[Goody]

Matt Ryan...same thing as Kurt Warner...(except Ryan's arm wasn't as far "overhand" has Warner)

They review it on a challenge, and rule it an incomplete pass. Warner's was a fumble...without even a review by the booth. To seal yet another dubious Steelers win.

Sad.

Kurt Warner must be livid right now. As well as all Cards fans. Wait...there's not as many Cards fans as Steeler fans. So who cares right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKX09AZZ4Q <--- Hitler's reaction to the Steelers incident.


Anyways, I'd love if we could find videos of both plays. I thought good replays of the Super Bowl one were available, but the NFL must have had them removed. All I can find is fan vids.

[Goody]

Here's the best Kurt Warner one I could find.

YouTube - Kurt Warner Fumble?

[Skipaway]

The difference is a bit more than arm being more overhand. The defender had the hand on the ball in the Warner case, but only on the arm in the Ryan case.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The difference is a bit more than arm being more overhand. The defender had the hand on the ball in the Warner case, but only on the arm in the Ryan case.

I side arm or underhand pass is called a pitch, not a forward pass.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

I side arm or underhand pass is called a pitch, not a forward pass.

That's not the point. The reason Warner's case was a fumble but Ryan's case not is because in Warner's case the ball was knocked by the defender, therefore Warner losing control of it. In Ryan's case, he was throwing the ball, and the defender grabbed his arm, altering his throwing motion, but he's still throwing the ball.

That's also what NFL said.

Curran: Officials confirm Warner fumbled at game's end - Super Bowl- nbcsports.msnbc.com

According to NFL VP of Officiating Mike Pereira, the replay official upstairs did see the play clearly.

“We confirmed it was a fumble,” said Pereira. “The replay assistant in the replay booth saw it was clearly a fumble. The ball got knocked loose and was rolling in his hand before it started forward. He has to have total control.”

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That's not the point. The reason Warner's case was a fumble but Ryan's case not is because in Warner's case the ball was knocked by the defender, therefore Warner losing control of it. In Ryan's case, he was throwing the ball, and the defender grabbed his arm, altering his throwing motion, but he's still throwing the ball.

That's also what NFL said.

Curran: Officials confirm Warner fumbled at game's end - Super Bowl- nbcsports.msnbc.com

Why did he hit the ball if his arm was way out there? Because Warner was throwing it.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

Why did he hit the ball if his arm was way out there? Because Warner was throwing it.

That's not the point. The point was simply that the ball was hit, and Warner didn't appear to have the control of the ball, as opposed to Ryan's case where the ball was firmly in his grasp.

The two cases aren't similar like you said anyway.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Goody

I side arm or underhand pass is called a pitch, not a forward pass.

Wait, what?

Any throw that goes forward is a forward pass, whether it's overhand, side armed or any other way that makes the ball move forward.

[Goody]

Question
Can a player pass the ball foward using an underhanded passing motion...( or is that an illegal foward pitch?

Answer
Under both rules the NCAA and National Federation (and NFL) it is legal to throw a forward pass underhand. The rules do not govern the type of throw or arm motion when making a forward pass. There is no such foul as an illegal forward pitch.

Victor Winnek
NCAA Football Official
WCFOA, SCCFOA, CFOA, NASO

.

[Goody]

You're right on that.

I still maintain that both players lost their grip on the ball at the same point in the throwing motion. Kurt Warner at least still had the ball inside the perimeter of his hand and it flew down the field...while Matt Ryan's attempt sent the ball laterally.

But its the Steelers. People like them. Why even question it against the Arizona Cardinals?


I'd also like to point out that Ryan's was originally called a fumble, then overturned. Warner's was never reviewed....in the biggest game...on the biggest stage of the season.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Goody

I'd also like to point out that Ryan's was originally called a fumble, then overturned. Warner's was never reviewed....in the biggest game...on the biggest stage of the season.

According to the league, it was reviewed. It's in the quote in my earlier post.

Just that the fumble ruling was pretty clear, so they didn't need to stop the game to review it.

Bottom line, the two plays really aren't that similar.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Goody

.

I am not sure I understand. That rule you just posted backed up exactly what I said.

Unless I misunderstood your initial post.

[His Own Bad Self]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

According to the league, it was reviewed.

<sarcasm> Yes, because who's more trustworthy than the league? That's why people can't find official replays anywhere on the Internet. <end sarcasm>

/still seething over NBA "revelations" of corruption
//done with the NBA

[Jason Moyer]

Surely you mean "Wow, just wow. Play exactly like what ended the Steelers Super Bowl ruled differently." ? Or is that too ambiguous because of the gazillion they've played in?

[Goody]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Surely you mean "Wow, just wow. Play exactly like what ended the Steelers Super Bowl ruled differently." ? Or is that too ambiguous because of the gazillion they've played in?

It would be ambiguous to say "The Steeler's Super Bowl Game where officiating assisted in the win."

Initial reaction
Shortly after the game, Kansas City Star writer Jason Whitlock encapsulated many views when he wrote the day after the game, "Bill Leavy and his crew ruined Super Bowl XL. Am I the only one who would like to hear them defend their incompetence?"[1]

Initially, fans reacted negatively as well. A February 7 online ESPN poll found that, with 103,167 votes cast, 61.7% of voters felt that "officiating mistakes affected the outcome of Super Bowl XL."[2]

Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren himself took issue with the officiating at a celebration for his team on February 6 at Qwest Field, saying, "We knew it was going to be tough going against the Pittsburgh Steelers. I didn't know we were going to have to play the guys in the striped shirts as well."[3]

Three weeks after the game's conclusion, Holmgren resigned his post from the NFL competition committee, a seat he held since 1994. Fellow co-chair Jeff Fisher said Holmgren "never brought up the Super Bowl or anything that happened during the game," yet it was widely reported his departure from the eight-man committee was a protest of the Super Bowl.

In response to the criticisms leveled at the officials, the NFL, just two days after the game, released a statement defending the officials' performance. "The game was properly officiated, including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in a statement.[4]

The game ended a playoffs season that was plagued by complaints about officiating, most notably during the divisional playoff games between the Steelers and Colts, the Broncos and Patriots, and the Bears and Panthers.[5]

Calls against the Seahawks
The following is a list of the most oft-criticized calls that went against the Seahawks:

First Quarter, 2:08 left, score tied 0-0: Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck threw a 16-yard pass that wide receiver Darrell Jackson caught in the end zone, but the play was called back on an offensive pass interference call. Back Judge Bob Waggoner flagged Jackson for pushing off Steelers safety Chris Hope.[6] Seattle had to settle for a Josh Brown field goal. Critics claimed both Jackson and the defensive player were jostling for position and that officials should not have flagged either player. Michael Smith of ESPN wrote that "Jackson extended his arm, yes, but both players were fighting for position, and he didn't create any separation by doing so."[7]

Second Quarter, 2:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0: On third down from the Seattle one-yard line, Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger took the snap, faked a handoff, and dove toward the left side of a pile along the goal-line before being hit by Seahawks linebacker D.D. Lewis. He then extended his arm that was holding the ball to the goal line, though it is unclear as to whether the extension was before or after he was officially down. After first raising one hand (as if to indicate that the quarterback was down), head linesman Mark Hittner raised a second arm to signal a touchdown. The play stood after review, to the considerable ire of Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren, who berated Leavy on the way to the locker room following the first half. The play was hotly debated in the media between those who thought the play should have resulted in a fourth-down-and-inches situation[8] and those who thought the ball crossed the goal line.[9] Roethlisberger appeared on the The Late Show with David Letterman the day after the game and told the host that, immediately after the play, he had told Cowher, "I don’t think I got in," but that the team was "ready to go for it on fourth down anyway."[10] He later explained that he was referring to his initial impression only, and believes "the ball crossed the plane."[11]

Fourth Quarter, 12:35 left, Steelers lead 14-10: Hasselbeck completed an 18-yard pass to tight end Jerramy Stevens at the Steelers 1-yard line. The play was nullified by a penalty against Seattle right tackle Sean Locklear for holding Pittsburgh linebacker Clark Haggans. Color commentator John Madden challenged the call,[12] but others argued that, since NFL rules prohibit the encircling of a defender with hands or arms (i.e., "hooking") and since Locklear did appear briefly to have an arm around Haggans’ neck, the call was correct and not unusual.[13]

Fourth Quarter, 10:54 left, Steelers lead 14-10: Three plays after the nullified pass to Stevens, Hasselbeck threw an interception to Pittsburgh cornerback Ike Taylor, who returned the ball 24 yards. A 15-yard personal foul was whistled against Hasselbeck for a "low block," advancing the Steelers to their own 44-yard line. During the American television broadcast, commentator Al Michaels said, "We think this was a bad call," suggesting that Hasselbeck was not blocking another Pittsburgh player but was instead making a low tackle on a ball carrier, which is legal. However, NFL Network announcer Rich Eisen in a column he wrote for nfl.com claims it was the right call by the rules, even if the rule itself may be defective.[14] Mike Pereira, the Director of Officiating for the NFL, has said that "the call was not correct" and "should not have been made."[15]

Fourth Quarter, 4:45 left, Steelers lead 21-10: With the Steelers' hoping to convert a first down on third-and-six in order to take more time off the clock, Roethlisberger was forced to call a timeout when Pittsburgh had difficulty getting a play off as the play clock ran down. The Steelers were awarded a timeout, but some contended that the play clock hit zero seconds before Roethlisberger called for a timeout, which would have constituted a delay-of-game and resulted in a five-yard penalty against Pittsburgh.[16]

Calls against the Steelers
Although the negative media reaction against the officials was largely due to calls that did not go the Seahawks way, others suggested that there were calls that didn't go the Steelers' way. Gregg Easterbrook of NFL.com wrote:

Four of the six big officiating decisions went against Seattle. Does this mean a pro-Steelers bias, as some in the sports yak world are saying, or perhaps a slap at Mike Holmgren by the officiating guild? ... The two decisions that favored the Hawks were the fourth-quarter replay reversal that gave possession, initially awarded to Pittsburgh, back to Seattle; and the no-call of a block in the back by Seattle during Kelly Herndon's record interception return. Of the four big decisions that favored the Steelers, two seemed correct to me.[17]

Pittsburgh was not called for a single penalty in the second half while Seattle had three, including two of the disputed calls mentioned above.

[Le Grande Orange]

Given the level of disagreement over the outcome of the plays cited above, the list itself means nothing precisely because the outcome of the plays was so close that they could have been ruled either way.

Unless one wishes to assert some sort of active conspiracy on the part of the NFL where it instructs its officiating crews to deliberately favour one club over another.

I chalk up nearly all the complaining over officiating to sour grapes.


Instead, why don't we talk about something more substantive, which is the rules of the game itself? For example, why have the rules been changed to make it easy for teams to intentionally ground the ball and not get called for it? It's ridiculous how easy they've made things for quarterbacks these days in terms of that.

[Skipaway]

Still, the Matt Ryan play was different from the Kurt Warner play, therefore the ruling was different.

[phenom]

I remember that call on Hasselbeck. I remember thinking "Who's he blocking after he threw an interception?"

[jbergey22]

I dont think NFL refs really play favorites. I think in general most of them are just hopeless. The only crew I like is Mike Careys crew. His crew seems to eventually get calls right.