Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,951
    Rep Power
    170

    Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    A lot of Ram fans, myself included, have commented on the endless whining coming from the Northwest about the officiating in the Super Bowl.

    Many Seahawk fans have responded by attempting to draw a parallel to Ram fans' reaction to the Super Bowl loss to New England.

    Now, I will not deny that many Ram fans blame the refs for that loss, and some even saw it as some sort of Post 9/11 Pro-Patriotism conspiracy.

    I am not among those extremists, but I did think there was a problem with the officiating in that game.

    That said, there is a significant difference between the officiating issues in Super Bowls 36 and 40.

    In SB36, the Patriots recognized that NFL officials had been adopting a "let them play" attitude in the playoffs for years. From this recognition came a deliberate strategy - hit the Ram receivers, hold if necessary, but don't let them run their routes. In other words, the Patriots deliberately broke the rules, and banked on the officials letting those infractions go unchecked. This strategy paid off for the most part (the refs finally calling a hold on Faulk in the Red Zone), and allowed the Patriots to win a narrow 3 point victory.

    In SB40, the Steelers had no strategy of breaking the rules. Rather, they were the beneficiaries of a few close calls on key plays. Whether you agree that these calls were made correctly or not, to the extent that the Steelers gained from these calls, it was merely the luck of the draw. And, unlike SB36, the game margin was significant - 11 points.

    So, there is a very important difference. Being mad about "luck of the draw" close calls by officials is like being mad at the weather or freak injuries. Like it or not, these things are part of the game, and you have to overcome them to win it all.

    Being mad at a team that deliberately broke rules - and a league that (until two years later after the Patriots pulled the same crap on the Colts and the league started enforcing the rules again) allowed such infractions to continue with impunity - well, that's a different issue altogether.

    So, Seahawk fans... no, you don't know our pain.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -04-02-2006 at 11:22 PM.


  2. #2
    RamsFan16 Guest

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    I agree.And isn't there a site that has proof of that?

  3. #3
    UtterBlitz's Avatar
    UtterBlitz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,439
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Nice analysis Avenger. The Patriots did win because they were breaking the rules and getting away with it. The Seahawks super bowl could have been closer if the officials called the game differently, but I don't think they played well enough to win.

    I just wish that the NFL would change their ways and have full time officials that are well trained and accountable. I would love to see more consistancy with the penalty calling.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #4
    UtterBlitz's Avatar
    UtterBlitz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,439
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    Now, I will not deny that many Ram fans blame the refs for that loss, and some even saw it as some sort of Post 9/11 Pro-Patriotism conspiracy.
    Let's not forget how much money is at stake during these big games.

    I just watched the Mason basketball game and I have heard how much new money will now be finding its way to George Mason. Being in the Final Four, will make Mason a more recognized school, even though basketball has nothing to do with the education system. I would imagine that a lot of non-basketball fans watched the Mason game just because it was a good "cinderella" story and the general public loves stories.

    I think there was a reason for the general public to be rooting for the Patriots to win that season after the 9/11 attacks.

    A lot of things may be done just to build interest from the general public. We certainly saw a lot of build up around Bettis and how wonderful a man and a player he is this year. That was for the general public.

    There is a lot of money to be made during the broadcasts of these games. Money is a big motivator.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #5
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,554
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Here are the two calls that bothered me during the game, I’m not a hags fan and I wanted them too lose the game. But these two call where killers.

    Fox Sports - Michael David Smith Break down of holding in Super Bowl XL

    Hand(s) or arm(s) that encircle a defender — i.e., hook an opponent — are to be considered illegal and officials are to call a foul for holding. Blocker cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an opponent in a manner that restricts his movement as the play develops.
    — Digest of rules, 2005 NFL Record & Fact Book, Page 770

    By the above definition of holding, Seattle Seahawks right tackle Sean Locklear committed holding on the controversial fifth play of the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XL. He hooked his right arm around the right shoulder of Pittsburgh linebacker Clark Haggans and restricted Haggans' movement. The call negated a pass that would have given Seattle first-and-goal at the 1-yard line. By the letter of the rules, it was the right call.

    But if something is a penalty on one play, it should be a penalty on every play. And during the rest of the game, the officials didn't enforce holding by the letter of the rules. To determine whether the holding call was justified, I studied the tape of Super Bowl XL, watching both offensive tackles on every passing play to see how often they committed the type of infraction for which Locklear was penalized. The results are bad news for the NFL: Using the standard that was applied to Locklear on the infamous play, the four offensive tackles committed 22 uncalled holding penalties on passing plays.
    By the letter of the rules, Locklear committed holding 10 times (he was flagged twice). Seattle left tackle Walter Jones should have been called six times. Pittsburgh tackles Marvel Smith and Max Starks should have been called four times each.

