Dear King-

The overall play by play analysis you offer in your Super Bowl sum-up is fine, but, I can't believe you have nothing to say about the astoundingly bad, lopsided officiating.

First, I like both these teams, I didn't bet on the game, and I really didn't care who won. All I wanted to see was a good superbowl, which I might have if the referees didn't make that an impossibility. I cannot rememember ever seeing more obviously biased and just plain terrible calls- from taking away a perfectly legitimate touch down by Seattle to calling Hassleback for an illegal block that was actually a legal tackle, to giving Rothlesburger a crucial touchdown that he didn't even come close to making.

Seattle certainly made their share of stupid mistakes, but they flat-out kicked Pittsburgh's collective ass for about 80% of the game, a fact which is clearly evidenced by the stats. The refs stole this game, and regardless of who won, that is pathetic.

And why not? He was the no-name who caught two of Neil O'Donnell's passes in Super Bowl XXX. Too bad Neil forgot Brown was a Cowboys cornerback. The Steelers fans at Ford Field remembered!

That was the most one-sided officiating I've seen since Bush v. Gore was before the Supreme Court in 2000.

The final straw for me was shortly after the phantom holding penalty, when Seattle's QB made a fine tackle following an interception, and was penalized for an "illegal block", or whatever. I turned off the game in disgust at that point; so if that particular call was overturned or at least satisfactorily explained, I missed it.

Bad calls are part of the game, but a series of terrible calls, all against one team, should not be a part of any game. I feel terrible for the Seahawks and their fans, and embarrassed to have been a fan.

I didn't watch the game - no interest - but I did read today about the NFL censoring two of the songs that the Rolling Stones performed.

I found it odd that at an event that features 300+lb. men violently trying to kill one another for three hours that the NFL would censor lyrics from the 1960s - being performed by men who could collect social security if they were American. Supposedly, the lyrics were too "sexual" - and we gotta be careful of the young'uns.

It's such an odd juxtaposition - our fascination and acceptance of violence and abhorrence of "sex" (or anything that even barely relates to sex).

I guess that if nothing else, we can all at least be thankful that Mick Jagger didn't expose _his_ breast.

I'd like to thank ABC for laying the cheese on thick. Surely they must have assumed that I had forgotten how important this game was supposed to be. And to get me really pumped, they hired Harrison Ford (remember him?) to remind me about the legends and the excitement and the glorious moments of past Superbowls. And he said it all in Dr. Seuss speak just in case my reading skills were at a 4th grade level.

And don't forget about those candid black and white photos of players and coaches gazing longingly at the Vince Lombardi Trophy! This game is REALLY important to the them too. You can bet they'll fight tooth and nail to get it! Because when it's all said and done, at the end of the day, the bottom line, that's what it's all about; the Vince Lombardi Trophy. No question about it, what it comes down to is this; the Vince Lombardi Trophy.

That's what the players play for. That's what the coaches coach for. The Vince Lombardi Trophy. Don't forget!

That's right, ABC stepped on the gas full throttle on the hype machine and turned this very average game of football into the most memorable, legendary, exciting, stunning, star studded, and significant football moment in the historic annals of Superbowl XL 2006.

Sure, like almost everyone else, I've got complaints about the officiating, but what seems to be bugging me the most today about Roethlisberger's TD is the whole notion of "breaking the plane" of the goal line, something that's bugged me for ages. What we're arguing about on that play, after all, is whether the point of the ball crossed an imaginary line extending upward from the leading edge of the white line that defines the end zone. That's not what decided a touchdown twenty years ago, was it? Football's a game of ground aquisition, so what ground is being gained when a QB tries to leap over a pile at the goal line and is pushed back to where he came from? The ball, or some important part of the ball carrier at least, should be _in_ the end zone at some point, not just over it or near it, for a TD to count.

Someone tell me I'm not the only one to feel this way.

Gregg Easterbrook would be disappointed... unless my eyes failed me, that was no reverse to Randle El, but an "end around"

For it to be a reverse, Big Ben would have to have handed it off to someone else who then handed it off to Randle El. My memory is a little bit hazy, but didn't he just hand it straight off to Randle El?

Lost in all this chat about Jackson's pass interference is the fact that Jackson didn't need to push off in the first place. All he needed to do was cut the other way, he was wide open. It was not only pass interference, it was a dumb, dumb, dumb move by Jackson.

Am I the only one who remembers the "touchdown" Michael Vick made at some point during the interminable 2005 regular season where he flew out of bounds at the goal line, but had the presence of mind to hold the ball out over the pylon? I don't remember what week it was or who they were playing--another tribute to "parity"--but in my mind "breaking the plane" does not constitute a touchdown. Any play like that where the officials have to look at tape over and over again should not be a called touchdown. The player with the ball should get into the endzone. Period.