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

[AvengerRam]

It's a matter of opinion that "deliberate" rule violations occurred during our SB loss .

Not true. Patriot players and coaches have admitted that their strategy was to prevent the Ram receivers from running their routes, and they did the same thing to Indianapolis.

So, no... there was no conspiracy, but...

Yes, there is a difference.

[UtterBlitz]

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.

No it is not definitive, but it is very possible.

I think the Patriots had plenty of time to learn that they were going to get away with breaking the rules because they managed to break rules throughout the post season and they were never reprimanded for it. Go ask a Raider fan, or a Steeler fan, what they thought of the Patriots that year. I'll bet they will tell you that they broke rules and got away with close wins that they did not deserve.

So by the time the SB rolled around, I would bet that the pats "deliberate" plan was to break the rules and win the game. They were successful.

[bluengreen]

No, I don't think the officiating was at all even handed. Yes, I think it affected the game in a big way. I was pissed as any 'Hawks fan during and shortly after the game.

BUT

the 'Hawks had every opportunity to win the game anyways. Jeremy Stevens could have single handedly won it for them just by not dropping passes for instance. You just CAN'T blame the refs no matter how crappy you might think them. I sure hope they get over the whole idea that the refs decided it and start thinking about how THEY could have won the game by the time the next season starts.

It still sucks, though.

[HUbison]

Don't mind me...I was just taking a moment to pat myself on the back.

And a well-deserved pat it was, utter. BTW, congrats on hitting 1500.

[Rambos]

have heard this many times from sound bites from the field during a game “if you’re not cheating you’re r not trying”.

As far as the Rams SB, I have never watched that game more then once due to, I can’t. But I do recall we had the momentum late in the 4th quarter. All we had to do was stop a rookie QB from a last minute drive and a long one at that. But we did the classic sit back and get picked apart; if we stop them on that drive we most likely win. Had nothing to do with them grabbing WR at that point.

[AvengerRam]

have heard this many times from sound bites from the field during a game “if you’re not cheating you’re r not trying”.

Its pretty sad that you think that is a valid argument.

[r8rh8rmike]

It may not be the right thing to do, but pushing the limits to see where the boundries lie is part of sports. Strike zones in baseball, foul calls in basketball and holding calls in football will never be consistently called game in, game out. Right or wrong, how a game is officiated remains a dynamic factor that has to be adjusted for and taken advantage of in order to be competitive. Sad? Maybe, but it's also a reality that has to be dealt with.

[Fat Pang]

Not true. Patriot players and coaches have admitted that their strategy was to prevent the Ram receivers from running their routes, and they did the same thing to Indianapolis.

So, no... there was no conspiracy, but...

Yes, there is a difference.

Refereeing is unfortunately as subjective a field of human activity as it's possible to find. 'Interpretations' of rules abound and those rules are subject to Human judgement that's being exercised in a split second.

I've yet to hear of a Patriots defender from that game hold his hand up and say "We cheated our way to the SuperBowl with deliberate rule infractions designed to prevent opposing receivers from running their routes". They played to the limits allowed by the referees who obviously used an interpretation of the rules that allowed them to do it.

Do I agree with it?

No.

Do I understand it?

Yes

As far as recent events, particularly the holding call against Locklear, which has been contrasted with the non-calls against both Steeler and Hawks linemen in that game, again it's a question of subjectivity.

The Hawks consistently put themselves in iffy situations that a penalty then compounded. I saw the game, and I thought they got the s****y end of the stick as far as some of the decisions went.

As was the case with the Rams, but for me both teams had chances to win the game outside of those iffy refereeing decisions and their failure to take them cost them the game.

It's the same thing, and I don't see how we help ourselves by trying to point out that we have some kind of moral superiority because Pats defenders have admitted they tried to stop us doing what we do best.

All teams play to the edge of refereeing interpretation of the rule book and the guidelines handed down to the NFL in the offseason.

If anything we should be commiserating with each other o the fallibility of referees not trying to justify who got stiffed the most by pointing to statements from players whose job is to stop people from doing what they do best.

