Steelers @ Seahawks Game Day

[West Union KennyG]

Perfect football day...

Bengals win; Stealer loss.

3 games back now, with just 5 to play.

[6andcounting]

(11-29-2015, 10:14 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Seriously, you're perpetuating the Steelers fan stereotype by bitching about the officiating...for a NOT Super Bowl game...against the SEAHAWKS.

The issue with NFL officiating is much bigger than one game or one team. It's been terrible this year and the NFL has always been reluctant to make any meaningful changes, such as full-time refs. I think they will have to address the issue this off season, and I hope it's more than a show to quiet the fans.

[StoneTheCrow]

(11-29-2015, 10:26 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The issue with NFL officiating is much bigger than one game or one team. It's been terrible this year and the NFL has always been reluctant to make any meaningful changes, such as full-time refs. I think they will have to address the issue this off season, and I hope it's more than a show to quiet the refs.

I have zero argument with this.

[6andcounting]

(11-29-2015, 10:14 PM)kevin Wrote: I said before the replay that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the refs interception call, and that is what replay officials decided....I think the TV announcers confused the issue by questioning who had the ball out of bounds. Yes, they both had their hands on it out of bounds, the rear ends both out of bounds, BUT....out of bounds doesn't mean anything.....only in bounds means anything...The refs call was that the Seattle player had it in bounds, and there sure wasn't enough replay evidence to overturn that. ...Unless there is clear and undisputed evidence, the play stands as called....anything that happened out of bounds means nothing.

I think the initial call was wrong, but I agree it problably has to stand on the replay.

I know what the rule book says is a catch, but I have no idea what it actually means at this point.

[kevin]

(11-29-2015, 10:29 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I think the initial call was wrong, but I agree it problem has to stand on the replay.

I know what the rule book says is a catch, but I have no idea what it actually means at this point.

again....the key words are UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE.....forget everything that happened out of bounds. Two players on their rear ends out of bounds fighting for the football. Out of bounds means nothing.....The ref said the Seattle player had it in bounds.....To change that would have taken UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, and there wasn't any.........and you want and need UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE.  We can't have Las Vegas gamblers changing the calls because they go against the Las Vegas point spread. That seemed to be the problem in the 1980's when they tried replay and it was all done in New York or some place. It seemed the calls always went in favor of Las Vegas.  One play was Boomer Esiason throwing a 35 yard TD pass, and New York replay said he was in the grasp, no TD. Announcer Joe Namath couldn't believe a 35 yard TD pass was changed to a sack and he said something is wrong with the game. ....I'm glad they got rid of that form of 1980's replay .....Undisputed Evidence is very much needed to keep replay out of the gamblers hands. 

[cinci4life]

(11-29-2015, 10:29 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I think the initial call was wrong, but I agree it problably has to stand on the replay.

I know what the rule book says is a catch, but I have no idea what it actually means at this point.

The initial call was spot on. I think the sideline ref right there knew that the Pitt player was trying to get an incomplete call with the late strip and didn't fall for it.

[6andcounting]

(11-29-2015, 10:40 PM)kevin Wrote: again....the key words are UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE.....forget everything that happened out of bounds. Two players on their rear ends out of bounds fighting for the football. Out of bounds means nothing.....The ref said the Seattle player had it in bounds.....To change that would have taken UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE

Out of bounds matters because a player still has to maintain possess as the fall out of bounds. I agree that the call should have to stand on the replay.

[6andcounting]

(11-29-2015, 10:53 PM)cinci4life Wrote: The initial call was spot on. I think the sideline ref right there knew that the Pitt player was trying to get an incomplete call with the late strip and didn't fall for it.

This makes the most sense, but the rule overturned Megatrons TD and has overturned similar otherwise obvious catches as well. It's a murky rule that's called inconsistently.

[BernLock]

(11-29-2015, 11:00 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Out of bounds matters because a player still has to maintain possess as the fall out of bounds. I agree that the call should have to stand on the replay.

The defender had control of the ball fell in bounds. As he was sliding out of bounds bryant started to pry the ball out. It was clearly an int with possesion. Look at when he falls to the ground. Firm control, down by contact, end of play

[WildCat]

the rule states you must maintain possession through the catch. chancellor did not. call on the field, evidence to overturn it, etc.. wasn't able to overturn the pick, bad call. anyone watch the shitty refs call 49'ers / cardinals game? bad call on "roughing the passer" which set up palmer to basically get a "non-call" delay of game, which was the pass he made to set up his game winning TD. 6 is right, the ref's are really really shitty this year. NFL needs to address this issue.

[QueenCitySouth]

That INT proved to be huge. Call could have gone either way though.

[Essex Johnson]

(11-30-2015, 11:27 AM)QueenCitySouth Wrote: That INT proved to be huge. Call could have gone either way though.

I don;t think so.. they were still down 9 points with less than 2 minutes left in game and no timeouts I believe...  to think they would have scored and gotten a onside and then also score again is very very slim. 

[6andcounting]

(11-30-2015, 01:18 AM)BernLock Wrote: The defender had control of the ball fell in bounds. As he was sliding out of bounds bryant started to pry the ball out. It was clearly an int with possesion. Look at when he falls to the ground. Firm control, down by contact, end of play

Hitting the ground with possession isn't enough. The player has to maintain full control after bouncing and rolling on the ground. Bryant stripped it as he was still rolling.

[6andcounting]

(11-30-2015, 11:27 AM)QueenCitySouth Wrote: That INT proved to be huge. Call could have gone either way though.

It technically ended the Steelers chance of winning, but that chance was close enough to zero even if it was ruled incomplete.

[cinci4life]

(11-30-2015, 01:18 AM)BernLock Wrote: The defender had control of the ball fell in bounds. As he was sliding out of bounds bryant started to pry the ball out. It was clearly an int with possesion. Look at when he falls to the ground. Firm control, down by contact, end of play

100% agree and not because I hate Pitt. That strip came well after he maintained going to the ground.

[cinci4life]

(11-30-2015, 03:11 AM)WildCat Wrote: the rule states you must maintain possession through the catch. chancellor did not. call on the field, evidence to overturn it, etc.. wasn't able to overturn the pick, bad call. anyone watch the shitty refs call 49'ers / cardinals game? bad call on "roughing the passer" which set up palmer to basically get a "non-call" delay of game, which was the pass he made to set up his game winning TD. 6 is right, the ref's are really really shitty this year. NFL needs to address this issue.

That reminded me of the game years ago we had against Tampa Bay when we sacked the QB on 4th down to basically end the game and somehow there was roughing the passer. That still pisses me off to this day.

[*Awful Llama*]

(11-30-2015, 06:54 PM)cinci4life Wrote: That reminded me of the game years ago we had against Tampa Bay when we sacked the QB on 4th down to basically end the game and somehow there was roughing the passer. That still pisses me off to this day.

2006. Justin Smith. We win that game and we get a playoff birth. Believe Marvin asked in the post-game presser if Justin was supposed to "cradle" the QB all the way to the ground.

[6andcounting]

(11-30-2015, 08:29 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: 2006. Justin Smith. We win that game and we get a playoff birth. Believe Marvin asked in the post-game presser if Justin was supposed to "cradle" the QB all the way to the ground.

Cradling is still probably still a penalty. Timmons now knows 2 hand tagging the qb is a penalty as well.

[Se ky bengal]

(11-29-2015, 09:52 PM)West Union KennyG Wrote: This game is sick!  I can't believe that fat Pittsburgh QB has almost 500 yards of passing in this game.  
We have to hit him harder in the next game.

As was pointed out in another thread, he had 50 attempts. He should have had 400 or better.