I keep asking people to not just judge the absolute letter of the law in terms of offensive pass interference but to judge it in the context of what normally goes on in these situations. And I feel that the large majority of the time, that call doesn't happen. Now I know appealing to authority doesn't make something right, but I want to point out that I am far from the only person who thinks so. Just to give you an example, ESPN.com is running one of their multi question polls about the officiating in the game. When I filled it out, it was polling 75% in favor of people who thought it should have been a non-call. Skip Bayless agrees. So does Bill Simmons. So does Michael Smith. So does the guy at Slate.com. So does Steve Young. So does Michael Irvin. So does John Madden.

I only bring all that up to point out that the idea that it is a clearly correct call, which King has been making, doesn't seem to stand up. A lot of people think it wasn't a good call. They might all be wrong, but at least give me that its questionable.

Penalties happen in a context of other calls throughout a game and a season. I'm sure you can find a penalty on every play if you look hard enough. I'll do you one better-- by the absolute textbook definition of the rule which you all keep harping on, you could call DEFENSIVE pass interference on that play.

The point is that all calls involve some judgement, and its important that the judgement is enforced equally across the league. I hate to bring up the cliche, but holding could be called on every play, right? But its not because there is an understanding of what constitutes holding, even if that means that a lot of plays that could technically be called holding go uncalled. The same thing applies with pass interference; you can apply the rulebook selectively to an individual play and say that there is a penalty there. But if that play is enforced differently from most every other similar play (and I believe it was), then thats wrong.

I think the reason most consider it a bad call is because offensive pass interference is so rarely called in the NFL. Generally when it is the reciever has to nearly tackle the defender.

Small push-offs have been tolerated since I've been watching the game. And as I noted before Michael Irvin used to do a lot more to his defenders and didn't get called for it.

Not to mention that push didn't appear to really impede the defender. He just got blown away and then burned.

I really don't understand all of the grief about the holding call on the pass to Jerramy Stevens to the 1. You can make the argument that "players get away with it all the time," but the right tackle held Clark Haggans. Watch it: Any time a defender gets behind a lineman and the lineman clutches and grabs the defender to impede his progress, it's the definition of holding. Any kind of contact by an offensive lineman initiated from the back is going to be a penalty, be it an illegal block in the back or a hold. He had Haggans in a headlock and another hand on the front of his jersey from behind. I thought so at the time, and I've been baffled by people pointing to that play as the worst call of the game, which it was far from. I did see a Seahawk who said it was clear Haggans was off-side, which makes it a bad call not to nail him for that (if he was even off-side, I haven't seen a good replay on when he jumped across), but it doesn't change the fact that the correct call was made on the hold. At best for the Seahawks, you've got off-setting penalties and no completion to the 1. Anything else would have been a biased call in favor of Seattle.

And John Madden didn't see it? So what? I didn't even have the announcers on and I saw the hold before the flag got thrown. Also, Skip Bayless has come out on the side of the Seahawks was robbed camp. I think that's always an indication that the argument is faulty.

Was it a slight foul? Yes. Did Jackson need the push? No. But he did it, and right in front of a ref. Why would you create the impression of an illegal play in the biggest game of the year? No matter what you think of the consistency of the calling, Jackson made a bone-head play, and no one would be talking about it if he had kept his hands off of Chris Hope's jersey.

No no. Offense gets a "free play". And the offisdes was obvious, I saw it in real time. While they didn't play particularly well, that doesn't negate the fact that Seattle got the short, short end of the officiating stick. They just did, clearly, unquestionably, and - for the good of the game - unfortunately.

as he untucked the ball from underneath his belly outside the end zone, and placed it in the end zone after being down for a full second. He looked like my dog when caught munching from the cat's litterbox. I don't even LIKE football. I care less about football than I do about hockey. And I really care very little about hockey. But even I got upset at this Superbowl.

Seattle didn't fall apart until after they were screwed over eight gazillion times by the line ref. Steelers fans should be ashamed that they had to rely on such crappy calls.

it's been a common theme in king's column to discuss the stupefying intricasies on major sports rules. especially those of the NFL. i've said it in earliler threads--i know i'm biased to seattle. so when something can 'go either way' i want it to go seattle's.

so, the officiating has been beaten to death and everyone's got good points both ways, but i'm not convinced that the officiating was equally bad against both teams yet. there were maybe non-calls that could have been to the steelers' advantage (i still haven't seen a block to the back on ben during the INT return, but that could be seattle-blindness; and the stevens fumble/non-catch rolled out of bounds--could the steelers have somehow recovered it? maybe. and that would have been better for the hawks than our crappy punt; and i was wrong on the QB block on the gadget play--i thought it was a clip, but on a repeat viewing he's sort of facing the defender and hits from the side).

it's that the things steelers fans or even neutral observers call 'textbook' that beg for consistency:

granted, jackson touched hope with a straight arm. hope also held jackson's hands as he saw he was going to cut free. textbook defensive interference? could be. could also be brushed off as 'touchy-feely.' could have been no call. but it went the steelers way.

textbook holding? could be. there's the old saw that if that was enforced 'by-the-book, there could very well be holding on every play. it just so happens it's called on a play that had seattle in scoring position again. jim sees it differently. i saw locklear in front of the defender with his his hands at chest level. his left arm slips outside (allowed if offensive player makes effort to pull them back inside). by the time locklear has a chance to pull the single arm back (even if he never intended to) the defender is by him. in slo-mo, it looks like a long hold. in real time it's pretty quick and doesn't appear on its own(again, seattle blindness?) to keep the defender from stopping the QB before the throw.

all-in-all, i don't mean to question every play with rule book minutae. i don't have the unwritten rule book. the one's om the NFL site are woefully incomplete. i believe king even mentioned that a complete, up-to-date rulebook is not available to the public. wow.

my point earlier is that bad officiating kills momentum and can change the course of the game. we can argue cause and effect all the way back to the coin toss, but a lot of the calls stole momentum from a seattle offense that had the pitt D on its heels, and gave it to the steelers offense by giving them opportunities they never would have had.

who knows, if that first jackson endzone catch was called a touchdown, we'll never know if pitt could have rallied from behind to surprise seattle. if ben's TD was overturned, would they have gone for it on fourth down of kicked for a tie? i would have like to see the players and coaches play the game without grievous interference from the refs?