Talk:Reaction to officiating in Super Bowl XL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Peter King's Editorial

Hey guys, I just wanted to make sure the people who manage this article were aware of this recent column by Peter King. I can't help but think there's some stuff from it that can be mentioned in this article. Thanks. --Maxamegalon2000 18:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed two paragraphs

I removed:

A second ESPN poll initially found similar voter opinion. A snapshot of this second poll taken on February 7 showed 79% of the respondents stating that officials' calls unfairly favored the Steelers and 57.5% stating that the officiating played the biggest role in determining the outcome of the game. However, when looked at several days and eventually weeks later, the tally showed a different picture. Once the poll settled, the results were down to 44.0% and 31.9% respectively. Although the officiating will be debated for years, it appears that the "bad officiating" camp was quicker to mobilize onto the online poll.

The claim that the "bad officiating camp" was "quicker to mobilize" is terribly POV and pure speculation. Removing that sentence, what does this paragraph tell us about the controversy other than nothing? It's a long-winded attempt to draw the reader into a speculative conclusion.

I also removed:

Titans Coach Jeff Fisher both defended the officiating and suggested that the vast media presence contributed to the initial firestorm of criticism immediately following the game.

Honestly, who cares what Jeff Fisher thinks about the controversy? Was he within 500 miles of Detroit at any point during the game? I doubt it. Let's keep this article to relevant sources.

Overall I think this article is pretty balanced. If any of you all feel that more could be done to balance the article, feel free to add some feedback. Aplomado talk 06:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with taking the whole point about the poll out, but not Jeff Fisher's comments. This article has a point of view from various sportswriters, from Kansas City to LA. Personally, I respect the opinion of an NFL head coach more than I do some random writer who can write whatever he thinks about the game without any backlash. Jeff Fisher is a far more reliable source.

[edit] Lopsided controversy

I remember there being at least one controversial call that went the Seahawks way; I think it was a fumble in the first half? Anybody mind me adding that one in? Also, if the poll results later are irrelevant for the reasons you give, the whole poll is invalid. Who cares what people (probably less knowledgeable than Jeff Fisher) think about the calls? To properly encapsulate all views around the NFL, we need to have either both views (in terms of short-term and long-term, as well as putting back Fisher's view) or no outside opinions. I think the first choice is the better one.-Akshayaj 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If you add another controversial call, be sure to cite it, or else it will most likely get removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your gripe. We listed comments from both sides. Look, I'm on the Steelers' side, I think that the only call that really went against the Seahawks wrongly was the low block call. Aplomado talk 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

update: I added in the two controversial calls against the Steelers, and would also like to add back Jeff Fisher's comments-Akshayaj 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Even if Fisher's comments were relevant, adding his comments would just be belaboring the point. We have comments from both columnists and an NFL spokesman defending the calls, so a vague comment by Fisher isn't going to add anything to the article. For example, in the article we have: Shortly after the game, Kansas City Star writer Jason Whitlock encapsulated many views when he wrote the day after the game, "Leavy and his crew ruined Super Bowl XL. Am I the only one who would like to hear them defend their incompetence?" We could quote 3 or 4 more columnists saying the same thing, but what would it add? Just make the point and move on. Aplomado talk 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also took out:

Many fans reacted negatively as well; a February 7 online ESPN poll found that, with 103,167 votes cast, 61.7% of voters felt that "officiating mistakes affected the outcome of Super Bowl XL".[1]

for the reasons listed above, as well as the fact that if the accuracy and bias of the poll is in question, then it is POV and should be removed.-Akshayaj 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • There's absolutely nothing wrong with the poll. It's verifiable information from a reliable source, and definitely relevant to the article. See: WP:V where it says: "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Aplomado talk 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I reworked the article to add more balance to it, including sections on both the calls against the Seahawks and Steelers. I replaced the ESPN poll, please don't remove it. We've met you halfway on the Steelers complaints. Aplomado talk 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I find this article as little bit biased towards the Steelers. Don't ya think? I mean there's alot of mentioning of Seahawks mistakes but not Seahawks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.48.86 (talk • contribs) .

Why is it POV? Everything is cited. If you think it is one-sided towards one team, try to find references for calls that favored the other side. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random calls added

I removed

*Second Quarter, 15:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0: On the first play of the second quarter, the Steelers punted. The punt was handled by Peter Warrick at the Seattle 20 yard line. Warrick returned the ball 34 yards to the Steeler 46. The play was called back on a holding penalty on Seahawk safety Pruitt. ESPN’s Tom Jackson stated on Monday after the game “I’m still looking for the holding on Warrick’s punt return.” Image of call. [2]

  • Second Quarter, 3:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0: On third and long, QB Ben Roethlisbrger completed a long pass to the Seahawks 3 yard line. Some critics point out four possible Pittsburgh holding violations that were not called on the play. Seahawks DE Bryce Fisher and Steelers RT Max Starks. Starks has his hand outside of Fisher’s left shoulder, and is possibly pulling his jersey inward.[3] Steelers LT Marvel Smith reaches out and grabs Seahawks DE Grant Wistrom[4] Again with Fisher and Starks, here Starks clearly graps Fisher's arm.[5] Finally, Steelers C Jeff Hartings pulls on the jersey of Seahawks DT Marcus Tubbs[6]

as these calls were not part of the reaction immediately following the Super Bowl. Most analysts did not mention these calls as controverial or wrong, as shown by the lack of proper citings. Pictures do not constitute fact, especially as some of these "clear" violations are not so clear. Cite sources from respected analysts to put these calls back in

This should go into the playoofs section, or the title should be reworded to "Reaction to officiting in 2006 playoffs"

The game ended a playoffs season that was plagued by complaints about officiating, most notably during the divisional playoff games between the Steelers and Colts, the Broncos and Patriots, and the Bears and Panthers.[7] Akshayaj 21:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing those calls. Again, this article isn't a gripefest for Seahawks fans, this is a page documenting a controversy. I have not heard anyone complain about those two plays.
I also removed an additional call and two references. If anyone can reference this play with a media source (or two) complaining about the no-call, then that's one thing. But referencing it with a video capture isn't acceptable, because that amounts to original research. Again, the purpose of this article is not to start a debate over the calls. Aplomado talk 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, you're the one who removed the bit about the playoffs originally, didn't realize that when I replaced it and asked the person to explain his reasons on the talk page, so disregard that comment. I replaced it because I don't think it is worthy of its own article, but I do think it bears mentioning. The NFL even officially apologized for one of the calls (I think) which went against Pittsburgh when they played the Colts. There were a reasonable amount of complaints about the officiating, I think, throughout the playoffs to justify at least a brief mention. Aplomado talk 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Cool, I was less sure about the playoffs thing; whether it should go on the playoffs page or this one. It's not a big deal, in the end. I think we have a decent balance, and wouldn't even mind leaving in a few photos. However, the photos should illustrate, rather than be evidence. Incidently, I went to that page linked to the photos. and it was a pretty weird planetary kind of website. Just saying... Akshayaj 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh only won because they are a 73 year old team with a national following and 90% of fans at the game were Steelers fans. If three of the controversial calls had gone in favor of Seattle,(The holding against Locklear, the PI against Djac, and Roethlisbergers TD), then they may have won 21-17. --Corporal Punishment 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Offsides?

In regards to this paragraph:

  • Fourth Quarter, 10:54 left, Steelers lead 14-10: Three plays after the nullified pass to Stevens, Hasselbeck threw an interception to Pittsburgh cornerback Ike Taylor, who returned the ball 24 yards. A 15-yard personal foul was whistled against Hasselbeck for a "low block," advancing the Steelers to their own 44-yard line. During the American television broadcast, commentator Al Michaels said, "We think this was a bad call," suggesting that Hasselbeck was not blocking another Pittsburgh player but was instead making a low tackle on a ball carrier, which is legal. However, NFL Network announcer Rich Eisen in an column he wrote for nfl.com claims it was the right call by the rules, even if the rule itself may be defective.[15] Mike Pereira, the Director of Officiating for the NFL, has said that "the call was not correct" and "should not have been made."[16]

I am trying to find some citation, but remembering this play, I'm sure there were others who thought that Pittsburgh was noticeably offsides at the snap, which if flagged, would have nullified the interception altogether. Need to check the tape again. 64.32.241.35 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horsecollar Tackle?

I think I remember I saw a steelers guy do a horsecollar tackle on a seahawks guy, with the ref watching the hole thing but not throwing a flag. Isn't a horsecollar tackle illegal? And did the guy really do it, or did it just look like one.?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReaction_to_officiating_in_Super_Bowl_XL_b26d.html"