Talk:Super Bowl XL/Archive 1 (February 2005-May 2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For the current discussion on this article, see: Talk:Super Bowl XL.

Contents

Of course, change the current Wikipedia Super Bowl XL logo in the future

I quickly edited out the image of the Super Bowl XL logo provided by an anonymous contributor. Originally it had a navy blue background. I quickly used a magic wand tool in my image manipulation program to make the logo match with the other Wikipedia's Super Bowl logos. If you look closely to the image I uploaded, some of the Super Bowl text that was supposed to have a drop shadow effect were taken off due to my usage of the magic wand. --Anonymous Cow 03:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rumors and speculations

Please do not add rumors and speculations, such as who will perform during the halftime show, unless they have been officially been confirmed. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been announced and confirmed by the AP that Stevie Wonder will preform at the pre-game show and the Rolling Stones are the halftime show entertainment.

I also understand that Dr. John and Aaron Neville will be doing the National Anthem as part of a pre-game tribute to New Orleans post-Katrina. NoseNuggets 2:59 AM US EST Jan 18 2006.

Suzy Kolber will be working the sidelines for Super Bowl XL with Michele Tafoya for ABC. Tafoya was solo during the regular season (until she had her baby). NoseNuggets 2:25 PM US EST Jan 12 2006.

  • Please cite sources: If you read my previous edit comment [1], I need to see an official source that indicates that Kolber will in fact be the second sideline reporter. As you may know, Sam Ryan substituted for Tafoya on MNF, and I am currently getting conflicting reports that Ryan would be the second sideline reporter instead of Kolber — or all three of them will be there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And yes, Tafoya and Kolber will be the sideline reporters for ESPN's MNF next season, but not necessarily Super Bowl XL... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, please cite a source, any source, because I just checked both media.espn.com (ESPN's media website) and www.abcmedianet.com (ABC's media website) and I cannot find any press release or announcement about Kolber. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I have slightly altered the story to include all three. Ms. Ryan also works NBA games for ABC and she may be committed to that due to the Houston Rockets-New York Knicks game that day, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Kolber as her replacement. NoseNuggets 2:55 AM US EST Jan 18 2006.
  • I have updated (with confirmed info from superbowl.com) that Aretha Franklin, Joss Stone and John Legend have been added as part of the pre-game entertainment. Ms. Franklin will be joining Aaron Neville, Dr. John and a 150-piece choir on the national anthem, and Ms. Stone and Mr. Legend will join in a medley of Stevie Wonder's greatest hits with the Motown legend. I replaced one link from the Free Press with one from the superbowl.com web site to reflect those changes. NoseNuggets 10:22 AM US EST Jan 19 2006.
  • Update: ABC/ESPN finally issued the press release today. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: A radio report has stated that Bart Starr will do the coin toss. Waiting for an internet source to confirm it Doctorindy 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we add something about the very very dubious officiating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.100.40.174 (talk • contribs) .

  • Depends ... do you have sources to back up your additions? Opinionated editorals or essays are not allowed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Because of the previous statement, I have chosen to remove this sentence: "Meanwhile, Seattle was plagued by controversal calls and penalties, drops, and poor clock management." The NFL says that Super Bowl XL was devoid of missed calls (Source: [2]) By the way, of all the talk of poor calls for Seattle, everybody neglects Joey Porter's horse-collar tackle on Shaun Alexander that the referees missed. That was very evident from the replays that ABC showed, but very underrated to less controversial calls. I thought it was a bad call from the replay (and questioned it during the live action), despite rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers. D2001dstanley 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

XL

Is there any talk of punning off the abbreviation to create an "extra-large" Super Bowl?

One word answer: "D'oh!" NoseNuggets 2:54 AM US EST Jan 18 2006

I'm not sure Shannon Sharpe should be credited quite completely. I mean, the league has been advertising this with either subtle or overt reference to the XL as "extra large" all season. And, certainly, Sharpe can't be the ONLY person to refer to it that way, and is unlikely to be the first. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Cowher and Holmgren

I dispute the trivia point that was recently added that says that Cowher and Holmgren both made their head coaching debuts against each other. According to the book Total Football II and the web site http://www.pro-football-reference.com both say that the Steelers first regular season game in 1992 was against the Houston Oilers, while Holmgren's Packers first faced the Vikings. If it is a preseason you are talking about, please cite a source so I can verify it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If a source says different I say get rid of it. KramarDanIkabu 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
They met in week 4 of that year. Is it possible that they haven't faced each other since then? —Wrathchild (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I guess not. Best just remove it since it's verified to be incorrect. —Wrathchild (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I added that and messed up the facts. Turns out Cowher and Holmgren made their coaching debuts on the same day not against each other. And Holmgren's Packers handed Cowher his first loss. So again sorry for the mixup. Lummie 05:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, somebody removed an anonymous user's trivia about the coaches moustaches. It made me smile, especially the use of the word "moustachioed," and I don't think it's any sillier than most trivia. The first favored team to beat the spread since Super Bowl XXXV? Who cares? 171.161.96.10 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (another anonymous user)

  • Because gambling on the Super Bowl has been extensively written on the sports betting articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a gambler, but that stat fails to impress. How about this gem from the article: "Hasselbeck was the first starting Super Bowl quarterback wearing number '8' to lose, where quarterbacks wearing number '8' were previously 5-0." Incredible! 171.161.160.10 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if you read my comment on the "XL" section above, I favor removing most of those trivia points, including that one. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, fair enough 171.159.192.10 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting deleted

The Seahawks are the first team to go to the superbowl and face a wildcard team in every round of the playoffs. Why do people keep deleting this when i put that in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) .

  • Please read the edit summaries. The content was moved to the "Playoffs" section of the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Stats box

I added a small box recapitulating sundry statistics mentioned passim. I readily concede that it is, in part, redundant, yet I think it well encapsulates the statistical matchup, just as the summary box at the right of the page well summarizes important points about the game. That said, if the box is viewed as exorbitant, please revert. Joe 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I notice that TMC1982 added the Steelers and Seahawks categories to the page, which I think is appropriate. I'm wondering, though, if we want to decide whether to add the each Super Bowl to the categories of the participant teams; I think constistency would be desired. I ask because, for example, I notice that, in the category of my team, the Packers, Super Bowls I and II are included but not Super Bowls XXXI and XXXII. I'll go through and add each Super Bowl to the relevant categories if such formatting is desired, but I thought I'd check here to see if everyone is alright with that. Cordially, Joe 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For the past few hours, TMC1982 has in fact been adding the categories of each team on all of the Super Bowl articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I hadn't checked recently, but I see that now. Well, good on him, then. Thanks! Joe 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

This page has been vandalized quite a lot by anonymous users today. The vandalism will probably get worse during and just after the game. Should it be semi-protected for a couple of days? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected *now*, at least until tomorrow when all the idiots have found another interest. TaintedMustard 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this is currently listed on the main page. As per WP:PP, "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Zzyzx11 is right. Not to jynx us or anything, but vandalism is quite light considering sporting event + front page. I think the article's coming along nicely. --W.marsh 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism was constant when I first posted, and then it stopped only moments later. I was surprised. TaintedMustard 11:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think this should be protected - lots of vandalism occuring. --DA Roc 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How much were the Rolling Stones paid?

Can someone please add their compensation for the halftime show?71.139.113.237 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

None, german television said. But usually, our commentators don't have a clue. (BTW it's great to read this article during the game, you're better than any sports magazine!) 84.138.220.122
The NFL confirmed that fact earlier this week. NoseNuggets 11:04 PM US EST Feb 5 2006.
Please provide a link confiming that the RS played for free Cshay 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I also read an article in the USA Today (in the Weekend edition prior to the game) that was about this exact issue. The NFL only pays for the hotel, food, transportation and the production of the show itself. The artist gets nothing other than an absolute ton of publicity. I recall the article citing a huge jump in sales of U2's album immediately after their performance a few years back. With the cost of a 30 second commercial going for millions, what is all the hype of "Super Bowl Halftime Show" worth? The record companies are lucky that the NFL dosen't charge THEM! Cacophony 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Get the team name right.

It's not the SuperHawks. It's the Seahawks. Duh!

ain't so super anyway... 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If anything, it's Seafags. LOL, just kidding, bro.

Officiating controversy.

I don't even think that this section should be included in this article. I say this because questionable calls from the officials are made in every single game, and Super Bowl XL should not be the only one that's singled out. This is unfairly tainting Pittsburgh's victory. If you must include this section for Super Bowl XL, then you must do it for every other Super Bowl, especially Super Bowl XXXVI.

This is ridiculous. The questionable officating calls are detailed? You know, there were calls that DIDN'T go Pittsburgh's way, also. What about the Jerramy Stevens fumble that was ruled an incomplete pass? This article is definitely biased unless ALL of the bad calls are listed.

Actually there were none. That call went against the Seahawks. Had the play been reviewed it would have been determined that the pass was complete, then after Stevens made "a football move", was fumbled. The whistle being blown after the fumble means that the ball would have been returned to the spot of the fumble, Seahawks 1st down on the 25. -- Coz
Ummm, no, the whistle was blown because it was ruled an incomplete pass. Had the whistle not been blown, play would have continued and one of the several Steelers nearby would likely have recovered the fumble. And the play could NOT have been reviewed because it's a dead ball play. And it was just a clear fumble and had nothing to do with a "football move." --Johnlubic 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, so much misinformation in one paragraph. First the point is that IF the play had been reviewed, as it should have been, it would have been ruled a fumble as it clearly was. Then you have to deal with how to spot the ball. Because of the whistle blown because the covering official mistakenly thought it was incomplete the play would have to be treated as an inadvertant whistle, giving the Seahawks the option of taking the ball where it was last in player possesion or replaying the down. Because the spot where the loose ball occured was the 25 it would have been 1st and 10 at that spot. The theory about what if is very flawed by has nothing to do with what DID happen, just what you think MIGHT have happened. I was dealing with the actual officiating mistake and not theory. -- Coz
This is somewhat off topic, but Coz I just had to revert some changes you made where you not only questioned the integrity of the officials on the dubious grounds that one of them is from Pittsburgh, but removed an entire opposing point of view. This is not a place to push your agenda. Aplomado 07:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And there's also the questionable call of offensive pass interference against Heath Miller as well as the questionable ruling on Matt Hasselbeck's fumble. And the block in the back during Herndon's interception return that was never called.--Johnlubic 15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This is why officiating should be left to professionals. There was no questionable OPI and there can be no doubt that it was not a fumble. The rule is clear and unless you are blind you can see that he was touched as he was going down and the ground can not cause a fumble in that situation. 100% correct call after review. There was no block in the back because by rule if you have one hand outside the seam of the shoulder it is a legal block. One hand was on his arm and the other on his back. 100% Legal block. You are grasping at the smallest of straws. --Coz

I think there needs to be comment on these points inorder to project a fuller account of the game. These points are going to become significant over the next couple of days and some people will want to know what the details are, Wikipedia should provide them. Even if a new page is created for that purpose.DartFrog

Why don't you do this yourself rather than expect other people to do it for you? If you think some calls should be noted, you are welcome to include them. Frankly, however, I've been having problems finding such complaints in the media or among the fans. Aplomado 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The ABC Sports Casters called the Pass Interference call, denieing Seattle the first touchdown of the game, a bad call.
  • *Extending your arm and pusing a player on offense off his ballance, which he did, is offensive pass interference. A good call.
  • Pittsburg's first TD seemed handed to them.
*You apparently haven't seen the popular still picture showing where the ball actually was.
Verified by the admission that the Replay Official told the Head Referee that it was not a touchdown, the admission by Ben on the Letterman show that he hadn't got in, and video from other angles that has shown that the ball was knocked out of his arm and down to his stomach on contact with Bettis prior to reaching the goal line. -- Coz
*See my above comment.
  • The call back, this time for Offensive holding, after the Seahawks threw to the one yard line was dismissed immediately by the commentators as yet another bad call by the refs.
*When Locklear had his hands on Haggan's shoulder, it held him up only slightly. But even the slightest hold up, no matter how small, is technically holding.
  • The Porter "horsecollar" tackle on Alexander on 2nd down that was not called.
*Because it wasn't a "horsecollar" tackle.
  • Matt Hasselbeck's interception throw in which he ended up making the tackle was erronneously called a low block against the Seahawks, adding another 15 yards to that play for the Steelers.
*Yeah, this was just a terrible call. The ONLY one thought.
  • Failure of the Officals to call delay of game against Pittsburg wich resulted in a first down to extend the Steelers drive. -by Kelly DartFrog
*But the time out was called with one second left. Seriously, the difference between you and me is I have the NFL rules. Bwahahahahahahaha!

