Talk:Reaction to officiating in Super Bowl XL

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

Removed two paragraphs
I removed:


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

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

I also removed:


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

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

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

I agree with taking the whole point about the poll out, but not Jeff Fisher's comments. This article has a point of view from various sportswriters, from Kansas City to LA. Personally, I respect the opinion of an NFL head coach more than I do some random writer who can write whatever he thinks about the game without any backlash. Jeff Fisher is a far more reliable source.
 * It should be noted that, in particular, Jeff Fisher's comments ARE RELEVANT. Jeff Fisher is on the NFL Competition Committee. I think he might even be the only head coach, or one of two on it. One of the responsibilities of the Competition Committee is to look into questionable calls regarding the rules, and significant controversies regarding interpretations of the rules, and if they are in need of changing. The Competition Committee watches and studies games during the season, looking for these sorts of problems. Since Fisher is an active and outspoken member of the C.C., he very likely made note of the situation, and is in an authority to comment on it. His comments are clearly not any sorts of bias, and have nothing to do with him being coach of another team, he takes his position on the C.C. is a very neutral way, otherwise he'd be booted from it. Doctorindy (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fishers comments are worthless. As a Head Coach, especially one serving on the competition committee, he is going to be forced to spew the official league position or be fined.  He isn't going to tell the truth about the fiasco.  --Coz (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but by saying that, it sounds like you're assuming that the "truth" is that the officiating was bad. Something tells me you would have found his comments worthwhile if he had said he disagreed with the calls. -Anonymous

Lopsided controversy
I remember there being at least one controversial call that went the Seahawks way; I think it was a fumble in the first half? Anybody mind me adding that one in? Also, if the poll results later are irrelevant for the reasons you give, the whole poll is invalid. Who cares what people (probably less knowledgeable than Jeff Fisher) think about the calls? To properly encapsulate all views around the NFL, we need to have either both views (in terms of short-term and long-term, as well as putting back Fisher's view) or no outside opinions. I think the first choice is the better one.-Akshayaj 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you add another controversial call, be sure to cite it, or else it will most likely get removed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your gripe. We listed comments from both sides. Look, I'm on the Steelers' side, I think that the only call that really went against the Seahawks wrongly was the low block call. Aplomado  talk 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

update: I added in the two controversial calls against the Steelers, and would also like to add back Jeff Fisher's comments-Akshayaj 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if Fisher's comments were relevant, adding his comments would just be belaboring the point. We have comments from both columnists and an NFL spokesman defending the calls, so a vague comment by Fisher isn't going to add anything to the article. For example, in the article we have: Shortly after the game, Kansas City Star writer Jason Whitlock encapsulated many views when he wrote the day after the game, "Leavy and his crew ruined Super Bowl XL. Am I the only one who would like to hear them defend their incompetence?" We could quote 3 or 4 more columnists saying the same thing, but what would it add? Just make the point and move on. Aplomado  talk 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I also took out:

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

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


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

Bias
I find this article as little bit biased towards the Steelers. Don't ya think? I mean there's alot of mentioning of Seahawks mistakes but not Seahawks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.48.86 (talk • contribs).
 * Why is it POV? Everything is cited. If you think it is one-sided towards one team, try to find references for calls that favored the other side. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to agree that this is a pro-Steelers article. 71.121.141.254 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say it is a very pro-Seahawks article. And I also have to question the necessity of this topic requiring its own page. 24.115.132.109 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Random calls added
I removed

''*Second Quarter, 15:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0: On the first play of the second quarter, the Steelers punted. The punt was handled by Peter Warrick at the Seattle 20 yard line. Warrick returned the ball 34 yards to the Steeler 46. The play was called back on a holding penalty on Seahawk safety Pruitt. ESPN’s Tom Jackson stated on Monday after the game “I’m still looking for the holding on Warrick’s punt return.” Image of call.
 * Second Quarter, 3:00 left, Seahawks lead 3-0: On third and long, QB Ben Roethlisbrger completed a long pass to the Seahawks 3 yard line. Some critics point out four possible Pittsburgh holding violations that were not called on the play. Seahawks DE Bryce Fisher and Steelers RT Max Starks. Starks has his hand outside of Fisher’s left shoulder, and is possibly pulling his jersey inward. Steelers LT Marvel Smith reaches out and grabs Seahawks DE Grant Wistrom Again with Fisher and Starks, here Starks clearly graps Fisher's arm. Finally, Steelers C Jeff Hartings pulls on the jersey of Seahawks DT Marcus Tubbs ''

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

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

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


 * I agree with removing those calls. Again, this article isn't a gripefest for Seahawks fans, this is a page documenting a controversy. I have not heard anyone complain about those two plays.
 * I also removed an additional call and two references. If anyone can reference this play with a media source (or two) complaining about the no-call, then that's one thing. But referencing it with a video capture isn't acceptable, because that amounts to original research. Again, the purpose of this article is not to start a debate over the calls. Aplomado  talk 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you're the one who removed the bit about the playoffs originally, didn't realize that when I replaced it and asked the person to explain his reasons on the talk page, so disregard that comment. I replaced it because I don't think it is worthy of its own article, but I do think it bears mentioning. The NFL even officially apologized for one of the calls (I think) which went against Pittsburgh when they played the Colts. There were a reasonable amount of complaints about the officiating, I think, throughout the playoffs to justify at least a brief mention. Aplomado  talk 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Free Play
There was an offsides on the play that Stevens made the catch at the 1 foot line which was called back on a holding call on Locklear.

Should have been a free play. Someone felt the need to delete alot of my edits on this topic..Including the one that pointed out Pittsburgh was NOT CALLED FOR A PENALTY IN THE SECOND HALF...Kinda think that might be something that SHOULD be included seeing as in the NFL in the last 30 years only 10 TEAMS EVER HAVEN'T BEEN FLAGGED IN AN ENTIRE HALF. Let alone in a Superbowl in which every damn call went againt ONE TEAM.

TRUST ME...I've watched that f*cking game about 100 times as I could tell you almost play by play where the refs f@#$ed the Seahawks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.11.97 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The source cited in the article, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2002795956_theplays10.html states that "there was a question of whether Haggans was offsides on the play ... In slow motion, it looks like he crossed the line right at the snap, not early". If you have another verifiable, reliable source, feel free to add it. Any other thoughts or opinions not backed by citations to reliable sources will be removed. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * On a related note, I took out the two instances of Clark Haggens "alleged" offsides on two controversial plays. I haven't heard of this claim at any time.  This is supposed to be a recording of a controversy, not an audit of the referees' calls.  Thus, "looking at the tape" shouldn't be enough to warrant inclusion on the page. Akshayaj 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These were real missed calls but because of the huge number of blown calls there has been little coverage of the "lessor" mistakes made. I do seem to recall an article that mentioned them but I am not sure I could find it again. --Coz 05:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Horsecollar Tackle?
I think I remember I saw a steelers guy do a horsecollar tackle on a seahawks guy, with the ref watching the hole thing but not throwing a flag. Isn't a horsecollar tackle illegal? And did the guy really do it, or did it just look like one.?
 * Yes it is illegal. Yes he really did it. Yes Shaun Alexander was a victim of one. Yes there were two officials with perfect views of the play.  No the officials didn't seem to remember that it was a rule. --Coz 05:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The horsecollar tackle rule was different in the 2005 season (the first year it was illegal) than it is now--it didn't include tackling by the back of the jersey collar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.172.181 (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No "ineligible receiver" call
I removed the following paragraph from the list of controversial calls:

''*Second Quarter, 3:58 Left, Seahawks lead 3-0: Ben Roethlisberger pass to Hines Ward to SEA 3 for 37 yards and tackled by Michael Boulware. - This play broke down and ended up with Roethlisberger scrambling to his left. His linemen thought he was going to rush for a short gain and began to set up their blocks downfield, but instead Roethlisberger heaved up a pass to Ward and completed at the 3 yard line. On the play, multiple Steeler lineman were over the line of scrimmage - no call was made by officials. The correct call would have been ineligible downfield, nullifying the potential go-ahead score by the Steelers.''