And that's it 'Once and for all'....................

[AvengerRam]

Fat Pang, I like you. I like what you post. I like what you add to these boards.

But, I'm sorry...

That last post was the biggest pile of relativist gibberish I've ever had the misfortune of reading here.

Grabbing receivers while they run their routes is a penalty. There's no "interpretation of the rules" involved.

The Patriots deliberately broke rules on the (unfortunately correct) belief that it wouldn't be called.

The Steelers did not break any rules.

If you can't see the difference... well, I can't help you.

[UtterBlitz]

You tell it as you see it, Avenger, and you don't pull your punches. I like that about you.

We will have to wait and see if you praised Fat Pang enough to stun him into silence.

[Rambos]

Originally Posted by Rambos
have heard this many times from sound bites from the field during a game “if you’re not cheating you’re r not trying”.

Its pretty sad that you think that is a valid argument.

You never heard that holding could be called on every play? That’s all I meant by that, I’m not saying cheating is ok, not at all. And if I did, which I don’t please don’t take personal shots at people not cool.

[Rambos]

All teams play to the edge of refereeing interpretation of the rule book and the guidelines handed down to the NFL in the offseason.

I agree with Fat Pang, players and coaches take it to the limit.

[AvengerRam]

You never heard that holding could be called on every play? That’s all I meant by that, I’m not saying cheating is ok, not at all. And if I did, which I don’t please don’t take personal shots at people not cool.

Where did I take a personal shot at anyone?

Yes, I've heard the cliche that "holding can be called on every play," but that does not mean its okay for a coach to tell his O linemen "go ahead and hold as much as possible until the refs call it." In fact, all that cliche means is that it is very difficult to block without holding to some extent, so the penalty is often called based upon the degree of the holding.

Pass interference is different. You can never legally hold a receiver running a pattern, and you can't touch them after 5 yards. That's a simple rule. There's no question of degree or interpretation.

[Rambos]

Where did I take a personal shot at anyone?

Its pretty sad that you think that is a valid argument.

I think you are saying I have some ethics issues with this statement.

I can assure that I don’t in my field; it would get me in some big trouble.

Yes, I've heard the cliche that "holding can be called on every play,"

It’s ok to hold as long as your hands on the numbers, grab the uniform and keep your hands inside you will not be called they teach that. It’s still holding.

but that does not mean its okay for a coach to tell his O linemen "go ahead and hold as much as possible until the refs call it."

I agree, the coaches should not go out and tell players to cheat. I don’t know how many late hits Warner took, during both SB games. Even if they got called for a late hit, which they weren’t, it was worth it if they could hurt or slow Warner down. The best defensive against the Rams at that time was hit Warner as many times in a game as you could, so yes I agree with you, that cheating or breaking the rules should not be the game plan.



Sometimes the rules are some what fuzzy at best.

I would say that a false start is what it is; everyone in the stadium can see it and understand the infraction when it happens. But holding, the rules are not so cut and dry. Yeah we all can see it when a guy get tackled or is grabbing from behind when he is clearly beat. There also is the holding called, when I watch the replay, I can’t see it. The holding call against the hawks, that was technically a holding call I guess, I did not see it. But when the head ref has to break it down and read the rule while the play is happen in slow motion to explain a holding call is a bit much to take. It's like ice skating, a little too subjective.

It’s all good I will get of this topic, like I stated earlier I have never watched the Rams SB lose on tape, because you can’t change a thing.

[Fat Pang]

You tell it as you see it, Avenger, and you don't pull your punches. I like that about you.

We will have to wait and see if you praised Fat Pang enough to stun him into silence.

Ah, Blitz you know me better than that....................



Referees in that game must have been on my relativist gibberist wavelength otherwise we'd have won that game by a canter. We didn't, hence interpretation must have been the rule on that particular day and many other since.

Otherwise, apart from them being as blind as mad bob on WD40, what on Earth could have persuaded them to miss those calls?

Conspiracy anyone?