Reply
Mon 6 Feb, 2006 11:10 pm
in my very strong opinion the sea hawks were f*cking robbed of there touch down! i was watching the game with a steelers fan who even said they thought it was a touchdown!! there were many other cheep things going down in that game like the touch down given to the steelers that wasn't deserved because clearly he wasn't inside the line! but thats all im gunna say about the superbowl other than the patriots should have made it to win superbowl XL making that there 3rd consecutive win..but **** happens anyways cant wait till next year in miami!
despite the bad calls that went against them, i don't think seattle played well enough to win.
i was rooting for them, but pittsburgh got it done in the 2nd half.
holmgren's mismanagement of the 2 two-minute drills was pathetic.
stevens had 4 drops -- i think joey porter psyched him out with the mid-week trash-talking...
Region Philbis wrote:holmgren's mismanagement of the 2 two-minute drills was pathetic.
Bottom line is the better team won.
A team has to overcome adversity in order to win. The Seahawks failed to do this. They were on the verge of making some brilliant plays, but always missed by a fraction. The Seahawk clearly put his hands on the Steeler to push off. Another almost brilliant play, but not quite.
Even Madden agreed with the call .
didn' I read something about one ot the hawks having a hanging chad on his shoelace or something?
I agree that Seattle got the worst of the calls, but I don't know how any of us can say that the ball "clearly did not cross the goal line". I must have seen the TV shots more than fifty times and I could never see the ball when the body reached the goal line with the ball clutched against the chest. Maybe the referee saw the ball with his eyes; maybe he didn't, but I certainly can't say one way or the other with any degree of certainty and neither apparently could the replay judge.
The Steeler touchdown was deserved. The replay clearly showed the ball reached the line before it came back under the quarterback.
I'm waiting for a thread like "New England" or "Colts" obviously ought to have played . . .
If the Seahawks should have won, they would have won.
flyboy804 wrote:I agree that Seattle got the worst of the calls, but I don't know how any of us can say that the ball "clearly did not cross the goal line".
And I don't know how anyone can say they felt the ball did cross the goal line, at least from the camera angle on TV.
Either way, I could care less. Patriots weren't playing.
well as long as the patriots make it next year it doesnt matter and i think that tom brady is a way better q/b than peyton manning!
There, there. Everything's going to be all right.
Intentionally or not you are agreeing with me, Slappy. My point was that from the TV available, nothing was clear, yet some people said that they could clearly see.
True.
I don't think it crossed though. And the ref that reviewed the challenge had the leagues lowest % of overtures. Plus the Seattle coach commented how people in the upstairs booth told him some of them felt it wasn't a touchdown.
Wasn't a game breaker anyway.
it looked like the front half of the ball broke the plane.
but what i didn't see was if his knee hit the ground first...
It can be debated forever how the calls went. What seems to be a foregone conclusion is that this was more than likely the worst Super Bowl since the Colts beat Dallas 16-13 a couple of lifetimes ago. The Seahawks looked like a franchise that had never been there before, and the Steelers looked like a sixth-place seed. ...And to think I truly believed that, no matter who won, we would at least have a really good ball game. Wrong again!!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace