Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30
  1. #16
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Disagree. Good defenders are able to anticipate the snap count and get great starts all the time that are not called. This is one of those times, IMO.
    Again, I've watched this entire play dozens of times in super slo-mo, and Haggins' anticipation looks a little too good. I would admit that it's a close call and I don't fault the officials for missing it. I do fault them for missing the nose tackle being clearly lined up in the neutral zone. Maybe someone else can take a look and offer a second opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Um, that's entirely incorrect. Let me repost the rule for you. As you can see, a lineman can be called for holding without grabbing onto the jersey. While grabbing onto the jersey does constitute holding, it's not the only condition in which the penalty can be called. It can also be called when a lineman encircles (aka hooks) a defender with an arm to prevent his path to the ball carrier, and that's exactly what Locklear did when trying to block Haggins.
    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, but the only hook I see is the one Haggins has on Locklear's right arm, which your first pic clearly shows IMO.

    The bottom line here is had Seattle taken care of business on the things they had control over, this play would not have been a turning point. Regardless of the officiating, Seattle has only themselves to blame for the loss.


  2. #17
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    We'll just have to agree to disagree on this
    It would appear so, because I don't think Haggins was offsides, and I don't think he was the one who was hooking. Why would Haggins hook Locklear's arm and impede his own progress to the passer? The animated shot is a much better showing of how it happened, because you can see Locklear move his arm and encircle it around Haggins' shoulder to hook him and hinder his progress, which is a hold. But like you said, we can agree to disagree on it.

  3. #18
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Why would Haggins hook Locklear's arm and impede his own progress to the passer?
    Why indeed? But if you look at your first pic, it's obvious that Haggins right arm is pinning Locklear's right arm against his chest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    The animated shot is a much better showing of how it happened, because you can see Locklear move his arm and encircle it around Haggins' shoulder to hook him and hinder his progress, which is a hold.
    What I see from the video clip is Haggins jerk his right shoulder into Locklear, causing Locklear's arm to go across Haggins' torso (as the pics show), no where near his shoulder. Haggins then pins Locklear's arm (again, as the pics show), jerking his shoulder a second time, creating the hindered progress you alluded to.

    Too bad we don't have another angle, because I'm sure it would show one of us being right.

  4. #19
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    Why indeed? But if you look at your first pic, it's obvious that Haggins right arm is pinning Locklear's right arm against his chest.
    No, I don't think it's obvious.

    I think Locklear's arm is there because he's trying to hold Haggans back, aka hook him, not because he's some victim of circumstance and Haggans is guilty of everything.

    And there are three visual images that show Haggans blowing past Locklear, and Locklear's right arm encircling and hooking Haggans to hinder his path to the QB. Whether or not you think Haggans pinned Locklear's arm there doesn't change the fact that it was in fact there and he was hindering Haggans' path. Thus, a hold, IMO.

    But like you said, we can simply agree to disagree. Obviously neither of us is budging on what we believe we saw.

  5. #20
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Yea, we definitely see things differently. It was a bang bang play and just one of those things. Too bad Seattle didn't put themselves into a better position to deal with it.

  6. #21
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike
    Yea, we definitely see things differently. It was a bang bang play and just one of those things. Too bad Seattle didn't put themselves into a better position to deal with it.
    Agreed. Even if we can't agree on the penalty, we can both agree that Seattle still had the ball and had plenty of chances to get back to the one yard line. Instead, they blew it, like they had been doing all day, and turned the ball over.

  7. #22
    rams_fan81's Avatar
    rams_fan81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    ohio
    Age
    21
    Posts
    520
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    They didn't have the ball on the 1 yard line though did they nick.

  8. #23
    Milan's Avatar
    Milan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    22
    Posts
    1,081
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    Here's is why there was a questionable hold (which, I do not think was a hold)...the DE was offsides and that naturally put Locklear at a disadvantage of having to catch up. If the DE hadn't been offsides then he never would have beaten Locklear around the corner and he never would have been near Hass. In the video you can clearly see the DE start to move before Locklear. Look at the second picture you posted....Locklear never actually grabbed his jersey. Never. He had a hand on him as he went around the corner, as all offensive blockers should, but he never grabbed the jersey (which would constitute a hole). How can you have a holding call when there is no actual holding going on, just blocking. All the offensive players thought they had a free play on that play because #53 was offsides (the officials just didn't call it)
    The Extent of holding isn't jersey holding.
    Last season on my football team the coach explained how if you put your hands outside the defender that the refs would call a holding.

  9. #24
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by rams_fan81
    They didn't have the ball on the 1 yard line though did they nick.
    No, but they didn't need it at the one to score. Their other touchdown came from 16 yards out. Were the refs to blame for Hasselbeck being sacked on 1st & 20 from the 29 too? Or for Hasselbeck's horrible interception? Come on.

  10. #25
    rawkhrdr's Avatar
    rawkhrdr is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Auburn, WA
    Posts
    248
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by moklerman
    Yeah, until Seattle fans explain away the 3+ dropped passes, horrible clock management, interception, non-call on Stevens' catch and fumble, 2 missed field goals and giving up a 75(!) yard td run to Willie Parker and 43 yard double reverse, wr pass for a td, I'm not going to worry about them squaking about the officials. It was a relatively clean game of officiating as far as I'm concerned.
    Here is the explanation for those...as best as I can do. Dropped passes happen to every team once in a while. Jerramy Stevens had a bad day. But he would have had a much better day had the refs not taken away one of his catches.
    Horrible Clock Management= specifically the two minute drill. This was aminly due to mis-communication between the coach and Hass. One couldn't hear the other. And when they lined up, the Steelers were showing a look that they had not seen all day. This caused Hass to audible, wasting time. I know that is not an excuse, it is what happened, and it happens to the best of teams every once in a while.
    Interception= Every team suffers through them...hell Roethlisberger threw two of them that very same day. I do not see why an in terception should have to be explained. But to be fair, it was 3rd and 29 or something, and everyone in the stadium knew they were throwing. You think maybe Pitt knew also...and was in a defense to maybe maximize picking off an errant throw?
    Non call= again that was a referee's decision to blow that play incomplete. however, I would have rather had them call it as a fumble...then Pitt would have had worse field position. One play later Rouen kicked it into the end zone and gave them a touchback...if it was a fumble they would have had it inside the ten.
    Missed Field Goals= to be fair, both field goals were 50 yards or over, which has a very low conversion percentage. Josh Brown ususally converts those though, and I think it is safe to say he was having a bad day. But he barely missed them.
    75 yard TD run= Probably the worst defensive play of the game for the Hawks. Michael Boulware was late to read the play and was out of position. Lofa and another LB overpursued and Parker hit the hole perfectly. again, a play that every team gives up once in a while...
    Double Reverse= If you watch this play, you will notice that there are linemen down field...it should have been a penalty for ILLEGAL MEN DOWNFIELD...instead of a TD.
    Now the relatively clean game part is pure bull. I think I have made it pretty clear where I stand, and I don't think that these facts have anything to do with the refs. The Steelers were a good team to even be here in the first place. They got here by making plays, and everyone knew they were going to make some plays while they were there. I think the problem is that the refs did not let the players play. They ruled this game. They helped the outcome be decided by being to visible and one-sided.

    To be fair, not all evil robots are killers.

  11. #26
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,008
    Rep Power
    124

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    Interception= Every team suffers through them...hell Roethlisberger threw two of them that very same day. I do not see why an in terception should have to be explained.
    Throwing interceptions at the wrong time, in the worst possible situations has been a rap on Hasselbeck his entire career. I was really convinced he had put that problem to rest this year, but apparently not.

    I think it's a legitimate point that the interception was more damaging than any questionable call by the officials. The score was still close at 14-10, with the ball deep in Steeler territory. If the Seahawks can get it done and put the ball in the endzone, they take the lead and carry all the momentum to the end of the game. Instead, they miss a great scoring opportunity, lose all the momentum and not only turnover the ball, but create a situation where a bad penalty can be called against them, setting up a score by Pittsburgh.

    Despite all the questionable calls, the Seahawks did what they had done all season, battled through adversity and managed to be in a position to win. The interception was monumental IMO.

  12. #27
    moklerman's Avatar
    moklerman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,597
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Here is the explanation for those...
    I appreciate you taking the time to give us your thoughts on all the bad things that Seattle did in the SB, but you may be missing my point. A team can't have all those little things go wrong in a championship game and expect to win. I'm just not going to side with an argument that's essentially based on "yeah, we committed the penalties but the ref's shouldn't have called them because of the importance of the game or the result of the play".

  13. #28
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,931
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    But he would have had a much better day had the refs not taken away one of his catches.
    You're referring to the catch he made at the one that was called back? I can't believe you're actually blaming the refs for the extent of Stevens' poor play.

    Three passes to him prior to that were incomplete. Afterward, he had two catches and the one drop at the very end.

    So how does that catch at the one change his day? Stevens had one catch of note all day, and it was the touchdown catch. Even if he makes the catch at the one, he still would have had a poor day with multiple key drops. The fact that a 5'9" 180 pound DB tackled him in bounds on that drive to end the game is as embarassing as any drop, and no change in an official's call is going to change that.


    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    But to be fair, it was 3rd and 29 or something, and everyone in the stadium knew they were throwing. You think maybe Pitt knew also...and was in a defense to maybe maximize picking off an errant throw?
    First, it was 3rd and 18 inside the Pittsburgh 27-yard line, just for clarity's sake.

    But that said, you brough up the key word there - errant throw. Again, your team making mistakes that cost you. That's all that mokler is trying to get you to recognize.


    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    if it was a fumble they would have had it inside the ten.
    I'm not sure how you can make that assumption. Would Pittsburgh not have picked up the ball and tried to return it? It was a fairly deep pass, so the Seahawks offense would not be right on the defender as soon as he recovered. And regardless, creating a turnover creates momentum that a punt does not. Field position is not the only thing one would have to take into consideration when looking at the difference between this turnover and a punt.


    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    I think the problem is that the refs did not let the players play. They ruled this game. They helped the outcome be decided by being to visible and one-sided.
    Were the refs one-sided when they didn't throw a flag on an obvious late hit by Robbie Tobeck on a Steeler defender early in the game? Were they one-sided when they didn't throw a flag on an illegal block on Roethlisberger on Herndon's interception return?

    You sit here and complain about all the calls that didn't go your way, yet you'll explain away or justify the ones that did as if they didn't exist or have no business being brought up.

    Let's face it. Pittsburgh did what they had to do to win the game, and that was make big plays when it counted. Seattle did not, and lost the game. It would be one thing if your team was playing near flawless football and the officiating hurt you, but that wasn't the case.

    The Seahawks dominated the first half of the game, yet put only THREE POINTS up on the board. They got in a position to take the lead in the second half, but Hasselbeck threw a costly pick. Brown missed two makable field goals (he's 5/8 from 50+ this year, so he should have made at least one of them). The defense can up short on both Parker's touchdown run and Randel El's pass to Ward, where in both cases they were beat like a drum.

    When push came to shove, the playmakers for Pittsburgh stepped up and the playmakers for Seattle disappeared.

    And you choose to blame the refs for deciding the outcome? Please.

  14. #29
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,083
    Rep Power
    106

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Hooking ? that's at least a 2 minute penalty or 10 yards the greater of the the 2.


    LOL

  15. #30
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Here
    Age
    41
    Posts
    3,374
    Rep Power
    46

    Re: Putting the "phantom hold" to rest (not 56k friendly)

    Quote Originally Posted by rawkhrdr
    Jerramy Stevens had a bad day. But he would have had a much better day had the refs not taken away one of his catches.
    Wow, you can't be serious. So say theres no penalty called and he gets that catch. He still dropped passes all day long. He wasn't ready for the big game and it cost the Hawks.
    Quote Originally Posted by RealRam
    What next, NFL gay players kissing on the mouth. To me it is S.O.S.: simply/obscene/sickening. Rest assured I will never cheer for a known homo player

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •