NFL News

[EA]

It's the Arizona Cardinals versus the Pittsburgh Steelers for
Superbowl XLIII

The Cardinals took the NFC Championship from the Philadelphia Eagles
32-25. The Steelers won the AFC Championship with a 23-14 win over the
Baltimore Ravens.

This is Arizona's first Superbowl bid despite being a founding member
of the NFL. QB Kurt Warner, 11 year veteran, is currently rated at
96.9. No stranger to the Superbowl, Warner have been on the tough turf
of the national championships twice before.

On the other side of the coin, the Steelers are looking for their 5th
win. They are still quite fresh from their last Superbowl win 3 years
ago with much of their line up intact led by QB Ben Roethlisberger
(Rating 80.1). This will be Roethlisberger's second Superbowl
appearance.

Apart from the QB race, the defense of both teams will be put to the
test. Both are known to be good running teams but the Steelers were
able to stop the run of their opponents all season with a very
formidable defensive line and linebackers.

The Cardinals are also known for making big passing plays. But the
Steelers are also known for an intense zone-blitz anchored on the
league's top strong safety Troy Polamalu.

Watch the Superbowl at Solar Sports, Feb 2, 7AM Manila Time

[yule elben junio]

GO FOR THE GOAL!!! ^_^

[EA]

Congratulations STEELERS!!!

Superbowl XLIII Champions

[Ed Lopez]

Personal Opinion- The last two Steelers Super Bowls should have the refs as co champions , they worked as hard as the Steelers to ensure the championship.

 

1) roughing the passer

2) roughing the holder

3) fumble on last Arizona play costing them a shot or two at the end zone

 

Even with all that , still an improvement over Seattle- Pittsburg two years ago.

 

Which is not saying much. Bad officiating can be decent officiating if it goes both ways.

 

Ed

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:16 AM, EA <elme...@gmail.com> wrote:

Congratulations STEELERS!!!

Superbowl XLIII Champions

[EA]

It's easy to put the blame on a team's loss to bad officiating. But to
say that the refs "ensured" the Steelers' win is going overboard. The
Steelers did a tremendous job and so did Arizona.

But my personal opinion is the Steelers were the better team.
Roethlisberger avoided several key would-be sacks. The defense was
dominating. They executed better. Arizona on the other hand, was
playing very tentatively. You could sense Warner's hesitation on
crucial plays. They didn't play the full 4 quarters in a way that
would overcome Pittsburgh. The Arizona rally came too late and the
Steelers still had enough to finish off with the win.

As for the 3 calls cited, the second and third was explained
adequately by the NFL officiating head here http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80e8fa89.

With the first call, roughing the passer, I would concur that it's a
questionable call. I think the period of time from the throw to the
hit was too close to say it was roughing the passer as compared to the
defender's momentum as he went for the sack. If there was an extra
step or two before he hit Ben then that would be roughing the passer,
but there were no extra steps by the defender before the hit.

The other alternative call to that was intentional grounding but it
was shown that Ben was outside the tackle box. Now, if the referee
believed he was outside the tackle box, hence the no call on
intentional grounding, then my interpretation is that Ben is, by
definition, the ball carrier and the move to tackle him was perfectly
legal and there should have been no roughing the passer foul. However,
if the referee believed he was inside the tackle box then intentional
grounding should have been called.

I think the referee was just calling the play with upholding safety
taking precedence over everything else. He must have felt the hit on
the QB was a little malicious and he didn't want to get things out of
hand. Then again, I wouldn't know for sure.

Bad officiating is when the officials are not doing their job for the
most part. There were 18 penalty calls made. Anything below 10 on a
Superbowl would be bad officiating I think. I believe overall the
officials were on top of the game. There were several calls that
penalized Pittsburgh significantly, like Harrison and Taylor charged
with unnecessary roughness and the offensive holding in the end zone
resulting in a safety score in favor of the Cardinals on a spectacular
pass play that would have bailed the Steelers out of their own end
zone for a first down. There was also that earlier run for TD by
Roethlisberger that was overturned after review, and that was a very
close call also. The point is, clearly the officials were doing their
job.

Now, if I were the Cardinals, I would not like the implication that I
am dependent on the referee's support to win. Officiating is a
circumstantial part of the game and teams should just overcome bad
calls to come out on top. Any way you look at it, putting the blame on
bad officiating in any sport is simply just bad form. I believe the
Cardinals are way better than that.

[Ed Lopez]

I was watching game with about 8 people in a public place. That last pass attempt for Warner, Once it hit the ground about 6 people left the table . I was waiting for a review or something but they ruled it a fumble. and did not even bother for the review. BTW the Seahawks Super Bowl is still discussed by many today.

--
http://edrlopez.blogspot.com/

[EA]

Maybe the review booth went on a pee break. Beer and too much
excitement can be disastrous to the bladder. :D

I do have a contention on that last play although not about the review
or the absence of it as was the case. The rules have "when in doubt"
clauses and insofar as forward passes are concerned, the benefit of
the doubt should be in favor of the pass rather than a fumble. Were
the official unsure of the legitimacy of the fumble it should have
been called an incomplete forward pass.

Now most reviews occur for a fumble but hardly to confirm a forward
pass. So chances are, if it were called an incomplete, no one would
question the lack of review and Warner may have had a chance for a
hail mary on those last 5 seconds. Personally, based on the replays, I
think it was a fumble. Warner's arm was winding backwards when Woodley
touched the ball. Warner lost control before his elbow moved forward.
But if I were on the field, and things were on real time, I would have
called it an incomplete which would be consistent with a call in the
earlier quarters of the same nature.

As for Superbowl XL I wasn't satisfied with the Steelers win.
Roethlisberger's QB sneak should've been called short.

[Ed Lopez]

So we all know what's next. And it's not the Pro Bowl. Its the draft and free agency .

[Ed Lopez]

Just so you know. ESPN talk radio still going on on two other non calls I did not mention.

 

 

a) right after the winning catch , the TV audience was subject to a barrage of replays to verfiy that Holmes was in and rightly so. Close play but his feet were in. What we did not see was Holmes using the ball as a prop in his his post TD celebration which in the past has extracted 15 yards to the receiving team following the kickoff. Holmes was not thrown a flag.

 

b) towards the end Mr. 100 yard interception return ( I forget his name ) threw 3 punches. Again , usually an automatic ejection. Refs swallowed their whistle.

 

 

Ed

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM, EA <elme...@gmail.com> wrote:

[EA]

NFC wins over the AFC 30-21 to grab the 2009 Pro Bowl

Arizona's Larry Fitzgerald gets MVP award

NFC now leads the annual series 20-19