Super Bowl: Steelers Cardinals
- Thread starter Sxotty
- Start date
I thought they would review it, but I don't think it would have gotten over turned. The arm moved forward, but he did not have control of the ball so it was clearly a fumble. Still given there was only one play left afteward anyway I would not get my self in a tizzy over it anyway unless I was excited about getting myself in a tizzy. After watching it one of the things I think if adding another ref behind the QB to see the constant blatant holding might not be a bad idea, though it would ruin tradition I guess.
Yuck you sound like my father. Be a man, football was meant to be played outside, not in a dome.
Yuck you sound like my father. Be a man, football was meant to be played outside, not in a dome.
Yea , be a man and stop for comercial breaks !!!
Seriously though I love the snow games up in jersey as much as the next guy but 1.6B on a stadium and you can't get the biggest event of that sport there ? Why even bother ?
I think its crazy to limit where the games are played to begin with but come on building a 1.6b stadium and not putting on a dome.... seriously
The only benefit to a dome imo is they could have hosted concerts in the winter
Super Bowl
I can live without it.
You're right about the dome. It would be a decent place to have a concert especially since it would be cheaper access to those not living in NYC.
I fell asleep during the first half the game. Had too much beer at first and wasn't coherent at all. Sobered up a bit for the second half and was rooting for the Cardinals in my mind. All my friends wanted the Steelers to win. Some of them made a comment that Arizona deserves the loss to rub it in their face and relating it to the election.
Some guy made a comment about not reviewing fumbles and things like that during the last 2 minutes of a quarter or the game, or that the teams are not allowed to ask for a review. I know little of football.
I fell asleep during the first half the game. Had too much beer at first and wasn't coherent at all. Sobered up a bit for the second half and was rooting for the Cardinals in my mind. All my friends wanted the Steelers to win. Some of them made a comment that Arizona deserves the loss to rub it in their face and relating it to the election.
Some guy made a comment about not reviewing fumbles and things like that during the last 2 minutes of a quarter or the game, or that the teams are not allowed to ask for a review. I know little of football.
Coaches cannot ask for review at the end of the game it has to come from the officials in the booth. They did review one and not the other fumble/pass. The last one was actually IMO a fumble as there are pictures showing that Warner did not have control as his hand came forward which is the prerequisite for it not to be a fumble. The defender had his hand on the ball when it was back not on Warners arm. When they only get the arm the quarterback can fling it forward and get it called an incomplete pass to save a sack, but when the defender has his hand on the ball they are pretty much screwed b/c it is going to come loose as soon as it starts going forward which makes it a fumble.
I don't know if I would go that far. Let's say the call was reversed, what are the odds the Cardinals score a touchdown on a 50+ yard hail mary? And while I feel the call should have at the very least been looked at, I do believe it was fairly clear it was a fumble. Ultimately (and most importantly), the call was right.
I read that there was a penalty called against the Steelers on the play, so the ball actually would have been on the 30 yard line, which is very doable in one play.
I don't know if it was a fumble or not because I don't know the exact ruling. It looked like his arm was moving forward to throw, but the ball was falling out of his hand pretty early in the motion. If someone can explain how the fumble is determined, I might have more of an opinion.
It seemed like it would be worth a longer look, at least, but maybe by the rule it is very clear cut.
Well it was a personal foul call iirc, so best case scenario it would have been placed at the 35 (full disclosure, I don't know the exact rules in this situation, just guessing where the ball would be placed). Having said that, I don't find a 35 (or 30 even) yard hail mary "very doable in one play". It's still extremely unlikely that Cardinals score a touchdown in that circumstance.
The ball was moving around in his hand as he started his throwing motion, thus a fumble.
I know I was wondering what the heck the guy said to him to make him blow his cool that bad. That penalty hurt the steelers quite badly.
I'm not saying the Cardinals would have won the game or that the call was even going to be reversed. But going to review and a on field explanation would have made people saying its a bad call mute.
As for a 50 yard throw by the Cardinals... higher than any other team in the NFL.
They can always get a pass interference call on the defense. The game can't end of a defensive penalty so they'd get an additional play with no time left on the clock.
I'm not going to argue something that subjective. To me, the Cards got a bad call.
If you would like they could have dithered around for five minutes and told you the same exact thing. Or they could let the game play out instead of interrupting it when they already had clearly decided upstairs (that is where the replay decision is made in case you forgot). It was fairly obvious in slow motion it was a fumble, if you don't think so I can understand wishful thinking, but I personally don't engage that much in it in football. I even though Santonio missed the touchdown at first until they replayed it in slow motion.
The one thing I learned is it is illegal to pull a player into the touchdown as the steelers tried the one time (though they did not get it on review anyway). I was not aware of that rule, but it made me wonder if it is illegal to push as well since all teams do that all the time.
I don't know why the cards are so upset about the officiating. Number 69 did hold on almost every play and could have been called way more often. Fitzgeralds catch in the end zone would normally have a 50% chance of being ruled an incompletion. He had it on his helmet, the ball hit the ground before his hands, the ball moved in his hands when it did so. That often is counted as an incompletion. I was wondering why the steelers did not challenge that, but Tomlin chose not to. Perhaps it was b/c the cards would have like 2 more chances from the 1 yard line so there was no point, but it seemed foolish to me. (I am not talking about the superb 64 yard catch and run, but rather another superb catch in the endzone.) And I did think he caught it well enough as I think the rules is often applied poorly in that situation where the refs say the ground assisted with the catch when in reality the ground interferes by jarring the bowl partially loose.
Last edited by a moderator:
