Cirio on 03 February 2014
| Mandalore76 said: DevilRising 8 hours ago "No one can claim the refs helped the Seahawks, or that somehow the Broncos got "screwed". Nope. They just didn't come to play, and Seattle REALLY came to play. The Broncos were pretty horrible in all three phases of the game, and it showed. " While I do agree that the Broncos got out-played in every possible aspect of the game, I disagree with your view on the officiating. Throughout the first half of the game, the referee's were clearly leaning their calls in favor of Seattle. The ironic thing is, Seattle didn't need their help. The Seahawks were playing well enough that they didn't need to be favored by the officials. Here's a few examples that stand-out in my mind: Russell Wilson rolls out into heavy pressure and throws the ball into the turf to avoid being sacked. The ball does not cross the line of scrimmage and therefore should be ruled intentional grounding. There was no flag on the play. The explanation from the officials was that "it was close enough". There should not be a "close enough" in officiating. Either it reached the line of scrimmage, or it didn't. And, if it didn't (which it truly did not), then it is intentional grounding and should be flagged as such. On 3rd and Goal, Wilson has a pass broken up, which should lead to another Field Goal attempt, but Denver is called for pass interference which spots the ball at 1st and Goal from the 1 yard line, virtually assuring a Seattle TD, which in fact is what happened. I do not argue the call, as the receiver was in fact interfered with. The only reason I bring it up is because of my next example. On a later Denver drive, Manning throws incomplete on a long pass down field to a receiver (don't remember if it was Decker or Thomas) that has a Seattle DB draped all over him. No flag. Even the announcer's commented, "I can't believe that isn't being called for pass interference". Which is why I mentioned Seattle getting the interference call on their drive. Why doesn't Denver get the same call when they are on the receiving end? My point is that if the referee's are going to have a "let them play" mentality, then it should extend both ways. All that did was effect the flow of the game, making it more lopsided than it needed to be, which killed the game from a spectator standpoint (unless you're a Seahawks fans, of course). I'm not a fan of either team, so I didn't have anything invested in it one way or the other, but as someone who enjoys watching a good football game, this Super Bowl was not enjoyable at all. Just know that I don't make any claims that Denver got screwed. They played extremely sloppy football with only themselves to blame and were dominated in all phases. I just had the impression during the game that the officiating was one-sided when it really didn't need to be. |
You got it wrong. It was not intentional grounding because there was an eligible receiver close to the ball. It wasn't because the ball was "close enough" to the line of scrimmage, it was a no call because there was a receiver close by (I forget who the receiver was).
The pass interference on Earl Thomas should've been called. However, it was balanced because the refs didn't call an offensive pass interference on one of the Bronco's receivers (I forget who) for shoving Sherman away at an endzone attempt. That was another play the announcers agreed should've been called. This game was well officiated and probably the best officiated game I've seen in a Super Bowl.
