It seems to me that "trick" plays and "gadget" plays used to just be called "plays." Maybe we should start calling the plays Pittsburgh uses "exciting" plays and the rest "uncreative" plays.

the pittsburgh offense is a throwback offense in the sense that it allows for more improvisation and less iron-fist control from the bench. More like football from the 60s from what I gather from looking at old films

King, your proposed abolition of the break the plane rule sounds good in theory, but where would you spot the ball on the next play assuming the ball broke the plane but the runner did not? It would have to be a "by rule the ball is spotted" at the one or something like that. That seems a little weird.

But lending credence to your suggestion is the rule that a punted ball is not a touchback simply because the ball breaks the plane. There, either the ball or a player touching the ball has to make contact with the ground (your proposed touchdown definition exactly). shouldn't it now be a touchback when a punted ball crosses the plane?

Just one of many anamolies you can find in the NFL rules.

At that point I was pretty close to a food/drink coma anyway. In that case, kudos for proper use of the term (instead of calling it a "double reverse" as many are wont to do).

okay, i'm a biased seattle fan and i wrote a tome earlier this morning and got so involved i timed out and lost the whole thing. by now, everyone's basically covered what i was so wittily trying to convey and lost to the ether. so here's the powerpoint version of my common complaints.

1] yes king, the officiating has been bad all year. but this was so terribly one-sided. on both touchdown controversies, the officials made there calls based on pittsburgh whining. A] jackson and his defender enter the endzone, they push each other and jackson untangles himself with an extended arm. jackson is five yards clear and makes the catch. the defender turns to the ref and asks for a flag. the ref stutters and obliges. B] this will be in dispute for a while, but of course i must say ben did not cross any plane. that is, until after he was down, saw the side judge approaching with a spot six inches short of the goal line, and then extends the ball. oh, says the side judge, if ben says so, then in that case it's a touchdown. which brings me to

2] refs hiding behind challenges. i still don't know how i feel about challenges, but i'm definitely thinking referees now use them when they're just not sure about themselves. as posted earlier, it looked like the side judge second-guessed when ol' ben flashed him the baby blues. "you know what--i'll just call it a touchdown and they can overturn me if i'm wrong." the problem with this is the onus is on the challenger, not the ref. when there's "not enough evidence" to overturn a questionable call, the tie goes to the ref. fine. but we'd like to argue there wasn't enough evidence to call it a touchdown in the first place. it should have been a pittsburgh challenge to see if he made it in. not enough evidence? no touchdown. another prime example was the hasselbeck "fumble" that was so clearly caused by the ground. we had to challenge that?!

3] momentum. it's what was lost by all of these calls. we can't just talk about the point differential if the calls went the other way, the entire game would've been different, pittsburgh playing from behind right from the start. the only seattle turnover--the interception--was a result of the phantom hold (al michaels: "sometimes a hold isn't actually visible..." thanks, al). next play, pitt offsides results in a sack. hasselbeck is now forced into third and long, is rattled, and makes a bad pass. to add insult to injury, he is called for saving a possible touchdown runback--the same play big ol' been was cannonized for three weeks ago--for illegal blocking. thats' fifteen yards and puts pitt at midfield. just enough room for: GADGET PLAY! yay! did you know randel el was a quarterback once? he was! guess how far he can throw. watch! it was a chain of events that led to all of this. watching the ESPN replays out of context, they just look like exceptional plays. that would never have happened with being set up.

4] other bad calls: we counted about nine questionables, including offsides blitzes, the delay of game (it's okay ben! take your time!), the alexander neck grab...

5] classy commercials with steelers holding the lombardi trophy through the entire first half. WTF? at halftime, a montage with both teams, but in the second half we don't see seahawks ogling the trophy.

there was just a story that the NFL wanted to tell: cower's been coaching a long time--he NEEDS this. bettis is retiring. did you know he's from detroit? he NEEDS this. holgren's already got one. seahawks are nobodies. seattle's not a big market town (like st louis? tampa bay? GREEN BAY?). paul allen's kinda geeky and he's not a good ol' boy.

conspiracy? okay, not likely. but man, from a seattle point of view it's pretty iffy.

As a hcokey fan, I was shocked by the photos of players holding the Lombardi trophy. (and while they were mostly Steelers, I remember seeing Hasselback and Alexander as well). There's no way you could ever convince a hcokey player to pose with the Stanley Cup before he's won the thing. In fact, it's considered bad luck to even touch it if you haven't won it. I remember going to the Hall of Fame when I was 12 and touching Maurice Richard's name on the Cup. My friends all freaked out: "Now you'll never win it!" (I was a 3rd line player in a non-competitive league at the time. 12 year olds are funny.)

So that got me to thinking: is hockey the only sport that has that kind of relationship with its trophy? Clearly, there's no jinx with the Lombardi, unless the all-around poor play last night was the fault of the photos. Are there superstitions around the World Series trophy? NBA? Anyone have any thoughts?