To all those who are arguing that good teams overcome bad officiating. Your argument is simply ridiculous in this context. The Seahawks played badly at times, so did Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh didn't have to overcome bad officiating. What if holding had been called on the Parker touchdown. What if rothlisberger had been called for an illegal block on the Ward TD. These would have been bad calls. Could the Steelers have overcome that. I don't think so. Why hold the Seahawks to a different standard?

i don't want to whine anymore. i said it yesterday and i'll say it again: i'm a disappointed seattle fan.

disappointed in the bad calls that to me were one-sided, but also disappointed with seattle's overall play (loser MVP to matt hasselbeck, the best player on the field). both teams played like crap, but the steelers were able to polish theirs just a little better.

what i was trying to get at in posts yesterday was that bad calls change momentum, create opportunities that may not present themselves otherwise, and can directly affect the outcome. i also said yesterday that this kind of cause and effect, forking-paths-of-events kind of thinking can take you all the way back to the coin toss... i am not a seattle fan claiming the "11 point differential." who knows what would have occured if jackson was not called for pass interference--the rest of the game would have been different--and would the steelers have been able to overcome what they would have considered an egregious non-call? we'll never know.

and that's what pisses me off. i would have liked to see these two teams actually play without that cloud. i expected the steelers to score--wille parker's run caught the hawks flat-footed. i also don't think the steeler's D was really stopping hasselbeck from marching down the field time and again. but they couldn't finish (or could they if holding was not called?). we don't know.

but... i am going to go back to that roethlisberger touchdown. not because i have some definitive proof he didn't cross, but because of how review changes a ref's on-field thinking.

the side judge came in from the sideline without the touchdown hands up--he didn't know if ben crossed or not. as a matter of fact, he appeared to be spotting the ball with his feet six inches short of the goal line. i don't know if he saw ben move the ball across the line or not, but at this point, halfway to the pile, he apparently changes his mind and signals touchdown. why? what changed his mind? he couldn't have fallen for the oldest trick in the book, could he? or was he thinking, 'i'm not sure anymore, so i'd better call this a touchdown and let the booth sort it out'?

the crap there is that that then puts the onus on seattle to provide proof-positive that he didn't cross the line. and without clear proof (i won't say there was clear proof for the sake of this argument) the call on the field stands (in biased mode, i'd say 'the shaky, delayed call' stands). and seattle loses a valuable time out.

if the side judge stuck with his first instinct--to spot the ball short--it would be the steelers' challenge. no definitive proof, no touchdown. same lack of evidence, opposite result.

i can't say why the side judge changed his mind. he obviously didn't see it as it happened or he would have emphatically given the touchdown signal as ben crossed the plane. but he apparently didn't see that happen. did the idea of booth review change his call? if so, why to the steelers' advantage?

would college-style booth review change this? i don't think so. the ref would know a goal line play would be reviewed. would no reviews change this? i have no idea. we seattle fans would be just as pissed that it looked like he changed his mind and wouldn't find satisfaction either way. but, you could say that you have to live with on-field calls, no matter what.

and what would have happened if it went the other way? try again with a QB sneak (probably would have worked), or take the near-sure 3 to tie?

we'll never know.

How the hell could anyone know that the ref spotting the Roethlisberger touchdown changed his mind. That's just useless conjecture. I read another columnist last night who said the ref put his foot where he thought the spot was, looked down at his foot on the line, saw it was on the goal line and signalled touchdown. We don't have any idea what was in this guy's head. No one does. The last thing they want is controversy or the idea that they were favoring a particular team.

King sez "Seahawks fans are also complaining about Roethlisberger's touchdown run, when he may or may not have broken the plane of the goal line with the ball. Replay upheld the touchdown call. I think the replay showed the call was correct, but I could be convinced otherwise. Anyone who says he sees definitive proof of touchdown or no on any of the angles we've seen so far is either partisan or a lia."

King --I was following you and pretty much agreeing with you until you made the above statement. The only person who crossed the line is you. Not only did the replay CLEARLY show Roethlisberger's head crossing the line, but it also CLEARLY showed him pulling the ball from his midsection after he was down, which CLEARLY was not even close to touching the line.

Further, Roethlisberger admitted on Letterman last night that he did not believe he made it. Now what SHOULD be shown is what angle the official had on that play. Even if the official only saw Roethlisberger's back, he should have noticed his arms were tucked in. Unless you can carry the ball inside your helmet, that certainly was not a touchdown. Makes on wonder what kind of angles the instant replay cameras use vs. the media cameras that can so clearly pick up.

You betrayed your own bias on this one. Overall, I agree that the Seahawks did not play well enough that they could have overcome the poor officiating with the chances they did have. They indeed beat themselves, and choked.