They were at the 44, but the ensuing 15-yard penalty on Farrior would've moved it to the 29, were it overturned.
Did you forget there was an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty called on that play? 15 yard penalty would have taken the ball to the 29. Ignore the truth Moes. Edit: Brady is the premier clutch QB in this league. Big Ben played horribly in his first Super Bowl, and was fairly average in this one aside from one drive where Santonio Holmes looked damn impressive. I think it was a 78 yard drive which 74 yards were Holmes. Big Ben maybe showed that he is the best QB in the league at escaping pressure. His ability to avoid the rush was impressive.
ok. Forgot about that. My mistake. Still I thought it was a pretty clear fumble, his arm was pinned back when the ball was hit, even though his shoulder was starting to come forward, his hand was nowhere close.
Totally missed the heads up on the 3d stuff. Great finish to a game that was boring until the final seconds of the 1st half.
Consider how many wins Big Ben has in his career. Consider now that 1/3rd of those are come from behind, 4th quarter comebacks. That is an astonishing stat. The guy simply wins ball games when needed of him. I don't know how, because for the first 55 minutes of the game it seems like Byron Leftwich might actually fare better out there. But Big Ben simply pulls the rabbit out of his hat more often than not. Thats the very definition of Clutch. Winning when it matters. No worrying about stats. Getting the job done.
the unsportsman-like penalty happened after the ruling on the field was a fumble and pittsburgh ball. Farrior was happy becaused they just won. Had the ruling on the field was an incomplete pass I doubt Farrior would have had taken his helmet off since there was 5 more seconds of football to be played. Without A, B doesnt happen so there more than likely wouldnt have been a 15 yarder on that play. as a steeler fan probably the most exciting game i've seen them play ever, clearly the best this year ahead of the dallas game. The penalties sucked for both sides, the rougher the passer on dansby was pretty weak imo, it looked like he may have had time to move out of the way, but it wasnt a vicious hit thats for sure and i cant say enough about Big Ben that guy never puts up big numbers but he always makes the big plays. even in his first superbowl he had horrible stats but i will always remember him making that big QB scramble for the touchdown and that huge throw where scrambled around, went ahead of the LOS and then went back behind it to throw a bomb to ward that set them up for another score within the 5 yard line. He was worthy to do the sam cassell dance after that drive
The point is that if it were overturned in the booth, the 15-yard penalty still would have stood. Yes, it would've been bad luck for the Steelers, but unsportsmanlike conduct penalties can't be arbitrarily removed based on what would've happened without event A. The penalty would have still stood and the ball would've been on the 29.
They have changed timeouts based on call reversals. The NFL rules committee should probably look into this. In essence, can it logically be assumed that "B" would not have happened if "A" was reversed? In the case of excessive celebration (pulling off a helmet), it would stand to reason they should change the rules so that they could reverse the penalty.
On 1st and 10 this morning, they also mentioned that Santonio should have been flagged for his "Lebron" TD celebration where he used the football as a prop. By the letter of the law, that should have been a 15 yarder and should have given the Cards better starting field position on that final drive. I missed it initially but after seeing the replay, I think they're right.
The steelers got out gained by over a 100 yards. This win belongs to James Harrison and the Pitt D for stepping up when they had to.
I agree that it makes logical sense to change the rule for the future, but with the rulebook as it was last night, the penalty still would have stood. I'm somewhat curious if this played a small role in their hasty decision not to review (knowing the Steelers would've lost 15 yards basically on a complete fluke).
That was one of the many examples of the perfect reasons to have given that Super bowl MVP to the officiating crew. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N93VaUytd4w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N93VaUytd4w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vURI_Cz-p6s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vURI_Cz-p6s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Yup. I understand the argument of "no blood, no foul" in the final quarter of a big game, but the officials had called ticky-tack calls all game, and it was incredibly inconsistent of them not to flag that. The Cards were the victim of several *interesting* flags. 1) On the first personal foul (facemask) against Cromartie on that late third quarter drive... was I the only one who missed that Holmes had Cromartie's facemask as well?!?!? It blows my mind watching ESPN justify the replay, considering Holmes is doing the exact same thing! 2) The roughing the passer. In addition to it being very ticky-tack... there was no receiver within 15 yards of where Ben threw it! (and he was inside the tackle box this time) If you're going to apply the rulebook to the letter with the roughing the passer, how can you not apply it to the throw itself? 3) The roughing the holder. I've watched football for basically two decades, and I've never heard of it. Additionally, Wilson basically was blocked and tripped into him, and barely made any contact at all. Maybe there's some little rule that I'm unaware of that says that's a penalty. But again, it's another instance of following the rulebook to the T... which they didn't do on the Holmes celebration. Moreover, as long as we're talking rules that should be changed, I find it completely illogical that the personal foul on Harrison for his punch (he should've been ejected for that, actually) didn't extend Arizona's possession (because it was "after the kick") while the roughing the holder gave Pittsburgh an automatic first down, even though it too was after the kick. Absolutely no consistency. I'm not going to say any of these necessarily decided the game... but there was definitely some very poor officiating on display. It's sad they can't do better than this.
I assume it is made more of a detriment to protect the kickers. For example, roughing/running into the punter, are also after the kick but apply before the kick. Considering kickers generally have no replacements during a game, an out of control player, could decide to go after a kicker if "all" it costs his team is 15 yards and wouldn't extend a drive.
I understand that with kickers/punters, but what makes a holder different from a lineman? (In many situations the holder is a QB or another back.) I understand the uniqueness of kickers and that they aren't replaceable. I just don't logically understand how punching a lineman constitutes a post-possession foul, while barely tripping into a holder extends a drive.
So, even the best team is bound to have an off week, hence there only ever being found undefeated teams. I guess the Patriots were the best team instead of the Giants because they won the regular season games, but not the Super Bowl.
http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/02/p*rn-clip-penetrates-super-bowl-broadcast/ p*rn Clip Penetrates Super Bowl Broadcast yes, it happened
Not gonna breakdown the bad calls against the Steelers that gave the Cards second chances? Yeah...figures. We'll agree that the officiating left alot to be desired, but it was both ways.