I have not heard anyone complain about this call, and there are no references to support it. Saying things like "the correct call would have been ineligible downfield" is original research and not encyclopedic. The point of this article is to document a controversy, not create one. Therefore, I have removed the paragraph. If someone can find multiple sources complaining about this call in the media, feel free to bring it back. Aplomado talk 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

-- I put that in there because it was absolutely blatantly wrong. I had reviewed it with video footage and confirmed all statistical portions on game play logs. While I also have not found any cross-complaints (as it seems you think is necessary to put in this article), I suppose it can stay out. Had the call been made, surely the outcome of the game would have been drastically different. I am a football analyst, so I consider the quality of the post as valid since it is rooted in simple facts. It is additionally developed fact to add to the original body of evidence of poor officiating. If the statement "the correct call would have been" is where the heartburn is, then simply edit it to be "encyclopedic".

Why is this even an article?
Why is this even an article?

Shouldn't this be a sub section of the article for Super Bowl XL if it is even mentioned at all?

To me this article fails: A Neutral Point of View 

Also "Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects."

When did Wikipedia become a place for whining? 216.211.255.98 (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Discussions about officiating controversies should be a sub-section of the main page it's referring to, and shouldn't have it's own section.  I think that the game did have a large officiating controversy, and I think this page would fit in fine on the Super Bowl XL page, but it just seems weird seeing this subject with it's own page. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This subject has its own article because coverage of it was extensive enough to warrant a separate article. faithless   (speak)  00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This article is more editorial than it is informational. It could be mentioned in the Super Bowl XL article, but definitely doesn't need its own article Infamousjre (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when does opinion warrant a separate article? I thought Wikipedia was about facts? Not opinions as dictated by "Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments." This entire article is nothing but an opinionated whinefest, and it sets a poor precedent for any other articles from people who want to complain about another team winning because of conspiracy theories about refs calling a bad game, it's part of sports and doesn't deserve to be it's own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.255.98 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion warrants a separate article when the opinion comes from reliable sources. Just because you disagree with the premise doesn't mean that it is original research or point-of-view. See all those links under the "References" section? Those are sources. The article is heavily sourced. Whether you like it or not, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the officiating in that game, and it was discussed ad naseum in sports media. This article is hardly the only one that discusses controversies in sports; see Tuck rule game, Snowplow Game, The Phantom Buzzer Game, Heidi Game, Pine Tar Incident, UEFA Euro 2008 qualifier fan attack, Underarm bowling incident of 1981, Fifth Down Game (1990), The Play, etc. faithless   (speak)  21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)3
 * I still need to disagree with you, especially about the point you bring up about controveries in sports in reference to those other articles. Each of those articles is about the game as a whole, and most of them are about a specific play in that game which has ended up having a profound effect on the sport or league as a whole based on the specifics of that play or that game. There is already an article about this game, the "controversies" within that game are suitable for a sub-section within the article about Super Bowl XL, but putting it in it's own article is just plain ridiculous. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone wrote an article for every game that had a source saying the officiating was bad, you would have countles articles. Again, not saying the article should be scrapped, but it should be a sub-section of the Super Bowl XL page. I think the article is written well and interesting, I just don't see it having it's own page.

Also, you said "coverage of it was extensive enough to warrant a separate article." What defines something as having extensive enough coverage? What is the guideline for that?Supergoalie1617 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased and you would never see something like this in a true encyclopedia, at best you would see a paragraph or two about this in the main article about Super Bowl XL. This should be reduced to an impartial paragraph in the article Super Bowl XL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navychappy (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For now, I am going to redirect. Feel free to recover anything in the page history of Reaction to officiating in Super Bowl XL to Super Bowl XL. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

When did Waggoner reach for the flag?
"Adding to the controversy was the fact that Waggoner's flag was thrown several seconds after the play ended, which some saw as proof that Hope had lobbied for the call[8]."

What? Waggoner: (a) never signaled touchdown, and (b) reached for the flag immediately, but missed, and had to grab it again before he could throw it. That was easy to for anyone to see. The above quote is misleading and seems biased. Moreover, the citation leads to a broken link. 71.198.172.181 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)