Talk:Reaction to officiating in Super Bowl XL

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peter King's Editorial 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lopsided controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Free Play

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Offsides?

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Horsecollar Tackle?

message: 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)
thread_title:  No "ineligible receiver" call 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is this even an article? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  When did Waggoner reach for the flag?