Despite all the childish behavior and immaturity surrounding this situation, if the game had been called fairly, the outcome would've been different. I think it is necessary to take into account the number of unfair calls that were made by a ref that was consistently proven wrong by the video footage and commentary by the announcers.

It is simple. Only one of the Seahawks drives was stopped by the Steeler Defense, the rest were by Seahawk mistakes or by officials calls. Without playing any differently the Seahawks would have won going away without the bad calls and the story line would have been the horrible play by the Steelers. Their two defensive stars were non-factors in the game, their QB had the worst performance in Super Bowl history, and they were being manhandled by the Seahawks who held the Steelers to 3 and out on 5 out of the 10 possesions (and intercepted on the 4th play on the 4th possesion). -- Coz
At least the Steelers could find the damn endzone. See my comments above and you'll realize that the calls were correct, and Seattle merely screwed themselves up.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orion Quest (talk • contribs) .

--

I agree about the controversies. That TD that was verified by the officials via instant replay seemed like total B.S. Regardless of allegiance, it was pretty clear to the home viewer that the ball never made it past the end zone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.10.225 (talk • contribs) .

That is yet another point. " a momentum-changing turnover or penalty could have occured at anytime after any disputed call." There were no disputed calls against Pittsburgh. I think the point is this, who has the recources to report the contraversy in a nonbiased way? I don't have the details, like Names of commentators or players etc. Plus I have never posted on Wikipedia before, so I am a little lost. Who can undertake this part of the article? Main stream media is not yet covering this in detail. -by Kelly DartFrog

It is these easy to make comments that attempt to dismiss what really happened. (1) Had the OPI call not been made the result would have been a TD that had been scored. Momentum would have gone towards the Seahawks after that call. (2) On the TD that never happened you are right, a turnover might have occured, but again that would have favored the Seahawks. More likely they take the FG to tie the game, but if not they try for a 4th time to get what they couldn't get the 3 previous plays. IF they get it, no net change, but if they don't it favors the Seahawks. (3) The Stevens completion called back by the phantom hold. That WAS the momentum changing play. Without it the Seahawks are 1st and goal on the 1, a position they NEVER failed to convert during the season. Yes, it might have been the first, and maybe it's a FG instead, but can anyone honestly think that a team that drove 95 yards on that drive, and was dominating the game offensively, would not have scored? Without that call there is no Interception, no laughable "low block" call on a tackle, and no trick play TD. So no matter how you slice it the calls changed the momentum against the Seahawks at critical points. -- Coz
  • Currently, it is too early to say right now. Normally, we would include it if the missed calls has been extensively written about, such as the case with the other two divisional playoff games this year, the Tuck game, the Giants-49ers 2002 playoff game, and others. Remember, you currently seem to be only getting the opinions of Michaels and Madden on the ABC broadcast. There hasn't been much stated by much of the other media yet, and the league has not issued a statement yet on whether these calls were officially right or wrong. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll research other sources, I am still working on extra detail on the bad calls. May I suggest a couple extra pages? I have a play by play log and details of the calls from an Officials viewpoint that might be better in another page. I have not added a new page here yet but i'll see if I can figure it out. -- Coz

Sean Salisbury

SalisburyMVP: Hines Ward Turning point: This game turned on four nonsequential plays. The first was when Hasselbeck completed a pass to the 1-yard line only to see it overturned by a phantom holding call that never should've been called. Then Hasselbeck threw a terrible interception that killed the momentum of this team. To add insult to injury, he was flagged on another bogus call during the runback when he was simply trying to make a tackle. Finally, the backbreaker of this sequence was the Antwaan Randle El touchdown pass to Ward on a trick play that completely fooled the Seahawks' secondary. FOund at: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/news/story?id=2320619 -by Kelly DartFrog

It should be noted that at the ESPN link, Sean Salisbury is the only one of the seven experts to mention any bad calls. The other six experts mention the Steelers' gutsy playcalling or crucial Seahawks mistakes. Again, it would probably be a good idea to wait at least a few days before adding anything about this to the article, so that any criticism mentioned can be backed up by outside sources. WP:V and No original research. --Maxamegalon2000 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: the Roethlisberger touchdown controversy, I (Pittsburgh-born Steelers fan but neutral Wikipedian User:Tomcool) think that the edit: "Despite the arguments of some that it was not a touchdown, this screen capture clearly shows the ball crossing the plane: http://www.camcojb.com/sbXVtd.jpg" is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The website www.camcojb.com is a personal website dealing with cars, not a sports media outlet. In addition, the provenance of the edited image is not established. We need to cite previously published reports, as I did in my edit:

      • 2nd Quarter, 2:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0: On 3rd down at Seattle's 1-yard line, Ben Roethlisberger took the snap and plunged towards the left side of the pile. A linesman raised a single arm indicating the quarterback was down, then called a touchdown. The touchdown was upheld following review. In replays, Roethlisberger's arm partially obscured the ball, making it difficult to determine whether it crossed the plane. The score would give the Steelers a 7-3 lead at halftime. During his appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman the following day, Roethlisberger stated that "I don't think I got in." [3] On ESPN's morning show Cold Pizza the Tuesday after the Super Bowl, Skip Bayless argued that the ball had indeed crossed the plane of the goal line. During the broadcast, ABC commentator Al Michaels said it was a "tough call" and that the reviewing official had either found evidence of a touchdown, or had not found enough evidence of no touchdown to overrule the call.


Look, let me start off by saying I am a Philadelphia Eagles fan. I honestly had no interest in who won this superbowl. But the extreme obvious contempt the officials showed towards the Seattle Seahawks was breath-taking. There were 4 bad calls and they were all against Seattle. The calls WERE NOT EVEN CLOSE. To be quite honest, it was so bad, I wouldn't be surprised if the officials were paid off. Now I don't think they were, but like I said it was that bad.

There definitely needs to be a section on this. Seattle was the better team tonight. They were robbed. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they were necessarily better. IMHO they were clearly better *most of the time*. *But* they made some egregious mistakes. Would they've made the same mistakes without the errors of the officating guys? Well that's the question. Imho it's wrong to say the Seahawks were robbed of their win I think we were robbed of what would have been a very close and thrilling game by a number of close calls that almost all went against the Seahawks (the fumble/incomplete by Stevens is the only counter-example I can think of) and a number of calls that were just plain wrong.

I agree with Rob. Without a section on the questionable officiating the page is incomplete. It does not matter if it is in the game summary or in a different section but this info is needed to give a full perspective of the game. --Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.199.166.108 (talk • contribs) .

There were far more than 4 bad calls, I have a list I am preparing. Those are just the ones getting the most attention. -- Coz

I would like to say that on the Ben Roethlisberger touchdown, there was not enough clear evidence to suggest that the ball did not cross the plain, and if the referee is not 100% sure that the call initial ruling on the field was wrong than he cannot overturn the call.67.186.27.129 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary

The Summary section has some major NPOV issues, can someone write a non-biased summary. We can add "officiating" as another section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tawker (talk • contribs) .

Investigation into whether or not the officials were bought off

How about a section for this? I think the evidence of the officials calls is more than enough to cast doubt on their objectivity...

And I say this as a fan of neither the Steelers or the Seahawks. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I am a Seahawks fan, at least for this Superbowl, but we shouldn't put an "investigation of corruption" section up unless there's an actual investigation going on. One of Wikipedia's policies is no original research. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the game was bought out and that the Seahawks should have won the game

I wrote this section half-jokinly. I don't honestly believe the officials were bought off... Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is ridiculous that someone would ever think that the Rooney family would ever pay the referees to throw the game. Dan Rooney and his son Art Rooney II, are two of the most prestigious owners in the game of football, and they would never do anything to disgrace the game of football, the Steelers, the city of Pittsburgh, and especially Dan's father, Art Rooney, who founded the Steelers. The Rooneys are perhaps the most honest and respectable owners the game of football has ever seen, and I think that if someone thinks that they would allow the refs to be bought off, than that person is a complete idiot. And yes, I am a Steeler fan.67.186.27.129 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Officiating controversy needs acknowledgement

The article's summary of the play needs to note and acknowledge the officiating calls and their impact on the game.

-Calling back a Seattle touchdown for the highly subjective call of offensive pass interference materially impacted the game and its score. Defensive interference calls have almost always resulted in controversy; offensive interence calls are if anything even more subjective.

-The fact that a Pittsburgh touchdown was impossible to verify on instand replay needs acknowledgement, although this call in all probability did not materially impact the game and its score. Pittsburgh would, in all probability, have scored on the next play.

-Calling back a Seattle pass to the one-yard-line for the highly subjective call of offensive holding materially impacted the game and its score. It has long been noted by commentators, players and officials that offensive holding can be called on any play in the NFL, and that it is virtually impossible for an offensive line to do its job without holding defenders. Whether or not the penalty is called is therefor a subjective matter.

-Calling Seattle's quarterback for a low block when he was clearly attempting to make the tackle on the man running back the interception, and most certainly not attempting to block any other player was clearly a suspect call. It materially impacted the point at which Pittsburgh began its drive. Whether that subsequently had a material impact on the score is open to debate as the two events are separated by the entirity of Pittsburgh's scoring drive.

-Failing to call Pittsburgh for delay of game when the game clock was seen to go to zero before or as the quarterback motioned for a time-out is clearly open to question. Whether this materially impacted the game is open to question.

Acknowledging these calls and their impact is not the same thing as saying the calls were incorrect. It would acknowledge that they are simply controversial.

Controversy is inherently a subject fueled by subjective viewpoints, but it is no less real for that fact. In all likelihood, the perception of malfeasance is unfounded, but it has a basis in the following facts:

-All of the controversial calls went against one team, two of them materially impacting the game's score by a margin that would in all likelihood have spelled a reversal of victory.

-Pre-game hype and coverage displayed a distinct slant toward the team that benefitted from the controversial calls.

-Promotional spots shown during the first half displayed players posing with the game trophy and overwhelmingly featured members of the team that benefitted from the controversial calls vice the team they went against.

Again, the perception of malfeasance is probably unfounded, but it is real and should be objectively reported to exist.

I will state plainly that I am a lifetime Seattle fan and I outright disagree with three of the calls made, find a fourth dubious, and a fifth immaterial. None of which says that Seattle would have won otherwise, or that Pittsburgh would have lost. Seattle's special teams were not impressive today, their receivers dropped a number of important passes and the offense clearly did not make any opportunities for Shaun Alexander to break out. At the same time, Pittsburgh pulled two remarkable "stunt" plays, both of which resulted in successful and impressive scores that were cleanly gained. Even reversing the calls, the score could have as easily been 21-20 Pittsburgh as it could have been 24-21 Seattle. Pittsburgh earned their 21 points, regardless of whether Seattle was denied any by officiating calls, and the Pittsburgh team is to be complimented. I look forward to a rematch next year.

