XL Hangover Blogging
It’s Tuesday morning, and NFL.com is still covering an alternate-universe version of the Super Bowl in which lacked even the hint of controversy about the officiating. House organs are not to be relied on in a crisis, but this is egregious.
Meanwhile, someone on Balloon Juice found a rule that makes it inarguable that the zebras cost Seattle a touchdown right before halftime:
A player will be ruled in bounds if he touches the pylon at the goal line before going out of bounds. For example, a pass would be considered complete if one foot touches the pylon and the other foot is in bounds.
That happened. I think it’s a stupid rule - it means that if you catch a ball in the end zone and one foot lands in bounds and the other hits the ground on the other side of the field border, it’s incomplete, but if you catch the ball just outside the end zone with one foot down and the other lands outside the field border but hits the pylon on the way, it’s a touchdown. I don’t like the rule, but it is the rule.
This is beyond calls that could go either way and impressions of unfairness. That’s indisputible error materially costing the losing team.
I have to say, the bad officiating does take some of the joy out of my team winning. And it’s a problem for the NFL. The question is, if the League actually does something about it - fire some people, change the way they hire and train officials - will their own website tell us?
Comment by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater —
February 7, 2006 @ 9:13 am
While the nfl.com house organ might be feigning blissful ignorance, NFL Radio on Sirius was giving it to the refs with both barrels yesterday morning.
Trackback by Off Wing Opinion —
February 7, 2006 @ 9:41 am
Darrell Jackson Was In Bounds When He Hit The Pylon
Thanks to Jim Henley and Balloon Juice for pointing out the rule that answers the question I asked Sunday about…
Comment by OtM —
February 7, 2006 @ 9:48 am
http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1634/pg1/
Maybe the Steelers were just ’destined’ to win.
Comment by Laura Gjovaag —
February 7, 2006 @ 10:36 am
I have to say, the bad officiating does take some of the joy out of my team winning.
Try being a fan of the losing team. The whole town is angry and in mourning at the moment.
Actually, you have it a bit worse. Seattle is used to losing the big games. But to have a Super Bowl win disputed because of poor officiating is extremely not good.
Seattle was thrown off its game by the officials, but that’s not a good excuse… Pittsburgh came back from horrible officiating calls in the game against the Colts. Still, as a Seattle fan, I’m upset that the viewers didn’t get to see us at our best. Some moments shined through, but there were so many great plays called back that it HURT.
The refs completely ruined the game for me. I could’ve handled losing if the game were fair. I even kind of expected to lose, being from Seattle. But as it became more and more clear that the refs seemed to be biased, the folks at my party went from ”yay, we made it to the Super Bowl!” to ”why do they hate us so much they won’t even let us play the game?” Our first Super Bowl, soured.
We’ll never know who really would have won that game. Based on the level of play… probably the Steelers. But if Seattle hadn’t been constantly pushed back by poor calls, who knows? And that’s the real pity. The refs are supposed to enforce the rules evenly, not decide the outcome of the game. And the Seahawks didn’t have a chance against both the Steelers and the refs.
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
February 7, 2006 @ 10:44 am
”We couldn’t beat the Steelers and the refs” is a rationalization, not statement worthy of a championship-caliber team. Bottom line: Seattle had ample opportunities to win the game, regardless of the officiating. They couldn’t get it done. Wait til next year, just like the other 28 teams.
Comment by Laura Gjovaag —
February 7, 2006 @ 11:01 am
Mr Obscura,
Apparently you didn’t read the rest of my comment. I wasn’t trying to rationalize a loss. I was stating a fact. If the game had been fair, I still believe the Steelers would have probably won. But it wasn’t a fair game.
Your superior attitude is not appreciated. Is it fun to kick people when they are down?
Comment by Osama —
February 7, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Ha! Soon I will bring America to its knees! Our striped brothers accomplished their mission!
Comment by SF Yinzer —
February 7, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
That’s not a rule, that’s an description of a rule change by John Clayton. Other articles describing the same rule change, including one on NFL.com, phrase it differently.
The rule used to be that the pylon was considered out of bounds, so if you got one foot in, hit the pylon with that leg, you’d be out of bounds, even if you got the other foot in. The rule was changed so that the pylon is essentially nothing - i.e. hitting the pylon has no effect on the in-bounds/out-of-bounds determination. Which means, one foot in, other foot hits the pylon, other foot lands out of bounds = no catch.
Now, the NFL doesn’t release their rulebook to the public, so it’s possible that this is an incorrect interpretation. But if the ”pylon equals get-in-bounds-free card” interpretation is correct, this is a qualitatively different bad call. It’s not ”that was technically a penalty, but no one ever calls it”, and it’s not ”the ref made the right call, but there’s no way he could have seen it, so he should have made the wrong call”, it’s a ”clearly contrary to the facts, NFL calls you up and tells you that it’s sorry” call. Holmgren, or at the very least some high-profile player on the Seahawks, would be SCREAMING about it.
Having to choose between the prospect of the Seahawks not screaming about the one indisputably wrong call that hosed them more than anything else while simultaneously bitching about close matters of judgement, or John Clayton subtly getting the description of a rule incorrect such that the call was actually indisputably right, the latter sounds WAY more probable.
Comment by John Cole —
February 7, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
The call was legit.
Trackback by Off Wing Opinion —
February 8, 2006 @ 7:52 am
More On Darrell Jackson And The Pylon
Thanks to longtime reader Jeff Cooper for pointing me to another clarification of the rules regarding Darrell Jackson’s goal line…