    What would fans say if NFL officials call every one of these holding penalties. Better yet how effective would either teams passing game have been if officials called every hold? Would Locklear or Jones have finished the game if they did?

    I'm sure your could find numbers like this every Sunday.



    The Hasselbeck 15-yard penalty -- Three plays after the Locklear hold, Hasselbeck threw a crucial interception to Ike Taylor, whom Hasselbeck brought down by diving into Taylor's thighs. Hasselbeck got called for a low block that tacked on an extra 15 yards to the end of Taylor's run. With the penalty occurring three snaps after the Locklear flag and four snaps before the backbreaking 43-yard Antwaan Randle El to Ward touchdown and Hasselbeck not "blocking" anybody.

    This call was discussed on the NFL channel and was the only one the head ref said they got wrong. 15 yards with the game on the line is Hugh and this was not even close.



    I’m not saying these calls would have changed the out come of the game, but it did not help. I also read somewhere that before the game, terrible towels where handed out for free. I’m not sure if that happened but if it did, that’s says a lot about the NFL.

  6. #6
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,951
    Rep Power
    170

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Man, it seems like Utter is the only one who read my post.

    I didn't start this thread to re-hash specific calls. I just wanted to make a point that there is a distinction here:

    Patriots: deliberately broke rules and got away with it because refs failed to enforce them.

    Steelers: were the beneficiaries of some close and, to some extent, debatable calls.

    That's it. Please, I beg of you... don't use this thread as a platform to rehash other issues.

  7. #7
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,554
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    What is the different between a non-call and a bad call?

    Aren’t the end results the same?

    Non-call, WR getting held.

    Bad call, low block that was in fact a tackle…

  8. #8
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,951
    Rep Power
    170

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Who said the distinction was between non-calls and bad calls?

    I said the distinction was between deliberate rule violations which went uncalled (Patriots) and the mere luck of being the beneficiary of some close calls (Steelers).
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -04-03-2006 at 04:48 PM.

  9. #9
    UtterBlitz's Avatar
    UtterBlitz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,439
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    Man, it seems like Utter is the only one who read my post.
    Proof that I have reading comprehension skills.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #10
    RamsFanSam's Avatar
    RamsFanSam is online now Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Springfield, Missouri, United States
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,695
    Rep Power
    72

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Well, Utter, I got it, too.

    I didn't see a reason to post anything right off, because I thought Av did a good enough job of explaining it.

    Of course, next year we will all hear about how Seattle was once such a great team, ala SF.LOL

  11. #11
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    9,554
    Rep Power
    75

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    and the mere luck of being the beneficiary of some close calls (Steelers).
    I would say this was more then some bad luck. If the calls went 50/50 or 60/40 one way or another I could see that but they did fall that evenly. AV you are splitting hairs, either way both teams got the shaft.

  12. #12
    Varg6's Avatar
    Varg6 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,633
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Not only do they NOT understand our pain, but they do not realize that we could've been the patriots of this decade, we could've been that team that won 3 (atleast 2 would've been nice, and I think it was BULL that it didn't happen but whatever) we were very close to being in the ranks with the other "elite" teams from the past if you will. So seahawks fans, I don't wanna hear it, besides this year, when were you ever that good? and btw look at the teams they played. They almost got beat by the cardinals who were terrible, I just don't think they were all that great, and they should've lost that one giants game with feely missing 3 fgs, and they didn't play the colts in their prime, so whatever, they were just a decent team that got lucky to even have a presense in the SB


    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

  13. #13
    UtterBlitz's Avatar
    UtterBlitz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,439
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFanSam
    Well, Utter, I got it, too.

    I didn't see a reason to post anything right off, because I thought Av did a good enough job of explaining it.
    Don't mind me...I was just taking a moment to pat myself on the back.

  14. #14
    bigredman Guest

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Quote Originally Posted by Varg6
    Not only do they NOT understand our pain, but they do not realize that we could've been the patriots of this decade, we could've been that team that won 3 (atleast 2 would've been nice, and I think it was BULL that it didn't happen but whatever) we were very close to being in the ranks with the other "elite" teams from the past if you will.
    I agree totally. If the Rams hadn't pushed Vermeil out, and put Martz in as head coach, I am convinced we would have won at least one more Super Bowl, and been in at least 4.

  15. #15
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,603
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses

    Quote Originally Posted by UtterBlitz
    Don't mind me...I was just taking a moment to pat myself on the back.
    Rest easy Blitz,you're not the only one doing that here. This whole thread is a re-hash of something that seems pretty plain to me.............

    The refs had a bad game.

    There's no difference.

    There's no conspiracy.

    It's a matter of opinion that "deliberate" rule violations occurred during our SB loss but not the Seahawks. It's by no means definitive.

    I agree with Rambos, there's some hair splitting going on here.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •