Well, the actual lyric is "You make a dead man come". You can argue that there is sexual innuendo there, and I wouldn't disagree, but no more than in any number of commercials and/or other content that runs on ABC.

Rob H,

I mentioned him in my first post. He's melted down in all three Superbowls he's been to. The Packers won the first despite him. He lost the second for them and toward the end of the game lost track of how many time outs he had. Holmren probably would have found a way to lose this even if the refs had known what game they were officiating.

You know before you hire the Rolling Stones that their songs have lyrics like this, why be surprised that they'll be sung? They were probably hired 'cause they showed a willingness to censor themselves in the past. Of course, they haven't had a decent song since what, 1972? 1970? So you knew what they'd sing.

A few decent Stones songs since 1972:

Angie

It's Only Rock And Roll

Miss You

Start Me Up

She's So Cold

Undercover

One Hit (To The Body)

Highwire

Jump On Top Of Me

So Young

Generally, no band charts with singles past its third or fourth album, and Mick hasn't written anything clever since 'Wandering Spirit'. But it's as boring to listen to people complain that the Stones were only good up to the time they graduated high school as it is to listen to people complain that they can't understand the words of pop songs anymore.

I have friends in their 50s-60s who still wait in line for Stones tickets and spend hundreds of dollars so as not to miss Bay Area performances. In my mind, Jagger is a lousy singer, and his gyrations are kind of embarrassing. He's one of those intelligent songwriters from the 60s who needed a wizard at a studio soundboard to make his singing palatable. Although having commenced battle with "middle-aged spread" myself, I admire anyone his age who hasn't gained weight and can move like that at the age of 62.

As to not having written a decent song since 70 or 72; I do have a soft spot for Some Girls (78), but I hated it when it was released, as it marked the real decline of a once-viable entity. My love of that album is strictly nostalgic, as my love for sports is increasingly becoming in these cynical times.

King must not have gotten the memo: those are not "trick" plays that Pittsburgh runs, but "gadget" plays. I've heard at least three different announcers make the distinction. I guess in the noble world of pro football, it's somehow shady to "trick" your opponent. But if you whip a gadget out on them instead . . . .

Tim Howe

Wauconda, IL

Re: Rolling Stones Censored? etc.

As Salon's Video Dog says, the Chicago Tribune reported that the Stones agreed to censor themselves. Jagger simply didn't sing the offending words, which were "cum" and "cocks." The lyrics were from the '80s and this decade, by the way, not the '60s. But the Stones were knuckling under to the Man in the '60s too.

Having said that: Can we not make this a discussion of the merits or suckitude of the Rolling Stones?

wrybread: You're not alone. I don't like the break-the-plane rule either. I think you should have to TOUCH the ball or part of your body DOWN in the end zone for it to be a touchdown. But this is a hopeless cause, and as others have pointed out, the end zone is no different from the rest of the field in this way. The spot of the ball is the forward-most point of progress of the ball. If you "break the plane" of the 20-yard line in the exact same way before falling at the 19 (in your own territory), it's spotted at the 20.

tonester: Randle El took the handoff from Willie Parker, who'd taken it from Roethlisberger. It was a reverse, not an end around.

I can't take seriously the officiating complaints of anyone who says Roethlisberger didn't come anywhere near scoring. I think reasonable people can disagree about whether he scored or not. But if he did, he just barely did, and if he didn't, he just barely didn't. I think the replay shows he scored, but I don't think it's conclusive. It was as close as a play can be.

I'm sorry to anyone who thinks that I, noted critic of NFL officiating, has somehow dropped the ball by disagreeing with most of the Super Bowl officiating complaints. I simply don't agree that there was any sort of conspiracy at play. I thought the officials did a fairly poor job Sunday, but nothing out of the ordinary for an NFL game. And I thought some of the calls people are calling horrendous and unforgivable were actually correct, especially the pass interference call in the end zone.

I'd like to get King's reaction to the notion that the two weeks off is at least partly to blame for the sloppy, inconsistent play by both teams.

Absolutely!

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, Terry got the idea that any comparison between the the current Steelers QB and his own record wouldn't be appreciated. Like maybe he didn't feel all that welcome.

No, I don't think that.

RE: the Hasselbeck illegal block call. That wasn't a case of the officials not understanding the game. There is such a penalty. It's weird that it's still called an illegal block when it's called against the defense, which in this case the Seattle offense had become. You can tackle a player by hitting him below the knees, but you can't hit anyone else that way, whether you're on offense or defense. Hasselbeck made a legal play because he hit the ballcarrier. The officials just blew the call. I actually see this mistake made fairly often, as in a few times a year, and it's almost invariably on interception returns.

I paid close attention to this, because the first time I saw it, I also thought the second foot had hit the pylon. Replays showed I was mistaken.

As noted above, even if his SECOND foot had hit the pylon, it would not have been a catch. Both feet have to hit THE GROUND in bounds for it to be a catch. The pylon is in bounds, but it's not the ground.