But the very fact that changes in these officiating calls could have made this a one-point game in favor of Pittsburgh, or a three-point victory for Seattle demands acknowledgement. Not validation, but certainly acknowledgement. S/ Electric Joe

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electric Joe (talk • contribs) .

First, I have to say that I am a hard core Seattle Seahawks fan just so you know where my loyalties lie. I do not want to take anything away from Pittsburg. I believe they played a good game with some pretty amazing plays. So, I am going to stay away from the could've, would've, should'ves concerning the calls of the game. Where my anger lies concerning the officiating is that they became the talk of the game. With the exception of one or two plays, the officials were the spot light not the players. Think of how evenly matched these two teams were going into this game. This game had the potential of being "one for the books." I would have loved to have seen this game had the officials would have just stayed out of the game and let the teams play. Again, congratulations to the Steelers and all their fans. S/ Brian

Let's start gathering facts.

We have a list of calls that seem a little bogus. Let's post the details here. a. Which players were involved in the play and when in the game did the play take place? b. What did the play initially result in? c. What was the official call that overturned the play and who made the call? d. What have experts said, or what is the consensus of opinion about the official call? e. What happened as a result of the call?

As for experts who commented on bad calls against Seattle: Michaels,Salisbury and a former wide reciever on ABC's half time review, can someone get his name?(He didn't like the Offensive Pass Interference call.)

Let's start with the denied Seattle touch down: -by kelly DartFrog First I'm going to say that I'm a Steelers fan. Secondly, these were the same corp of referees that officiated the divisional round (which was known for its controversies). Ultimately, while some calls went in the favor of the Steelers, there were several no-calls that would have helped them (at least two helmet-to-helmet hits I noticed). To me, this controversy, while I think it should be mentioned, is more "my team didn't win," and more anti-Steelers sentiment. Evidence of this anti-Steelers sentiment was when Kimo Von Oelhoven rolled onto Carson Palmer's leg. Some people labeled it a dirty play, depsite the fact that it obviously wasn't. Once the Steelers became the underdog, that sentiment went away, as they went and upset the Colts and the Broncos. Now that they've won, the anti- sentiment is coming back out again. No one bought off the referees in the game. That claim, I believe, is rediculous. The better team won the game, though it didn't play the best game of the season. More to the point, Seattle could have overcome those poor official calls. But they didn't. The Steelers did. They won the Super Bowl. myselfalso 07:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I was kinda rooting for the Steelers and I feel the officiating against the Seahawks was utter crap. I have a feeling this isn't the Seahawk's fans complaining, it's the Steelers fans who are denial that the refs gave them the game. Period. Just look at this poll on Espn.com 61% of people in the US think the poor officiating affected the outcome. The only two states that more people think it didn't are, you guessed it, PA and West Virgina. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't blame the officiating as to why Seattle had poor clock management at the end of both halves of the game. And you can't blame the officiating for Hasselback throwing the interception. The reason why everyone's complaining is because it wasn't the Steelers best game of the season. And they didn't have to, because Seattle didn't show up to the game either. The Roethlisberger TD didn't have conclusive video to overturn the ruling on the field. It was too close to call, but I thought the ball crossed the plane. People are using officiating as an excuse as to why Seattle lost the game, much like Steve Bartman took the goating for the Cubs blowing the NLCS, the kid who caught the "homerun" in the O's/Yankees division series in 1996 or 97, and Buckner as the reason why the Red Sox lost the 1986 World Series. It's an excuse. If the shoe were on the other foot, and Seattle won over Pittsburgh, yeah, I would be complaining about the officiating. But I'd also be saying that the Steelers didn't play well enough to win the game. A great team can overcome the adversities facing the team--Seattle didn't do that. Pittsburgh did...they've been involved in several games with officiating controversies this season (including the playoffs)...they rolled on to win the Super Bowl. And again, the refs also missed calls that would have gone in favor of the Steelers, too. Several cheap shot hits that should have been flagged, as well as several hands-to-the-face calls that should have been made. myselfalso 20:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't blame the officiating for Hasselbeck's INT? Oh yes I sure as heck can. That INT would have never occured if the refs didn't call "phantom holding" on the Seahawks. I suggest you take a look at Espn.com right now because the entire front page is about how bad the officiating was. Solar Flare 06:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
All I currently see is that fans are just coming here to vent their emotions. "People are using officiating as an excuse" and "the refs missed the calls" has been around forever. Do people forget that the Immaculate Reception, the Holy Roller, the Music City Miracle, and other controversial calls? What about the controversial 45-yard touchdown pass from Roger Staubach to Butch Johnson in Super Bowl XII? Or the controversial pass interference call on Benny Barnes that set up Franco Harris' 22-yard touchdown in Super Bowl XIII? How about the non-interference call in Super Bowl XXVI on Redskins safety Brad Edwards that led to Andre Reed drawing an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in disgust? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I'll start out by saying that I am living in Pittsburgh right now, though I am not that much into football. Even though I don't know an incredible amount about football, while watching the Superbowl I got the feeling from the numerous calls against the Seahawks that the refs were deciding the fate of the game and not the players. While I like the outcome of the game, I would rather have watched a game that didn't seem thrown in favor of one team or the other. I think the officiating deserves mention in the article. Kevmo 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Lets start with some real facts. On the disallowed touchdown the receiver clearly pushes off with a straightened arm from the defensive back, it isnt always called, admittedly, but that doesnt mean calling it is wrong. The Roethlisberger touchdown: the ball doesnt have to go past the end zone as someone said. One part of the ball has to touch the plane of the very first part of the line of the end zone for it to be a touchdown, and this can happen at any time the ball is in possession , not where it ends up. On the tv replay there is no way you can determine that or not so clearly the referee was right not to overturn it.Most of the "controversy" regarding this call seems to derive from people's wilfull inability to understand the rules. The holding call against the Seahawks that chalked off the pass to the one yard line appears to be a legitimate beef, although it may marginally have been a hold it certainly is in the realms of those that arent called, although once again that doesnt make the call wrong, just mildly suspicious. The low block was a horrible call and the play clock hitting zero and not being called can be seen at least once in virtually any NFL game. So by my reckoning that's one mildly suspicious call and one horrible one. That's not exactly up there with the JFK assassination in terms of conspiracy theories. While we are at it , what about calls that the refs missed on the Seahawks, the play where the Seahawks LB injures himself against Hines Ward comes from a direct helmet to helmet contact that he initiated, not called, what about the clear fumble after a reception by the seahawks, not called. If you want to add up the cumulative affects of the mistakes they made that didnt benefit the Seahawks and see if it would affect the result, dont forget the ones that did help them, of course you would have to itemise the actions of every single player on the field for every single play. Meanwhile its good to see the petty little vendettas of the likes of the risible Skip Bayless given credibility in an encyclopedia. 68.71.35.93 09:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

ESPN poll data?

I see this:

Following the game, an online ESPN SportsNation poll asked visitors what they would remember most about Super Bowl XL. As of 11:29 AM PST on Monday, February 6, 2006 with 63,799 votes tallied, the choice "Poor officiating" (42%) led the pack, well-ahead of the second place "Jerome Bettis wins then retires" with 30%. [18]

Another ESPN SportsNation poll conducted on 2/6/05 asked, "Do you think officiating mistakes affected the outcome of Super Bowl XL?" The results as of approximately 12:32 PM PST on Monday, February 6, 2006, with 128,566 votes tallied, saw a 63-37 percentage split in favor of "Yes." In addition, forty-eight U.S. states and the international vote recorded a majority of "Yes" votes; the only two states to swing "No" were West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

These polls can hardly be described as scientific. Public reaction is worth mentioning, but the question is whether the officials made the right calls, and those answers come from the NFL playbook.

There's nothing wrong with mentioning those results; they give a (large) sampling of public perception on the Superbowl, even if they aren't statistically sound. Many Wikipedia movie articles quote figures from IMDB ratings which are skewed as well. --Madchester 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This is why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously. 70.20.77.210 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this is why you aren't taken seriously. They didn't say the poll was scientific. You're just pissed that the Steelers win is obviously tainted and a plurality of people think the officiating altered the outcome. Am I the only one who thinks the Steeler fans who are saying "The officiating wasn't bad" are worse that the Seahawk fan who are claiming "The officials were bought off"? Unless someone is a hardcore Steeler fan, they will admit the officiating was bad. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think any Steelers fan would admit there were a couple bad calls. Keyword A COUPLE. The so-called "phantom hold" was admittedly an awful call as far as I can tell, and possibly the low block called on Hasselback as well. However, Roethlisberger clearly scored that touchdown. It was close, but he definitely got the ball right above the goal line while he was airborne. Freeze-frame the play if you don't buy it-- that's what the officials did when they reviewed the play, and they saw the same thing. Also, Darrell Jackson should know better than to push off his defender right in front of the official in the endzone. ESPECIALLY in the endzone. You will never get away with that, not even in Week 1 of the exhibition season. Nothing beyond the phantom hold and low block should even be pertinent. Even a hardcore Steelers fan will admit the officiating was subpar, but come on. The quotes in the "reaction to officiating" section are vigorously pro-Seattle, and Jerome Bettis' good name is being defiled by an entirely unscientific and unfair ESPN.com online poll.

The first three sentences of that whole paragraph are all incorrect. Many Steeler fans watched the calls defended on the NFL Network. The ref seemed to have a legit reason to call it, the low block was the ONLY play admitted bad, Roethlisberger didn't ClEARLY do anything, the Darrell Jackson penalty had it's reasons to be called. Again, these are all opinions though.

What this article can/can't contain

Keep in mind that this article cannot contain speculation or original research. While I think that it is totally fair to say that some of the officiating was questionable (specifically the hasselbeck penalty that was even denounced by the abc announcers at the time), you cannot put in:

  1. Speculations that the refs were "bought off"
  2. Speculations of what the outcome of the game would have been had certain calls been different

Or any other opinions that call for original research or speculation of any kind. I would suggest you start with criticisms from official news sources, such as this editorial from Fox sports. Please keep the speculation to the minimum, and also, sign your posts please. Thank you --DDG 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

DDG puts it quite well and states, to my mind, entirely properly what should and should not be in the article. Surely if there is to be info inserted as to the propriety of certain of the calls that were made, criticisms can be found in "offical news sources". In addition to the Fox Sports editorial, one may consult ESPN.com, inter al., which has several stories and op-eds on the matter (and in addition to which is running a poll as to the effect of the officiating on the game, so that those who here have expressed such strident views may perhaps do so in a place where one needn't to maintain NPOV). Joe 14:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a neutral point of view?

Enough of this whining crap from Seahawks fans claiming to be "fans of neither team." The fact that there's even a section on "Officiating" is a direct slap in the face by Wikipedia, and shows that Wikipedia as an organization supports the tarnishing of the image of Pittsburgh, and the Pittsburgh Steelers, and actively pursues it/allows its users to utilize the web site to pursue it. There's plenty of other football games in the 50+ years of NFL Lore that had controversial calls, so why is OUR WIN the first one to feature this bullshit "Officiating controversy" section?

How about this Seahawks.

1. Teach Jeremy Stevens how to catch a ball. One "referee controversy" killed one of his catches. He dropped THREE others. *EDIT* FOUR

2. Catch passes in bounds.

3. Kick the end zone pylon with the foot that is still in bounds.

4. Stop Willie Parker from running 75 yards. (Oh wait, that must have been the referees too)

5. Don't miss two field goals.

6. Stop holding players.

7. Get some fans for christ's sake.

8. Get a quarterback that gets deeper than "Step step step screen pass." It's only a matter of time before a group of chimpanzees figures out how to cover that, much less the AFC champions.

When is there going to be an entire section of how much Seattle screwed up? Hmm? It's an ignorant slap in the face that Wikipedia even let that section stand for 5 minutes, much less as long as it has (and still is.) Maybe you're right. Maybe we won 8 games straight on bad officiating. Maybe we mangled the Bengals, Colts, and Broncos on Bad Officiating. Maybe Bettis retires as the 5th best running back in NFL history because of bad officiating. Yeah.. or maybe the other fans are just jealous. *cough* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.135.82 (talk • contribs) .

Take your gripes somewhere else. I personally think the Steelers would have won anyway and the calls didn't kill the Seahawks, but it doesn't matter what you or I think. The fact of the matter is that there was an explosion of speculation in the media about the calls in the game. There's no denying that, and there's nothing wrong with noting it in a Wikipedia article. Aplomado 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What Aplomado said. The officiating was definitaly controversial. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben Roethlisberger said himself on tonight's Letterman that he did not feel that he scored a touchdown.

This original post is in bad taste and violates the spirit of the ettiquette guidelines. There is a paragraph in the officiating section that state that despite calls disputed by some people, others believe officiating did not impact the outcome of the game. That seems impartial enough, I added one of those links myself. These articles clearly spell out, in a more civil tone that the note above, what was enumerated. The last three points are in bad taste. Regarding number 6: It's frequently acknowledged that holding happens on every play in professional football and it's simply a matter of how often to call it. Given this widely held assertion, the disparity in the calling of holding penalties is of note in any game where there is a disparity. This game is getting attention because it was watched by many people. On 7: The fact that most of the fans at the game were it Pittsburg colors does not indicate that Seattle does not have fans. Seattle is substantially further away from Detroit than Pittsburg. Most Pittsburg fans could drive to the game. Seattle fans would have had to purchase plane tickets on two weeks notice or drive several thousand miles cross-country to make it. Seattle sold out every home game, has for several years, and has been noted by many sportswriters as having the loudest stadium in the league. Obviously this indicates that they have fans. The fact that Seattle has retired #12 in honor of their fans pretty much refutes this assertion on face. On 8: This is interesting critism when viewed in light of the statistics the two QBs put up during the game. Ben had the lowest QB rating of all time for a winning QB.71.135.47.60 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Only problems with this are when the Steelers last played the Seahawks in Seattle they had more fans at the game than the Seahawks.
That the Super Bowl XL had the highest rating since 1996 , the last time the Steelers were there, and that Seattle is much richer than Pittsburgh , with an H at the end i might add, because Seattle has made fortunes from exploiting people with over priced coffee and computer software monopolies .The Steelers have a huge fan following because their team mirrors the area they come from , hard working , uncomplaining and humble , whereas the Seahawks unfortunately mirrored Microsoft , slick and flashy on the surface but when it came to delivery they crashed. And then came the whinging.
That's great, no one cares. Aplomado 06:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is a travesty. There is clearly no neutral point-of-view with regard to the officiating. Who wrote this, Mike Holmgren?

I think this article is quite balanced in terms of complaints about the officiating. I understand there are plenty of Steelers fans out there who want to pretend that there is no media firestorm about the officiating, but the fact of the matter is that there is. We've listed other media pundits who disagree that officiating played a role in the game as well as the NFL's defense of the officials. If there is a controversy, it should be mentioned rather than swept under the rug which is apparently what you want.
BTW please sign your comments. Aplomado 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Bullcrap. Speaking as a fan of the Eagles, the officiating clearly affected the outcome of the game. Every single objective person would admit this. Grow up already. The Steelers win is, and forever will be, tainted. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well let's not go around posting comments like this acting like we're doing this because we felt the Seahawks got screwed. The point of the section is that there is a controversy and it should be noted at least at this point in time. Aplomado 04:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There are way too many quotes from "analysts" such as the typically incendiary Skip Bayless. This section does not represent a neutral point of view.

Couldnt agree more , Skip Bayless is a hack whose job is to stoke controversy , his opinions on the calling of the game are about as relevant as Seahawks centre Robbie Tobeck's. How the hell can anything he says be considered either neutral or relevant . He's not even discussing the holding call. As for an Eagle's fan thinking a Steelers win is tainted that's not exactly headline news either. You may as well ask a Yankees fan to comment on the Red Sox. The real source of this so called controversy is the fact thats its sports silly season with both the NFL and MLB out of season and ESPN in particular has a very vested interest in anything even vaguely newsworthy.
It's quite simple. If you want this article to have a neutral point of view, than the calls that went against Pittsburgh need to be listed as well. Otherwise it's biased crap. --Johnlubic 13:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Tell me some of the calls that went against Pittsburgh that are considered controversial, and I'll be happy to list them. I tried myself but had a hard time finding something I could source in the article.
The point is, I don't see anyone out there complaining that Pittsburgh "almost got screwed," as with the Colts game. The controversy is this: people arguing whether or not Seattle got screwed. This is the controversy, we're documenting the yays and the nays. What's wrong with that?
Trust me, I am no Seahawks apologist. I am a Redskins fan who really doesn't like the Seahawks at all quite frankly, and I personally think that Roethlisberger got in and Jackson did indeed push off, and I find the idea that the 15-yard penalty against Hasselbeck directly resulted in the 40-something yard touchdown to Hines Ward to be ridiculous. I don't think the calls affected the outcome of the game. But to deny that the controversy exists is inexcusable. Aplomado 03:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

E.A. Games Simulation

How about adding the trivia regarding the outcome of the Electric Arts Games simulation? LexieM 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Betting line

Inasmuch as I gave the opening line the gambling section, I too intended to update the line in the game box as necessary. Whilst some sports books have moved the line to, and some newspapers have given the line as, 4.5, USA Today, which compiles the lines as given by five major sportsbooks, shows each sportsbook as having maintained the line at 4. Although surely it is likely best, in the case that the line is seen equally at 4 and at 4.5, to use the latter, in view of its better demonstrating line movement, I think the USA Today summary would seem to make clear that a consensus exists amongst major sportsbooks for the 4. Joe 05:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think the moneyline ended up around -165, +145... I have not found a source for this besides http://www.sportsbook.com , but I believe that was the consensus in most books, rather than the high +160 payout for the hawks.

Cowher-Holmgren handshake

Should we cover a section on the supposed "no handshake" that occured at the end of the game. It was reported that Holmgren could not get to the middle of the field, where Cowher was waiting, and can be clearly seen on screen mouthing 'Where's Mike?'. Also reported was that Holmgren specifically sought out Cowher in the locker room after the game to shake his hand, and many people saw this as a huge controversy or insult without knowing the full details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.135.82 (talk • contribs)

I'll look into that. Aplomado 02:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Main Page (In the news)

"In the United States, the Pittsburgh Steelers defeat the Seattle Seahawks by a score of 21-10 in Super Bowl XL."

Is this event that important that it was placed in the news section on the main page? For a non-US resident this really is irrelevant news. --81.240.205.62 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • First, the appropriate place to post your comment is on Template talk:In the news. Second, the game was televised live in 234 countries in 32 languages. [4]

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the english Wikipedia, and many people (a majority actually) who use it are Americans. There are few topics that are relevent to everyone who reads Wikipedia, this one is relevent to more people than many topics. But anyway, I believe the actual place to talk about stuff on "in the news" is Template talk:In the news, not here... this is just for discussion about the page Super Bowl XL. --W.marsh

Bleeping the Stones

Hi, guys.

I would like to point out that the Rolling Stones agreed to have themselves censored.[5] This is contrary to what is stated in the Entertainment section.

Sorry. Forgot to sign... Ben 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is? It doesn't seem to me that it implies the Rolling Stones didn't know about the censoring or anything, it just says that it happened, without saying what they thought about it. You can change it to reflect that they agreed to it though, citing that source would be good. --W.marsh 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nielsen Rating

A Nielsen Rating of 0.9? That's impossible. Someone wanna change that? Grandmasterka 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Grandmasterka 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Game summary moved up?

The game summary seems a bit buried in this article. Don't you all think it's one of the main pieces - if not the main piece - of this article? I'm not demanding that it be moved just wondering what you all think Aplomado 02:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of using circular logic, I'd say no, because all the other Super Bowl articles have sections laid out exactly like that. I don't think it's a huge issue though, the table of contents is right there below the intro so people can easilly jump down to the summary. --W.marsh 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the entertainment, the commericals, gambling, etc. have all become part of the Super Bowl event, and thus all have roughly equal coverage. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct # of countries?

We have it listed in the article that the game was viewed by 234 countries, according to USA Today and multiple other media sources. This has resulted in numerous people complaining that there are only 192 countries. Can someone resolve this? Aplomado 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From Country#The State: There are currently 192 states (countries) recognized by the United Nations — its 191 members and the Vatican City.. That is what I think they are quoting from. But keep in mind that stat is just the ones recognized by the UN. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
From List of countries however, there are "243 entities considered to be countries". So 234 is I guess possible. I think it all comes down to a question of terminology - UN-recognized countries, or countries recognized by anyone? --W.marsh 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
So what are these other 50 entities that the U.N. doesn't recognize? Might help explain the confusion. Aplomado 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The list explains it pretty well. dependent territories, The Vatican, countries with no diplomatic relations, etc. --W.marsh 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"the game was televised live in 234 countries and territories in 32 languages"

This is embarassing. I know that there might be 234 countries, but I bet that 32 languages are not enough for 234 countries. I also don't find any relevancy in a so-called broadcast on Western Sahara.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   07:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see any reference to "Western Sahara." Could you explain? Second, I don't see why 32 languages wouldn't be enough. Languages like English and Spanish span a very large number of countries. In any event, multiple sources say 32 languages, including the NFL. If you have a source that says otherwise, then fine, but otherwise there is no reason to change it. Aplomado 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's an American centric view. I think that only the EU has more than 32 official languages. I used Western Sahara as an example of a country which might not have TV stations, might not have more than 10 TV sets, might not have a single person who cares about SuperBowl. For that mater I could use Kiribati (I hope it is a country), or that new country which just has been liberated from Indonesia, or Haiti, or Eritrea. 234 countries is an exhaustive number, so it is a claim that all my examples are countries where citizens gave up hunger, civil war and so on, and just sit with a beer and watched superbowl. Kind of the ancient Olympics. It's called Amrican football, do you think anybody else cares about it? For example, tell us another two countries where a pro competition takes place.
Well, I lived through communism, so I know what is good and bad propaganda. When you say that you just gathered a record quantity of grains while people are almost starving, or when you say that 234 countries watched it, it is bad propaganda. I can feel the lie. Sadly some of you don't.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   17:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, if you don't have any sources to discredit the ones we've given for such a figure, I don't see any reason to change it. Aplomado 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The arguments have been made clearly and repeatedly. The figure is simply one of the largest possible estimates for "number of countries and territories in the world". That's all they're doing. The implication is that there is something exceptional about the global reach of this event and interest in it, but this is not the case. If you say of the Super Bowl that it was "televised live in 234 counties" then you can say this of any event distributed via satellite, thus negating any meaning of the claim. If you want to get a list of the number of countries in which the game was actually televised -- on a TV station based in that country -- go ahead. But 234 isn't it. Presenting empty corporate marketing claims as fact is just wrong. Ben-w 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that the number of 234 is clearly unrealistic, you have to take into account that for those stations in Europe that broadcasted the event the number of viewers was probably very limited considered that it aired after midnight in the whole of Europe. Monday 1 am is not prime time, stations typically air whatever is available to fill in the night gap at that moment. So even if it would have been broadcasted by stations in all EU countries that would not tell much of the interest in it. It's clear that the whole statement is irrelevant. -- JK, 22:34 7 Feb 2006
Everything both JK and Ben-w seems to be "quoting" is hearsay. You really have no idea whether or not the game was televised in 234 countries/territories in 32 languages, you just doubt it. That's not good enough to discount all the sources saying such.
"If you say of the Super Bowl that it was "televised live in 234 counties" then you can say this of any event distributed via satellite, thus negating any meaning of the claim." Has anyone made this claim other than you? No.
A list of the languages: Arabic, Basque, Catalan, Chinese, Cantonese, Danish, English, Faroese, Farsi, Filipino, Finnish, Flemish, French, Galician, German, Greek, Greenlandic, Hindu, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish and Thai.[6] Aplomado 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, you, or the NFL, or whoever is making this claim, must demonstrate that it was televised in 234 countries. I do not have to prove a negative; you are presenting a positive statement as fact with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Back it up. Ben-w 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And how do I demonstrate this without quoting sources? If you won't believe the sources I gave you, why will you believe the sources I would give you on what stations broadcast the game? Do I have to do the same to prove that a game was even played? What else do you expect me to do? And why should I believe anything you say when you have nothing to back you up other than your own opinions? Aplomado 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I just got tons of emails from Togo, East Timor, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Tanzania, Gambia, Nepal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Eritrea, Myanmar, Ethiopia, DR of the Congo, Burundi. I have been told that the NFL has sent there a TV set, just to make sure somebody will watch the game. Unfortunately they don't really have electric power, so they had to watch the TV game on a radio with batteries.
I also learned that North Korean leaders offered thousands of satellite dishes, just to be sure that North Koreans will watch the game and boo any capitalst American error. They also organized a public viewing in a large stadium.
As a matter of fact, as a Romanian I can tell you that Romanians didn't watched it, because ESPN Int. is not carried by any cable or dish provider. And it wasn't broadcasted in Romanian, so I doubt that somebody watched it except for Van Goethem.
Cutting these lies, there aren't 234 countries, not all the countries actually watched that. USA Today is telling us a blatant lie and some of you are decided to keep it this way. I am not going to edit it. For me it is like an experiment. I was always amazed by the Americans' capacity of lying (themselves and the rest of the planet). I'd like to see how far would you go.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   07:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please cut down on the attacks, some of us being American and such. --Golbez 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

234 Countries

I sincerely doubt that the NFL organised a live broadcast into 234 countries and territories (unless they count each US state as a separate territory). They're probably just counting all the countries that can receive satellite broadcasts of the event broadcast live (i.e. pretty much all of them).

Besides, the NFL website didn't say the broadcast into the 234 countries and territories would be live. Only the USA Today article says that (and it's probably an unjustified and unsourced embellishment to the information on USA Today's part). - Mark 08:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if it weren't live, I have some doubts on the 234 countries. In Europe the Superbowl--how XL it may be--is not much of an issue. I cannot recall that it was even mentioned on Belgian television, but of course I did not see all programs on all channels, especially given the timezone difference it might have had some coverage but certainly not in prime time. But of course it must have been on CNN and considered that pretty much everybody in Belgium has cable television they may just add countries to the count that way -- JK 10:15, 7 Feb 2006
It's a stretch to even claim that 234 countries even exist. You have to use a definition that goes well beyond UN membership, de jure or de facto independence. The claim that it was "broadcast in" 234 countries just means that satellite coverage of the event was theoretically available worldwide. Big deal. It's a completely meaningless claim. However, it's not as out-and-out inaccurate as the ridiculous idea that a billion people worldwide watch the game. In fact, 98% of TV viewership is in North America. Ben-w 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
So? As the article states: "According to the NFL, the game was televised in 234 countries and territories in 32 languages." That's all it says is that the game was televised in those countries, it doesn't say everyone plunked down on their sofa with a cold beer and watched it. I really don't understand the complaint here. Aplomado 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Two reasons. First, trivially, there is no definition I can find by which there are 234 countries in the world. Second, it's an absolutely meaningless statement. You might as well say it was televised in nine planets in the solar system. The article says, "[T]he game was also televised in Australia (SBS), Austria (ORF and TW1), Brazil (SporTV/FX) ...." etc., etc. -- In those countries, where a TV station in that country carried the broadcast, it was actually televised. That is accurate and it means something. But to say that because it was on satellite it is therefore "televised" everywhere in the world you like is an absolutely meaningless statement that can apply to any satellite broadcast. It means nothing and an encyclopedia shouldn't be in the business of reprinting breathless, self-serving corporate hyperbole. Ben-w 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a reason to believe it wasn't televised in 234 countries and territories in 32 languages? If so, help us out and point us to it. Aplomado 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think when you are presenting an extraordinary claim the burden of proof is on you. If you can demonstrate that it was broadcast on SBS in Australia and SporTV/FX in Brazil, then just fill in the gaps with all the other countries where it was broadcast, and what stations it was on. Otherwise, I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that the statement is devoid of any real meaning for the reasons I just gave and which you do not refute. Ben-w 20:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We have cited numerous sources that state the same. You, on the other hand, have cited zero. The burden of proof is on you if you're going to claim all of these sources are inaccurate.
It's absurd to expect us to list every single broadcasting station in every single country when there is no demonstrable reason to do so. Aplomado 21:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They all say the same thing because they ARE ALL THE SAME SOURCE. The source of the "234 countries" statement was the NFL, and just because the NFL says it's so doesn't make it so. The NFL is basing its statement on the assumptions that 1. The game was on satellite and 2. There are possibly 234 countries in the world maybe if you count funny. If you accept that reasoning, then we could add "broadcast to 234 countries throughout the world" to every single satellite broadcast, ever. The NFL, by making this claim, is implying that this is a unique or dramatic accomplishment, by highlighting this fact on the WP front page we are endorsing that view. And it's not true. If you wish to prove otherwise, get the list of stations and countries. Tell me what Western Sahara or Faroe Islander or Palestinian or East Timorese or Kosovar or Afghani stations televised this event. Ben-w 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"They all say the same thing because they ARE ALL THE SAME SOURCE." Incorrect. I found 200+ sources that say the same. And even if they all got their information from the NFL without checking on it - which as a journalist in the American news business I can tell you is certainly not the case - what is wrong with the NFL source? That's one more source than you have.
"The NFL is basing its statement on the assumptions that 1. The game was on satellite and 2. There are possibly 234 countries in the world maybe if you count funny." No one is making this absurd claim other than you. You're living in a fantasy world.
If you doubt the veracity of the sources listed, the burden of proof is on you to disprove these sources, not me. That's the last I have to say on the subject. Aplomado 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
See below. Ben-w 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


In a recent statement in a newspaper, it was clearly stated that superbowl xl was broadcasted in 234 countries. It was clearly developing a statement based upon the key principles under the definition of a country that obtained to the newspaper itself.

The following equation below illustrates this principles.

USA Today = Newspaper Newspaper = 1 USA Today = 1 United Nations Dictionary = 3 Definition of country obtaining to (1) = 2 Definition of country obatining to (3) = 4 1(2) = #(quantity of countries)

  1. = 234

3(4) = %(quantity of countries) % = 192 192 =/ 234 1(2) =/ 3(4)

The theorum above clearly states that USA today has a different dictionary definition of a country then the United Nations Dictonary

1(2) = 234

The USA today said 1(2) = the number of countries in which the superbowl was watched.

FINAL STATEMENT: USA TODAY HAS A PERFECTLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY WROTE WHAT THEY DID. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE THEORUM ABOVE OR DO NOT AGREE WITH IT THEN CLEARLY YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO POST ON WIKIPEDIA.

Actually the "perfectly logical explanation" is that they reprinted information from the NFL's corporate press release as fact. It is not true. The NFL took one of the highest possible numbers of "countries and territories" in the world and disingenuously stated that the game was televised in every single one simply because it aired on satellite. If you want to demonstrate that the game was televised in 234 countries, name those countries and the local broadcaster which aired the game. Otherwise, the claim is simply "the game was on satellite" and the claim has no meaning or relevance whatsoever -- it is a red herring. Your loyalty to the NFL PR department is touching, but it has nothing to do with factual accuracy or meaning. Ben-w 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you have absolutely no proof or reason to doubt the veracity of the sources cited. You therefore have no credibility whatsoever and are just being difficult. Basically, what you are asking is that we give a massive list of countries and stations that would take up the vast majority of the article just to prove to you that the NFL did indeed broadcast to 234 countries rather than, say, 150 countries. That is absurd. Aplomado 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I keep on telling you the reasons to doubt the veracity and you keep on point-blank ignoring them! The "234 countries and territories" is meaningless; it just means it's on satellite and was *available* worldwide. Big deal. In order to make a meaningful statement about which countries it was televized in, name the countries and the television stations. You could put the list in a separate article. It won't be 150 countries either, by the way, I think you have no earthly conception of where the Super Bowl ranks among the world's priorities. Ben-w 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The "234 countries and territories" is meaningless; it just means it's on satellite and was *available* worldwide. How do you know this?
Here's the last I have to say about this. First of all, I find it amazing you are making such a huge fuss over such a thing. Second, you really have given me no reason to doubt the veracity of the NFL source except your constant rantings about how you *think* the NFL is lying to the public without giving any reason for anyone to believe that. Finally, and most importantly, we attributed it to the NFL. If you doubt the NFL, the source is there for all to see. If you doubt that it was televised in 234 countries, you can do so to your heart's content. We didn't state it as fact, we said "according to the NFL." Aplomado 22:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure -- here's the NFL's page on the subject. The game was televised in the following countries:
Bermuda, Canada, US, Puerto Rico (US Colony), Mexico, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Australia, China, Japan, S. Korea, Philippines, Thailand, Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, Panama, Israel.
They also claim the following by way of broadcasts from neighboring countries which are also available:
Andorra -> Spain
Armenia -> Russia
Azerbajan -> Russia
Belarus -> Russia
Channel Islands -> UK
Isle of Man -> UK
Malta -> Italy
Moldova -> Russia
San Marino -> Italy
Ukraine -> Russia
Vatican -> Italy
Kazakhstan -> Russia
Uzbekistan -> Russia
Everywhere other country and territory they mention is Orbit-ESPN, Armed Forces Network, Canadian Forces Television or another satellite-only subscription -- or otherwise restricted -- service. The fact that the US Consular staff in Rangoon can catch the game on AFN does not equal "televised in Burma". Was it on Burmese television? No. Ben-w 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the US Consular staff in Rangoon can catch the game on AFN does not equal "televised in Burma". Why not? It was televised within the geographical boundaries of Burma wasn't it?
I think the link to the list finally and conclusively proves that the game was available in all 234 (235?) countries. I'll add that link to the main article. People can draw their own conclusions. Aplomado 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright how about this. Instead of saying the game was televised in all these countries, let's just say that it was available in these countries. 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant. Stating that it was available worldwide on satellite is sufficient. Also, there are only 192 countries. --Golbez 23:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the NFL, the game was available worldwide in 32 languages. Much better, thanks. This should satisfy everyone. Aplomado 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There was never any debate about the game being available worldwide. Sheesh. Ben-w 23:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Aplomado said: So? As the article states: "According to the NFL, the game was televised in 234 countries and territories in 32 languages." ... I really don't understand the complaint here. and: We didn't state it as fact, we said "according to the NFL."

No, it was stated as fact from when it was inserted by Zzyzx11 and vigorously defended by yourself, until the point at which I changed it to say "according to the NFL". Don't claim credit for changes made by me as if they were your own work. - Mark 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article is collective effort. Chill out. Aplomado 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary links?

I just saw a link added for LifeVision 3D, used by Homeland Security for the game, whatever that means. I noticed a couple of other dubious ones as well. Should some of them be cleaned out? Aplomado 08:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Anything you think is dubious and doesn't cite a source, you can feel free to remove as far as I'm concerned (that applies to anyone). As for the LifeVision 3D thing though, that actually appears to be true [7]. --W.marsh 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
When I said dubious I should've said irrelevant, but I see we did mention the LifeVision stuff in the trivia so never mind. Aplomado 18:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Enough of the SportsNation polls

Please stop posting the SportsNation polls in the article. The one we have on there should get the point across that a large number of fans had questions about the officiating. Let's not inundate the article with numbers to the point of redundancy. Posting too much of that also affects the balance of the section to favoring the Seahawks' point of view too much. Again, no one in the NFL is saying the officials did a poor job and not everyone thinks it affected the game. Aplomado 18:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Said polls are not really trustworthy because they are not scientific. Grandmasterka 07:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Reaction to officiating" section

While I give everyone credit for what looks to be a well cited section, this seems a bit long to me, especially with the listing of every single call that someone had a problem with. WP:NPOV says that Undue weight should not be given to minority views, that is, a section critisizing the officiating problably shouldn't be nearly as long as the actual game summary (which is presently the case). Thoughts? --W.marsh 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I've made efforts to trim it myself. The reason I personally listed the calls in question is simply because I was curious myself when I came to the article to see exactly what calls people were complaining about and why, so I think they're helpful in that regard.
I think the information in the section is all important because at this moment in time it's a pretty big controversy that is being talked about non-stop among pundits. A Google search turns up literally thousands of such articles. If it ends up dying out in the future, I think we can trim it down, but as of now it's a timely debate, in my opinion.
I think balance could be improved by having more of the calls balanced with an opposing view (such as the Salisbury comment on the first call) and listing more defense of the officials in the media, although of course that would make the article longer. Aplomado 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good, thanks for your response, I think it's likely that we'll want to trim it down a lot eventually... but who can really say how the game will be remembered in the long run yet. --W.marsh 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that the section is long but calling the criticism of the officiating a "minority view" is... well, wrong. In fact, it is seems the majority view is that the officiating was bad at best and cost the Seahawks the game at worst. At least that is the majority view outside of Western Pennsylvania and Steeler fans.
About the content, I actually think listing the main disputed plays (and the reason for the dispute) is more productive than all of the sweeping indicting quotes from various sports writers. The fact that there were so many questionable calls against the Seahawks is the major point of criticism about the officials. Simply saying something like "there were many questionable calls" doesn't fully express this.
This was probably the most questioned Super Bowl (when it comes to officiating) ever, and I don't think that fact should be sacrificed in the name of brevity. Drastically shortening the section (relative to the entire article) would lessen this point. - Ektar 22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And making it the longest part of the article comes dangerously close to violating NPOV in favor of Seahawks fans. The questionable calls should remain, but it should be the point of this article to describe Super Bowl XL from a neutral standpoint. Murphyr 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So what do you recommend we cut then? I think the fan poll, Holmgren's comments, the NFL's statement and comments for and against the officials from columnists are pretty essential. I think it explains the controversy thoroughly without being one-sided. Aplomado 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest starting with cutting the plays that arent or shouldnt be in question . The pylon play has adequately been refuted in the article itself . The Roethlisberger TD clearly was called correctly regardless of conjecture about the official's immediate reaction . The offensive pass interference and holding calls are judgement calls.
I'm somewhat in favor of cutting the pylon play due to the fact that I really don't see a whole lot of controversy over that. As for the other plays, the whole reason why we're listing them is these are the plays that people are debating over. A lot of people DON'T think the Roethlisberger TD was called correctly (I personally think he made it but who cares what I think), that's why it's up there. Same with the holding calls and pass interference. Again, we're documenting a current controversy, not listing what we personally think changed the game. Aplomado 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In favor of Seahawks fans?! You do realize that even Pittsburg Steelers fans admit the officials made some bad calls don't you? Look, I'm a Philadelphia Eagles fan, and I even kind of wanted the Steelers to win. But to say that discussing the OBVIOUSLY bad officiating is violating NPOV towards Seahawks fans is just total crap. A majority of people believe the officiating was awful--not just Seahawks fans. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't really know, sorry if I offended you. Bear in mind that the Super Bowl is important for many reasons other than just the game, and the article needs to reflect all of that. It's important to keep the length of a criticism section moderated, a section can actually be POV just by virtue of being unduly long. That's really more what I was talking about than trying to say people who believe bad calls were made are a "minority". Anyway like I've said, we really have to see if this Super Bowl somehow gets remembered as the "officiating bowl" or something, or if it's just an afterthought. --W.marsh 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just finished reading the officiating section and I want to say a Job well done to all those who helped create it. I found it fair, detailed, and well thought out. As the controversey continues, I'm sure there will be more to add. Again, great work! Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just finished reading the officiating section and I want to say a Job well done to all those who helped create it, unfortunately i can't as its replete with conjecture , blatant falsehoods and the opinions of hacks known for their staging and even in one case the views of a player involved. I found it unfair, overly detailed, and poorly thought out. As the controversy dies, I'm sure this utter baloney and thorough legitimising of sour grapes and pointless opinionating will be slowly removed as it is entirely and utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia, not to mention the fact that it pushes the article over acceptable lengths. May i suggest a new page for this so called controversy. Where all the whiners and "I'm not a Seahawk's fans" can delude eachother and group hug in glorious , tear stained , secluded privacy. Again, Shoddy work!!! 68.71.35.93 06:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Would this be the appropriate place to mention that there are reports of the back judge, Bob Waggoner, who made the offensive pass interference call, is from Pittsburgh. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keown/060207. He was also the one who made the Hassleback illegal block call. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/02/07/super.bowl.recap/1.html. Muy calienty 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, nowhere on either page you mention is Bob Waggoner mentioned as being from Pittsburgh - or anywhere else for that matter.

Why is a blog used to discuss the legitimacy of the Roethlisberger TD. Highly inappropriate. Seems the officiating section is nothing more than a refuge for spammers and crackpots.

I'm sorry I should've found a better source. I'll fix that. But don't act like there's no controversy over the touchdown, and this coming from someone who thinks Roethlisberger got in. Aplomado 04:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pereira on NFL Network

Recently, the head of ref's was on the NFL Network's "Total Access". I'll just go over what he said about the penalties yall have listed in the section. I dont remember direct quotes, per se, but in the interest of avoiding confusion from what he said and any commentary to clarify, I'll put him in quotes. On the Pass Interference: He said that "since Hasselbeck broke the pocket, they can have their hands on each other, but they can't push. If you look at it, they both stop, and he clearly knocks the defender back." He then actually said he "would have downgraded the official if he didn't make the call." On the Roethlisberger TD: "It's hard to see, but I think he got in. Regardless though, you had to go with the call on the field, as theres no clear evidence either way." On the holding: "From the TV angle, it doesnt look bad. But, if we see it from how the Referee would have seen it, you can see the defender did "beat the feet" of the lineman, and the lineman got his hand on him and was pulling back. It's not much, but by rule, its a hold." On Hasselbeck's Low Block: "From their viewpoint, it appeared as though he was going through a blocker. However, this was not the case. It should have been a no call." The Delay of Game wasn't mentioned. I'll try to find a link to it on the NFL Network's site. 70.232.57.229 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I saw that segment on the NFL Network's "Total Access" show with Mike Pereira, NFL's Director of Officiating, being interviewed about the Super Bowl XL calls. The problem is that a TV news show is very difficult to cite under the policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability. You would be better off trying to find a printed, published reference that contains Pereira's comments. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright then, I'll remember that. I did find that said video segment is online on the NFL's website, but I have yet to find a printed and/or published reference to it yet. I'll keep a lookout for that. 70.232.57.229 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned about citing even the video segment on NFL.com because they might do what they did last July when they remove all of the videos of the 2004 season off the site. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I just removed the following paragraph added by 67.163.246.164 (talk • contribs):
In a recent interview with the NFL Network, a referee from Super Bowl XL has defended many of the calls made by the officials. He went through them and has explained why the NFL believes that the correct calls were made. However, he does believe that the low block on Matt Hasselbeck was a mistake.
The main problem is that this person cites a link to a blatantly copyvio'ed video of Pereira's entire segment that was recorded in its entirety and converted to a WMV file. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

One more call to add

Although it was overturned, I think that the time when Hasselbeck dropped the ball and it was called a fumble deserves a mention. It was pretty clear, even at regular speed from the live footage (i.e., not even from a replay) that he was touched. Had Seattle not challenged it the play would've stood. I would add it but can't remember the exact time and score for it like the rest of the summaries. zellin t / c 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it was overturned so I don't know if this can be seen as a controversial call. I have seen refs let plenty of borderline fumbles go during the regular season, because if they whistle it dead there's no way it can be overturned and ruled a fumble. I just don't think it will really add anything to include it. Aplomado 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It was hardly borderline. From the vantage point give from the game camera, which was nowhere near as good as the ref's, it was obvious he was contacted. If one were to subscribe to the "fixed" theory (which I don't for the record) then one could certainly say that they only overturned it because it was "too" obvious. I really think it warrants a mention. zellin t / c 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zellen. It would be alright IF the call was close, but that call was not close at all. The fact that it was ruled a fumble is even more evidence of a pro-Steeler bias of the officials, and it deserves mentioning. Solar Flare 06:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, they reversed the call. What effect did it have on the game? Aplomado 07:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
For one, you only get two challenges - Holmgren used one when he shouldn't have had to. Imagine, with all the bad calls in the game, if he ran out of challenges! It certainly warrants mention. zellin t / c 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I really don't think it does. I see this kind of thing happen all the time - refs let a possible fumble go because they are afraid to kill it by whistling, and just leave it up to the coaches to challenge it. That's probably why a lot of people complain about instant replay, but I don't think doing so was biased in Pittsburgh's favor.
Another reason why I don't think it should be up there is nobody is complaining about it that I have seen. The purpose of this section is to document what calls are controversial and drawing a lot of complaints, not document every possible game-affecting call. This is why I'm starting to reconsider the "Jackson foot hitting pylon" call. We have 6 calls up there, let's not overdue it.
What does everyone else think? Aplomado 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, didn't they change the instant replay rules in 2004 such that you get one more challenge if both of the challenges you're originally alloted pass? As it's standard practice to avoid whistling the ball dead so that if it is a fumble, it's possible to do something about it, I'm not sure it deserves a special mention. Additionally, can't the replay assistant have them review it anyway, so that "it stands if Seattle doesn't use a challenge" isn't actually true? It doesn't seem that he was in danger of running out of challenges, as all the commonly criticized calls occured before it. While the OPI call couldn't be reviewed, the two calls that people seem to have the most problem with, the holding and the Hasselbeck tackle both occurred before the two-minute warning. Neither were challenged.129.105.52.149 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, neither of those calls could be challenged anyway. But you're right about him not being in danger of running out of challenges, and that rule does exist where they get an extra challenge if both pass. In any event, I just don't see anyone complaining about it so I don't think it bears mentioning. This section is not a place to list whatever possible bad calls were made, just those that the media and fans are publicly complaining about. We're documenting a controversy, not making one up. Aplomado 20:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No, no, don't list this call that was in Seattle's favor and probably shouldn't have been. We wouldn't want a neutral point of view in this article, now would we? --Johnlubic 13:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a controversial call. End of story. Aplomado 03:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not a controversial call. End of story? Who do you think you are, God? Of course it's a controversial call, otherwise people wouldn't be talking about it.--24.3.202.103 03:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Show me a decent source who is complaining about it. I'm not trying to be God, but you people are insisting that we include every single call that might possibly have affected the game, and we simply don't have room for it. I apologize for my attitude, but I simply can't see a single reason to include it. Aplomado 04:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Roethlisberger's touchdown

People keep adding the part about the ref signalling he was down before ruling it a touchdown. The problem I have with it is that it makes it sound like the referee is changing his call. It may be just a delayed call. Can we say for sure that by raising his arm he is signalling that Roethlisberger was down short of the goal line, or is he simply signalling that Roethlisberger is down, whether or not he is in the end zone? Any thoughts? Aplomado 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The way he did it, it made it look like he was signalling a TD but forgot to raise his other arm. If he had just been signalling that Roethlisberger was down, he would have had a closed fist (to signal 4th down) --SodiumBenzoate 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no way he "forgot" to raise his other arm. "Forgetting" to make a fist is a much, much more likely situation. Not to mention that he was waving his arm, which you don't do when signaling TD. zellin t / c 03:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
All this is irrelevant - all you have to do is slkow down any shoy of the TD and you can see clearly that the ball is 2 or 3 inches over the plane at the point of its furthest progression. What Big Ben says on Letterman is also entirely irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant just because you feel that way. Big Ben's statement on Letterman is relevant because it adds fuel to the controversy. And please sign your comments. Aplomado 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Its irrelevant for 2 reasons 1: it clearly was a touchdown. 2: Roethlisberger was in now way able to know where the ball was in relation to the plane of the goal line.
It was not clearly a touchdown. In fact we've had a few people on here claim that it was clearly not a touchdown. Secondly, that's interesting you think he had no idea where the ball was considering he was the closest one to it. Aplomado 17:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It was clearly a touchdown. http://www.camcojb.com/sbXVtd.jpg --24.3.202.103 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, a lot of people disagree, and I have to respect that. Personally I think he did get in, but we can't just blow off all the people who don't agree. Aplomado 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
If you are using that picture to prove it was a TD then you better look again. You are looking at his arm and arm band (The tan and white). The football is the brown thing with the gold lettering next to the arm band on the left arm. As you can see in the picture the football is at least an inch short of the goal line. If you see this in HDTV on a large screen (and I have both) it is VERY clear that the ball never gets to the line. Further proof is the fact that Ben himself states he knew he didn't get in. --Coz

Regardless of whether it was a TD or not, should it be mentioned that the timing of the call is what should be focused on. The referee obviously made a late TD call on inaccurate and non-timely information. The call was not made while Rothlisberger was in the air, but after he was down and the ball was clearly not across the goal line. There was also no pile or obstruction to the referee's view. Muy calienty 22:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that was mentioned in the summary of the call. Aplomado 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
it is beyond the ambit of an encyclopedia to make guesses at individual's intentions.

National Anthem

Anyone else think it was butchered??? 71.68.23.70

Well some people do apparently. :) - http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/malven/2006/02/another-super-bowl-another-super.html Aplomado 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the National Anthem, and the Rolling Stones performance, were both crappy. Solar Flare 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of the Officiating controversy section

This whole debate IS THE POINT. There is a point of view that is prevelant and that point of view is that the game was poorly officiated. The view is overwhelming and this is what Wikipedia does, it records events,biased or not.

I am the one who first posted on this subject within minutes of the games ending. If you look at my first post on this issue I predicted that this section was needed because main stream media had not yet picked up the controversy but any one could see it coming. That is the point. Not that Seattle should have won, or shouldn't have.

I am in Seattle at this moment, I live here. But I am telling you, the mood in Seattle is not anti-Pittsburgh, it is anger over the constant momentum crushing calls. Like it or not, this controversy is now a part of Super Bowl lore, and that is why Wikipedia will have this section. But this is not Seattle versus Pittsburgh, it is honest recording of what took place. - by Kelly.

Exactly. There is a controversy out there, we're simply noting it and trying to stay as balanced as possible in the process. I did a Google News search for "Super Bowl officiating" and came up with 1,430 hits. The controversy does exist, at least for now. Aplomado 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats funny i put it in google and got 404 hits the vast majority of which were reports on other super bowls.

Clayton's interpretation of the pylon rule was confusingly listed as part of the "NFL rules", which it's not. No where in the NFL rule does it say anything about completion of passes, but that's what a casual reader who wasn't familiar with the rule would believe without the differentiation between the analysis of a sporstwriter and the words in the Rulebook, which states essentially that the touching the pylon itself does not constitute being out of bounds, but doesn't state that touching it constitutes being in bounds, as is claimed. Additionally, there's a problem earlier in the paragraph with the phrase "caught and possessed the ball with one foot inbounds" as that describes an impossible scenario. You can't catch and possess a ball with one foot in bounds. Two feet need to be in bounds to attain possession. Otherwise it's an incomplete pass. I've kept his analysis in, linked to his comment, but included a link to the actual rule.Murphyr 06:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for pointing that out. Aplomado 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have to question an article where the views of a Wide Receiver are given as gospel and even cited as official NFL rules , and that refutation of this is apologetic and muted. The conjecturing of a clear vested interest is once again allowed to stand.

I believe you're referencing my comment as the "apologetic and muted" bit. In which case, I was simplyl trying to be civil and to introduce the fact that what was being referenced as "NFL rules" were the analysis of NFL rules by a sportscaster and aren't checked, approved or commented on by the NFL, and attempted to remedy it by including a link to the actual rule, while maintaining the link to Clayton's analysis of it, as it's still relevant that not everyone agrees with the guy at Ask the Official, at least until some discussion can happen to try to determine whether or not it should be included. Or you're proposing a conspiracy, which isn't appropriate for wikipedia as we attempt to deal exclusively with facts, not conspiracy theory. I can't tell, as you're incredibly unclear.Murphyr 16:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I merely thought it strange that Mark Clayton's words were passed off by a contributor as official NFL rules (this has since been changed) - and while in possession of the fact that they werent you simply didnt change or remove the account. I'm not blaming you for it by the way . Ever since it was decided that a section was needed to quibble officiating calls there seems to have been a fanatical agenda to include any and every opinion that reinforces it regardless of the source. 68.71.35.93 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who originally posted it and I was under the impression that these were rules adopted by NFL owners and not merely his analysis. Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough. Aplomado 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
/* This officiating section was not needed. Even raising it and the associated spectre of doubt is highly biased and draws a negative where one does not exist. Every team that loses says this crap.*/
The difference is that this was a game clearly stolen by the horrendous officiating. Sure, teams lose and blame the officials, but in 99 percent of the cases there is no foundation for that claim. This game was wall to wall screw job -- [Coz]
I understand your point, that every team that loses claims the game was stolen (well not every team, but a lot). The difference is the amount of attention this controversy got in the media. We're not a bunch of disgruntled Seahawks fans trying to taint the Steelers win. For the record, I think the Steelers would have won anyway. But the fact is that the controversy is documented and verifiable, so it should stay at least for now.
If you still feel that the section should be deleted, I would suggest getting a consensus with other editors in Wikipedia by nominating the main article on the officiating controversy for deletion.
And BTW Coz, your comments really make it look to Steelers fans like this article is being run by people with a vendetta against them. Please do us a favor and tone it down. Aplomado talk 06:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

NFL apologies

Someone put in a sentence in the officiating section that indicated the NFL had apologized to both the Seahawks and Steelers earlier in the playoffs for officiating mistakes. I know they apologized to the Steelers for the Polamalu catch during the Colts game[8], but I wasn't aware of them apologizing to the Seahawks. Until someone can cite it I'm removing the reference.

On a side note, it seems like the entire playoffs has been plagued with officiating controversies, most notably Colts/Steelers, Broncos/Patriots and Bears/Panthers. I'll add a note about it in the section since I think it's relevant. Aplomado 21:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say it was in the playoffs. I said in the season. And they did apologise to the Seahawks after the Giants game for the rulings on the Jeremy Shockey TD and the Amanti Tumor TD. [9]
Please sign yoru comments and don't stick it in the middle of mine. Once again, cite it if you're going to put it in the article, otherwise I just have to take your word for it. Aplomado 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Its clearly cited.
Where? When? Neither time it was listed did I see a source next to it. And please sign your comments. Aplomado 04:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Its cited in the link 4 above this one. number 9. Cardigan3000 06:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, but you didn't cite it in the article, which is where it needs to be. Regardless, we have enough &%$@ about the calls as it is, I really don't see what that adds to the section. Aplomado 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought the point was painfully obvious. The NFL do apologise if they believe they get a call wrong. They didnt do this after the super bowl in fact they pointedly said all the calls were correct.68.71.35.93 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There can't be enough mentioned about the horrible officiating. If there is not a constant and loud outcry the league will not do anything about it. I know Steeler fans are just happy they got away with the win but if it had been their team that lost because of bad officiating they would be furious. We have instant replay today because of the Jets winning a game over the Seahawks by a TD that was a yard short. The reason the league apologized before but didn't now is simple. When they apologized to the Seahawks and Steelers it was for blown calls in games that they won anyhow. This game the bad calls cost the Seahawks a Super Bowl win and they can't afford to admit it. This is why they rushed to claim everything was perfect (something no one believes) in hopes of squashing the issue before it gets any worse. -- Coz
We have a massive section documenting every call that is disputed. What more do you want? Aplomado 06:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, and agree with you, my point simply was that we can not diminish what happened on Sunday simply because some have ego's that require the win to be more than it was. If we do then the league will not take and action to solve the problem and then next time it may be your (in the global sense) team that gets screwed because we didn't do enough. -- Coz
Do you also understand that this is not the place to lobby the NFL for better officiating. Its supposed to be a neutral point of view encyclopedia? Personally, i have no problem with a section on the controversy as long as it is far more concise and not a staging post for every disgruntled fan and publicity seeking journalist.68.71.35.93 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, although I'm not sure how we could trim it down without removing some important element of the debate. I'd love to hear suggestions though. Aplomado 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there can be enough mentioned about it. The appropriate amount would seem to be that which documents those cases from both sides that were viewed as controversial in the public eye. Once again, the purpose of this article is not to discuss the game or make conjecture about the outcome, but merely to document what the public has been doing. That's why it's the "reaction to officiating" section. It is not the place to insert opinion on what one believes might have happened if the calls had not happened. Some argued that the officiating might have cost them the Superbowl, while others have argued that you can't expect to overcome penalties with four dropped passes, catching balls out of bounds, two missed field goals and questionable clock management. Whether the calls cost the Seahawks a Super Bowl is irrelevant past the fact that some commentators have said so. Wikipedia, as an organization, cannot endorse either the viewpoint that the Seahawks were robbed or that the Seahawks lost it for themselves. That's what Neutral Point of View means. Please refrain from inserting opinion as fact. That's happened enough with this article.Murphyr 20:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Football leaving ABC - stop posting it in Trivia

Please, for the last time, we know it's a fact, but it is already listed in the television section of the article. As you will note by editing the trivia section, there's a warning that redundant information posted in the trivia section will be removed. Aplomado 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: My most recent edit - some of you are fanatics

After leaving the article yestereday I came back today to find the following in the article:

"but the play was called back on an offensive pass interference call against Jackson when he pushed off his defender, as clearly shown on the replays."

"The play therefore was not a touchdown."

"However, Locklear clearly had his arm around Haggans's shoulder, and it was a hold."

"Roethlisberger called a timeout before running the play, but a few critics claimed he called it when the play clock had already struck zero. But it didn't. Roethlisberger clearly called time out with one second remaining."

Anyone want to explain this? Aplomado 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What's to explain? There are always going to be people incapable of maintaining NPOV on this article. Myself included, which is why I haven't done much. Powers 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's a tip. If you find yourself using words like "clearly" and "therefore," chances are it's POV. Aplomado 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove pylon call??

I need some feedback here. I'm leaning in favor of removing the call where Darrell Jackson catches the ball out of bounds and his foot strikes the pylon. It seems that general expert consensus of this is that it was the right call[10][11][12] and I simply don't see a big deal being made out of it in the media compared to the other calls listed. Can we get a vote on this? Aplomado 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely. This call is not in question. Even the story hunting "Cold Pizza" show on ESPN didnt include it in a list of controversial plays. The page itself and the section are overly long and it's time to start weeding out unnecessary contributions.68.71.35.93 10:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I decided to cut it. If anyone disagrees with the move, feel free to state your case. Aplomado 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Steelers second team ever to beat 1, 2 and 3 seeds on road in playoffs?

Someone added this to the article. I thought they were the first to pull this off. Can anyone enlighten me as to who was the first team? If not I think it should be changed back until it can be cited, or removed altogether. Aplomado 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed incorrect. The Patriots did win 3 road games in the 1985/86 season but the first was the Wild Card playoff game which by definition was between the 4th and 5th seeds.

Controversial play #5

"However, many officials say they will usually give the quarterback the benefit of the doubt and grant them an extra fraction of a second after the play clock has run down to call a timeout." I'll leave this in there since I've heard that somewhere before, but it really needs to be cited. Aplomado 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a neutrality dispute

I did so because the article is clearly biased in favor of the Seahawks. Let's award them their first touchdown instead of the field goal: 7-0 Seahawks. Let's change Roethlisberger's TD into a field goal. 7-3 Seahawks. Willie Parker 75 yard run. 10-7 Steelers. Stevens TD from Hasselbeck. 14-10 Seahawks. Randel-El to Ward TD. 17-14 Steelers final. I have a feeling people would be protesting the outcome had it been 63-0 Steelers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.141.71 (talk • contribs) .

Would you be interested in telling which specific parts of the article you consider biased? I've always thought that the early results of a sporting event affect the rest of the game so much that your argument regarding a potential final score becomes meaningless. And wouldn't people's "protesting the outcome" (which I'd prefer you better define) regardless of the margin of victory be more likely if what you consider to be biases were actually accurate concerns? I would not protest if someone removed the POV tag. --Maxamegalon2000 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not given satisfactory evidence, citing reliable third party sources, on why you believe the article is biased. You sound more like an emotionally upset Steelers fans. Thus, I am removing the POV tag for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to insist to us that there is no controversy over the calls in the game? If not, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Aplomado 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If it 14-17 Seahawks had the ball last I think they would have gone for a field goal and put it into ovetime —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.238.168 (talk • contribs) .

You are only just speculating, which has no place on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing bit about Roethlisberger reviewing game tape and changing his mind

I removed: This was said before Roethlisberger had reviewed any game tape. He released a statement after watching game tape the following day and said that he "definitely scored a touchdown."

I removed it for a number of reasons...

1. I looked all over the internet to find something to back this up and came up with nada.

2. The burden of proof is on the poster. If you're going to post something like this, back it up or we're just taking your word for it. I don't think putting "cite needed" is good enough.

3. The section is already very long and we really don't need a whole lot of discussion on what Roethlisberger thinks of the play. We all saw the same game tape so I don't see why his opinion on it matters that much more. In any event, we have his whole quote in there suggesting that he would have gone for fourth down anyway and opinions from both sides on whether or not it was a touchdown. That should be plenty. Aplomado 02:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never cared for the inclusion of his immediate analysis anyway. It's obvious that by the time he looked down at the ball and the goal line, he'd been pushed back by the defender. That's why he inched the ball forward after a second or two. The information that he, as the ball carrier, didn't have was that he'd managed to get the ball across the line while it was still a few inches above the ground. Considering how close it was, and the circumstances of the play, I don't think his opinion on whether he got it across is relevant.
BUT! If it IS relevant, then we also need to include his retraction (if it can be verified). Powers 02:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that his opinion is probably not relevant. I removed Roethlisberger's views from the section. If anyone feels strongly about keeping it in, feel free to state your case. It really doesn't seem necessary to me. Aplomado 04:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"Inched" it forward? I would hate to see how you define a foot.  ;-) He pushed the ball forward from his stomach (where it was when the ball was pushed down landing on Bettis) to across the goal line, more like a yard. When the player himself admits that he didn't make the play it is VERY relevant. This push to try and soften the impact of thes horrible calls in the worst officiated Super Bowl in history is sad. It needs to stay. Coz
Alright, fine. Just try to keep it short. Aplomado 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I said "inched" because "footed" isn't a word, not to imply he only moved it an inch or two. Obviously, when he landed and looked at where the ball was relative to the goal line, it wasn't in. But considering he hadn't seen the game tape and thus couldn't have known he got across before landing, I still don't see how his opinion is relevant. Powers 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough on the "inched".  ;-) However close review of the tape shows that he never got the ball to the goal line. When he fell on top of Bettis the ball was knocked out of his arm and slid down to his stomach where we all saw him pull it out and try and reach it across (after the play was dead). The "still" image that is often shown as "proof" that he scored actually is proof he didn't as what people saw as a "ball" was actually his arm with the white arm band on it. On a large HDTV screen you can clearly see the ball, with the logo, sliding it's way down to his stomach. Coz

This is probably late to this matter, but this statement more likely than not came from an episode of Pardon the Interruption, during which, one of the closing segments of the show (the big finish), they mention that Roethlisberger changed his mind about making it in or not. This epsidoe took place a day or so after Letterman appearance. I get emails from the PTI group on yahoo that semi-transcripts the show, and if anyone would like to see that part I can put it here. 70.232.99.11 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Holding on Roethlisberger's and Parker's TDs

My bit about the holding on Roethlisbergers TD and Willie Parker's TD was deleted. Those are both simply facts, watch the film. Pittsburgh didn't score a legitimate TD until the 4th quarter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.45.5 (talk • contribs) on March 7, 2006.

No, they aren't "facts," they're your opinion. Not to mention you are the first person I have heard of to even have such an opinion. Wikipedia isn't for griping about every call you personally think was bad. Aplomado - UTC
Yes, they are facts. Again, watch the film, there is no question on either of those plays. They weren't borderline, they were blatant penalties that illegally moved a defender out of position so the ball-carrier could score. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.45.5 (talk • contribs) on March 7, 2006.
You have never cited any proof from credible third party sources to back up your claim. Might I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research before you try to add your point again. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The game film. Watch it, then get back to me. There is no question if the Steelers don't hold on those two plays, they don't score. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.94.218.80 (talk • contribs) .
You are only just making an opinionated POV statement without any credible third party sources to back up your claim, which has absolutuely no place on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To Jahiegel...

With all due respect, your edits are overly long and wordy. You also make liberal use of semicolons when there should be periods.

Some examples:

  • You changed, "resulted in a five-yard penalty against Pittsburgh" to "resulted in the assessment of a five-yard penalty against Pittsburgh." This is unnecessarily wordy.
  • You changed, "The play was hotly debated in the media between those who thought it should have been fouth-and-inches and those who thought the ball crossed the goal line" to, "The play was hotly debated in the media between those who thought the play should have resulted in a fourth-down-and-goal situation and those who thought the ball crossed the goal line" Again, this is unnecessarily wordy.

These are just a few examples. The edits make the article a more confusing read by bloating an already wordy section. Keep it brief and to the point, don't throw in all these extra words for no reason. Aplomado - UTC 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the two instances you cite, my edit was appropriate in each case and your suggested version is grammatically/syntactically inferior or inappropriate. I certainly concur, I should note, with your assessment of the section's being exorbitantly long; to the extent that my edits added to the section, they were toward the end either of clarifying sundry passages or of adding relevant info, scilicet, the SI analysis, to which, I readily concede, the link was incorrect (such link was removed by another editor, whom I thank). With respect to the "penalty against Pittsburgh", I would submit that, whilst the usage is commonplace in American print media, such that comprehensability might militate against our writing otherwise, it is technically correct that, inasmuch as a penalty is not sui generis, the play does not result in a penalty, but, rather, in the assessment of a penalty. With respect to the "hotly debated" section, the sentence as you have left it has at least two errors. In the first instance, the "it" is ambiguous; it is necessary to say that "the play should have resulted" rather than simply that "it should have been". In the second, "fourth-and-inches" is inappropriately flippant and unencyclopedic. Finally, you have twice inappropriately edited "With the Steelers' hoping" to "With the Steelers hoping"; you are, I am sure, aware that in such cases as these, the gerund requires a preceeding genitive. Expecting that many will concur with you apropos of the gratuity of the language in your first cited phrase, I will leave that phrase as written; I will, though, revert the second change (in addition to which I will reappend the apostrophe in my cited phrase), and I suggest that perhaps neither of us edits further those particular phrases, leaving their disposition to the considered judgment of other editors. Finally, in view of the continued appearance on the sports pages here of a supposed dilemma betwixt one's editing for comprehensibility and one's editing for grammatical correctness, I suggest that such discussions of these should be had further; I offer initial thoughts here. Cordially, Joe 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Your long, rambling post is proof of exactly what I am talking about. Grammatically there's nothing wrong with what you're writing, it's just too damn long and contains far more words than are necessary. Honestly, what does adding "the assessment of a five-yard penalty" do but make the sentence take longer to read and digest? Is it really necessary to quibble about technicalities when the meaning is plain? This is an encyclopedia, not a thesis paper.
For example, from your own post: With respect to the "penalty against Pittsburgh", I would submit that, whilst the usage is commonplace in American print media, such that comprehensability might militate against our writing otherwise, it is technically correct that, inasmuch as a penalty is not sui generis, the play does not result in a penalty, but, rather, in the assessment of a penalty.
If I changed the above run-on sentence to: Regarding the "penalty against Pittsburgh," although that usage is commonplace in the media, technically it's wrong because a play does not result in a penalty. Half the words, just as much information.
Frankly speaking, your writing may be suitable for a thesis paper or something along those lines, but it is not appropriate for short, concise encyclopedic writing. Aplomado - UTC 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Always good to defend one's self against charges of wordiness by writing purple prose, no? In all seriousness, in view of certain discussions, I wonder if indeed others apprehend a similar verbosity in my writing (surely there is in my writing on talk pages and the like, but that's not something with which one in the general community would likely concern him/herself, and, of course, I use a much different style here than I do in writing in the encyclopedia proper). This is perhaps not the best place for me to ask such a question, and perhaps it is untoward that I should ask such a question in any event, but I suppose I wonder whether some of my hypercorrections are preferred, which question I suppose will be resolved as the article evolves and as one apprehends what locutions others prefer. In specific, I wonder whether the community writ large prefers the facile "...those who thought it should have been fourth-and-inches" (with no antecedent for it) or the wordy "those who thought the play should have resulted in (perhaps "brought up" is better) a fourth-down-and-inches situation). I imagine that over the course of editing the nature of the preferred version will be borne out. Similarly, one edit about which Aplomado and I have disagreed is to the phrase preceeding the Blackistone quotation, to-wit, "Others argued that the calls were largely correct, and in any event the Seahawks did not play well enough to win". Of course, the sentence lacks parallel structure, and so I have consistently edited it to read "..., and that, in any event...". To be sure, when choosing between using precise terms in a grammatically-correct fashion and using vernacular phrases in an inelegant, informal sense, I write in the former style; just as surely as Wikipedia is not a novel, it's not a lowbrow, newsprinty periodical. Joe 22:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Trust me, you are too verbose. If you can make your point in five words, make it in five rather than stretching it out to 10. I don't mind your minor grammatical edits, I mind the edits where you rewrite a 10-word sentence and make it 30 words. Aplomado - UTC 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement, then, inasmuch as I didn't really make any 30-word edits, except to add additional links and the like. I think we have the officiating section worked out well. Joe 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)