super Bowl XL Sunday, such as Darrell Jackson's touchdown catch that was taken away by a penalty.

"We knew it was going to be tough playing against the Steelers," coach Mike Holmgren said. "But I didn't know we were going to have to take on the guys in the striped shirts, too."

 

Well we can argue about this until we are blue in the face. The fact remains, Cat, that you are in the minority that you think the game was not poorly officiated (which is really weird for me to type that...like RM95 said, seeing you defend officials is a little surreal). And maybe Major is right - that within the next couple of years, no one will even mention the bad officiating for this Super Bowl when they talk about this game. Yet, I have my doubts about that. I mean when ESPN shows the highlights from NFL Films during their Super Bowl marathon thing, I say that the plays that garnered the most attention (basically the calls that most people felt were blown) are going to be talked about. It will be interesting to see what NFL Films' take on those plays are.

 

Oh, cry me a freaking river! Pittsburgh may have still won if the plays had been called accurately, but we'll never know. I watched the game. Obviously you must have been eating or peeing during all of these calls, because you weren't paying attention.

Regardless, the Referee's didn't do their job. You'll see something from the NFL soon enough on this. Believe me.

And you still bring up the Polololmu INT? According to YOU, if that had happened to Seattle in the Superbowl, you'd find a way to justify it, as well. Your argument continues to get weaker and weaker.

 

I'm waiting.

Huh? Please explain.

 

The fact also remains that those whose opinions matter most (the NFL) and those who have the most knowledge of the rulebook (the NFL) agree with me. I'll take that over the opinion of a supposed majority (which still hasn't been proven), half of which can't even quote what constitutes a hold or a pass interference according to the rulebook.

On the surface, Manny, I recognize that it seems to be contradictory to a few things I've argued with you in the past. However, there are two distinct differences. First, on many of my anti-officiating rants (see Polamalu INT), the league came out and admitted to a blown call later on. Second, on anti-officiating rants in other leagues (MLB, NBA), there isn't nearly as much of a precedent for the league to admit to their mistakes. This isn't baseball or basketball. The NFL has precedent for admitting to their mistakes and usually isn't afraid to do so. The fact that they have not speaks volumes.

Fans might talk about the officiating. But I might take that bet with you about NFL Films... just take a look at Sportscenter after the game. Sure, the calls were mentioned, but in the end, the Steelers got the respect they deserved and the first discussion centered around the plays they made to win the game.

 

He provides ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support what he is claiming and all you have to say in your reply is "Dude, you're wrong. Period."

Get that weak **** out of here! Develop your own opinion and ideas instead of just being along for the ride with what other people are saying.

 

The fact that you refuse to think the officiating was bad, whatsoever, tells me that you're not even trying to look at this impartially. Ergo; you would find a way to tell us that Polololmu didn't catch that ball, if you were a Colt's fan.

Your view on this is ridiculous.

 

I watched the game. Did you? I've already posted issues about this.

I suggest you watch yourself.

 

Actually, the NFL issued comment this afternoon.

Link

Again, this isn't the NBA. The NFL has consistently admitted to its officiating mistakes in days after games. After multiple viewings, they cannot find fault for this game. Either the calls aren't indisputable, or that's one hell of a conspiracy.

 

Well Cat that is fine and you are entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that the officiating was so poor (compared to what it should have been) that whether you like it or NOT, people are going to talk about this for some time. Exactly how long - I don't know? But I think you are beginning to argue just for the sake of arguing - something I have seen you do many times in the past whether it is on the board or in the chatroom. I thought you had gotten past this need to try to get the last word in but maybe I was wrong. I'll just say that I'll never agree with you on this but I am not going to go as far as saying that the game was fixed. But it angers me as a nonpartial fan that the officiating played such a big part of the game. And you talk about the calls that went against Seattle and defended them but you don't mention the fact that:

1) The Steelers seemed to be offsides at least twice including the one on which Locklear got flagged (pretty easy to get by a lineman when you were offsides) but it didn't get called.

2) As RM95 pointed out, Roethlisberger threw a block below the waist after the horrendous call against Hasselback but it didn't get called.

3) The play clock expiring against the Steelers on offense but the officials not throwing a flag for delay of game.

4) The just flat out wrong call against Hasselback while he was making the tackle when he got flagged for a block below the waist.

Now I'm not saying that the Seahawks would have won if these calls are made as well as the calls that went against them weren't called, but I don't think the Steelers win 21-10 - maybe it is 24-21 or 21-20. And hell isn't that what you along with me and every other NFL fan wanted? A great close game? You are acting like you have been this life-long Steeler fan when I have known you to be a Saints fan and a Patriots fan. Maybe you are arguing just to be different - that you don't want to "conform to society" but it is somewhat bewildering and funny at the same time to see you arguing this so vehemently.

 

I've seen everything you've posted and it's nothing more than paraphrasing what others are saying.

You want to impress me? Do some research, come up with another theory, find still shots to support what you say, etc etc. OFFER SOME INSIGHT!

Whether you want to admit it or not "The Cat" has backed you into a corner. Since he decided to go out of his way to actually provide evidence to strengthen his argument it has done exactly what it needed to do to help prove what I have known all along. The hold and offensive pass interference calls were textbook calls that happened right in front of the officials.

 

I seem to remember you making a huge, dramatic scene with moes19 about "what goes on in chat stays in chat" in which you claimed you could never look at him the same, or something to that effect. I guess that rule only applies when it comes to your statements, eh Fernandez?

What, exactly, is your problem? I cheer for the Steelers to win a game, and suddenly I'm giving off the impression that I'm a life-long fan? And when have I been a Patriots fan, other than cheering for them to win a handful of games the last few seasons? Believe it or not, it's possible to pick a side in a big game without them being "your" team.

Also, I'm trying to debate a legitimate issue that's been discussed all day. It's not just me. Watch ESPN, Fox Sports, and look at this thread... 100+ replies... not even 10 percent of those are mine, I don't believe. Yet, instead of debating on the issues, you've determined (from a few posts) that I am not arguing on merit, that I have a need to get the last word in, that I don't want to conform to society... all on something that the most important and knowledgable people (the NFL offices) agree with me about?!?

If you want to debate me, that's fine. But leave the personal stuff out, please.

You, a nonpartial fan? I'm not going to quote lines from chat at this point, but certain statements you made about the Steelers 16 days ago left your objectivity surrounding them in the Super Bowl in great doubt.

I didn't realize that because I defended a few calls that I was claiming that every call on every play during the game was exactly what I would've made.