Yeah, that's what happens when you allow idiots to use Photoshop. You wouldn't believe the rash of graphics I've seen the past couple of days that are flat out saying that the Super Bowl was fixed.quigleybc said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Worst Officiated SuperBowl EVER!
- Thread starter Jovian9
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would like to reply to that creative photoshopping, with a little video I found...warning, it contains a four letter word. All in good fun of course..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_xGUt6MDT8
I did not make the video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_xGUt6MDT8
I did not make the video..
Oh come on, lighten up. It's nothing more than a joke. No one with any real intelligence thinks that a major sport like football fixed it's championship game. The NFL has too much to lose and nothing to gain. It's just enjoyable to poke some fun at the whole situation.clayj said:
Well, this is certainly the first time I've ever seen ANY stuff like this... and there's a whole flood of it out there. I mean, a TON. And the people who are making it don't think it's a joke.grapes911 said:
that's a fairly bold claim. i'd like to hear your argument.Mike Teezie said:
before that, i will say that such claims are really difficult to back up because, though you can do some point counting (e.g. an extra 4 points on the seahawks first scoring drive), how does one quantify how the other team would have responded, or what different decisions the coaching staff would have made?
as seen with a couple bad calls against the steelers in the colts game, the steelers overcame them and managed a win regardless.
still, i'm willing to hear your case.
clayj said:
I agree, this is the first time I've seen anything like this. I think there are three factors that you have to consider why.
1. Porter mentioned something about the Indy game being fixed. The second a few tough calls went the other way, people brought it up again because it was still in their minds.
2. The zebras didn't seem to make the right calls. They weren't doing it to make Pit win, they just made some questionable calls. They had a bad day in a big game and that isn't acceptable.
3. Both teams played so poorly. Think of the last few years. We compared Brady to Montana. We saw a team win it with relatively no super stars. Even the Bucks win as a decent game to watch. This game left the fans with nothing to keep them occupied until camp opens. Nothing but bad refs that is.
I still have to respectfully, disagree with you on your last statement. I really don't think most people think it was really fixed. I'm sure there are some absolute morons who do, but they are few and far between. Most people just want to have fun and this game didn't allow them to have fun. We have to entertain ourselves somehow.
I'd wouldn't go as far as claiming the 'Hawks would have won if some calls went the other way. I would say that if those calls were changed, we would have seen a more exciting game. It probably wouldn't change the poor performances of the players, but if the score was with in 3 points either way with less than 5 minutes to go (which i don't think would be an unreasonable guess if we changed some calls), we would have forgotten about the bad performances of the players and enjoyed ourselves more.zimv20 said:
No, I don't think that most people think it was fixed... I think that all of these cutesy graphics (ref in gold and black, "SB FIX" graphics, stuff like that) are being made by people who DO think the game was fixed... and there are more than a few of them.grapes911 said:
It doesn't help that none of the talking heads on ESPN or wherever seem willing to stand up and say "I don't think there was anything wrong with the officiating." For the most part, they've all jumped on the "the refs sucked" bandwagon.
grapes911 said:
Now that I have had time to calm down....was the game really that bad?? I mean I'm a Steeler fanatic so I enjoyed it tremendously, but as a casual fan...was it THAT bad?? The Bucs??? Come on, that was a boring game...
We gave people Trick plays, the longest run in Superbowl history....picks on both sides...
It's a shame people have such a bad taste in their mouth...I just want to enjoy my team's victory, but now I can't help but think of all this controversy, instead of the great season..
bummer,
I posted a refs in yellow pic earlier in this thread. I got it from a site (profootballtalk.com) who specifically said they don't think the game was fixed, the refs just made some bad calls.clayj said:
No, it doesn't help. But most people think the refs didn't make the right calls. The refs did suck. That doesn't mean the game was fixed. That just means the refs had a bad day. I for one am glad people are ripping the refs. Maybe it will force the NFL to change its rules and officiating. Maybe we can use some technology to get more accurate calls. In the end, this might not be a bad thing.
Well, I've been saying for a while now that we need goal line cameras... fixed cameras that shoot straight down the goal line, so you can see exactly where the ball is in relation to the plane of the goal line. We also should have pylon cams, to shoot straight DOWN at the pylons so you can see if a ball goes out of bounds before it goes into the end zone.
The problem is that a lot of people are afraid of allowing too much technology into the game... they want to retain the human element as much as possible.
The problem is that a lot of people are afraid of allowing too much technology into the game... they want to retain the human element as much as possible.
quigleybc said:
If my team where to win, I wouldn't care how or why they won. Enjoy your victory and forget about the controversy. You never know when you'll get another SB.
But as a football fan with no allegiance to either team, it was by far the most boring game I can imagine. I would have rather had Arizona vs San Fran. At least I would have known not to turn the game on.
The trick play was a nice play that included the SB MVP. Too bad the SB MVP had two drops and one of them was in the end zone. When the best player on the field that day had two drops and one could have been a TD, you know the game was bad. The run was nice, but take away that run and Parker had about 18 yards. I almost feel like he doesn't deserve to have a SB record with a poor performance like that. And picks on both sides where the biggest part of why I think the game was bad. It's not like the interceptions where great catches or defenders coming out of no where. Most of the picks were poor passes by good QBs that where thrown right at defenders.
Sounds good to me.clayj said:
I know. I don't want a computer calling balls and strikes in baseball, but I have no problem what so ever in using cameras to determine if a ball/player is in bounds or out in any sport.
Hockey recently added another official on the ice. Baseball adds extra umps during playoffs. Maybe it's time for football to step it up.
i agree that ward should have pulled that one in, along with a couple of others. nerves, i guess.grapes911 said:
about the MVP, i thought it should have gone to alan faneca. he had his usual awesome game, including pulling and throwing the block that sprung parker for his long TD run. if there was any year the award should have gone to an offensive lineman, this was it, but i guess that's not horribly exciting.
iow, ward shouldn't have gotten it, and i don't think one should judge the goodness/badness of the game on ward's performance.
....
about the officiating, instead of everyone saying "it was bad", can we agree that they didn't let the players play?
zimv20 said:
It's funny you think a player playing an non-tradidional MVP position should get the award. I think the two punters where the best two players on the field that day. Rouen averaged over 50 yards per punt and Gardoci averaged 48. Two nice performances coming from an overlooked position.
actually, i want to amend this, now that i've thought about the specific deficiencies which do add up to "bad":zimv20 said:
1. they didn't let 'em play
2. the questionable calls were one-sided
3. the questionable calls came at important points of the game
4. the calling was inconsistent -- some obvious penalties were missed
still, i do not believe the correction of the above would have changed who won the game.
grapes911 said:
Finally some humor in this thread...can you imagine...a punter as Superbowl MVP...that's when you KNOW the game was bad...LOL
I know, it is humorous. But you could really make a solid argument that the two punters where the MVPs for each team.quigleybc said:
heh heh. that reminds me of a time in high school, while taking a test on a shakespeare play (can't remember which one, natch), there was an essay question on which two characters were the most believable. we were given several pages.grapes911 said:
my friend wrote a single sentence, that it was the two kids, because they liked ice cream. he got full credit.
i think a punter would have to be extraordinary valuable to get the award, like saving a TD or running for a key first down after a bad snap or something. but i do agree that they should have at least be given consideration.
clayj said:
Have you ever considered that it might not be a "bandwaggon?"
Just because it is not what you believe does not make it untrue.
But sure - forum discussions are always an 'end-all' to debates, and are definitelty the place to go for unbiased views. After all, retired football players and pro's who spend their lives writing about sports don't know a thing what they are talking about
-- EDIT rgt preventing future "debates" about goal lines --
The ball should be implanted with microchips on both ends, and the goal line be lined with a detector, and:
a) The ball is aware of when it is being touched by a human (childrens toys are capable of it, it is neither hard to do nor expensive). This would be so that the detector pays no attention to balls that roll in or go in without human contact. Open a catch however, the ball would activate and the detector would notice that it has passed the goal line (even though this is obvious to see without such technology, and wouldn't be needed in this instance).
b) It will put an absolute end to any debates over what was in, and what was not. Using the detector, it would be very easy to tell, with absolutely certainty, what was a legit TD and what was not.
The technology exists, has been proven reliable, and is dirt-cheap (in comparison to the amount of money involved in an NFL game).
It's amazing that this wasn't initated 10 years ago. If my local video store can tell if I walk out the door with a movie, surely a billion dollar industry can utilize the same technology.
Weeeeelll... OK, let's think about this for a second. The percentage of "civilians" who think the officiating was bad is, from what I've gathered, MUCH lower than the percentage of talking heads who've expressed the opinion that the officiating was bad (said percentage being virtually 100%, from what I've seen).
Assuming that's correct, we can assume one of two things:
1. Either everyone who thinks the officiating was OK is WRONG.
2. Or, the talking heads are all agreeing that the officiating was bad even though many of them do not really believe this in private.
Sounds like a bandwagon to me. Besides, it seems like a politically-correct excuse to say "Well, the Steelers won, but they didn't really EARN it." As if this somehow softens the blow for the Seahawks.
Assuming that's correct, we can assume one of two things:
1. Either everyone who thinks the officiating was OK is WRONG.
2. Or, the talking heads are all agreeing that the officiating was bad even though many of them do not really believe this in private.
Sounds like a bandwagon to me.
Besides, it seems like a politically-correct excuse to say "Well, the Steelers won, but they didn't really EARN it." As if this somehow softens the blow for the Seahawks.From having played this game before in my single days, methinks this may have been an excuse to buy a drink for a young lass with a nice accent, but that's just me. ;-)Applespider said:I won a free beer arguing that they wouldn't overturn it based on that from an American who refused to believe a Scottish girl could know anything about 'his' game