Thank you, King, for your brilliant takedown of the bogus storyline that the refs handed the Super Bowl to the Steelers. I'd grown increasingly frustrated over the past two days as this myth congealed into received wisdom, and I'm pleased that you and and other commentators are knocking it down. The fact is this: from the coachers to the team the Steelers outplayed the Seahawks when the game was on the line.

Here's my advice to the Seattle whiners and the chuckleheads from ESPN (you know who you are) who are crying about the refs and deflecting blame for 1) Holmgren's and Hasselbeck's strange playcalling at crunchtime, 2) dropped passes, 3) bad defensive plays, and 4) atrocious clock-management at the end of both halfs: If bitching about how the zebras gave the game to the Steelers helps you sleep during the next rainy six months then by all means wallow as much as you like. But please, keep the pity party to yourselves.

What a bunch of whiny sore losers.

i think not. wasn't even gonna take the lame, porter-like bait on this one, GP, but fine.

jaws made the call that even the review booth couldn't--that it was a definitive touchdown.

i could do the research and count up how many announcers, commentators, and columnists say one way or another, but you go ahead and stand by jawsy as the penultimate voice on the subject.

i was trying to further the discussion around booth review and replay, but clearly we should be trading trash. i even said i bet ben would've squeezed it out under his center's nutsack on 4th and inches. that is, if cower'd had the balls to go for it. the wheels of the bus were flat on two tries, but maybe he could've tried just one more time and took it to disney world on his own and not a teammate's coattails.

point is, we'll never know because significant moments in the game came down to the refs.

you should be so proud of your steelers!

Dude, you'ree gonna have a heart attack and it ain't worth it. As I stated earlier, Ron Jaworski on NFL Primetime said it was a score. Is his credibility good enough for you? He's certainly not alone by the way, but you already know that. Yopur whining on the same thing is really getting old. I wish they had overturned the call so they could have scored on 4th or taken the field goal. Or even fumbled or something and just won by four. Anything would be better than the barrels of sour grapes. Instead of writing all these letters to king maybe you could jot down a few notes to holmgren and Hasselbeck about clock management.

The play is reviewable whichever way he calls it.

yes, but my point was the the onus (burden of proof, whatever) and the challenger changes depending on the call on the field.

official's apparent first instinct: no touchdown. pittsburgh's burden. no definitive evidence. no touchdown.

official's second instinct: touchdown. seattle's burden. no definitive evidence. touchdown.

the review didn't say: 'he definitely crossed the line, so you're wrong seattle.' it was 'there's no conclusive evidence.'

my frustration was with the call not appearing to be decisive. but that by giving one team the benefit of the doubt over the other (and that benefit really seemed to go to pitt more often), the challenge process that makes the call on the field the tie-breaker makes that call on the field critical to get right.

well, horse beaten. pftt.

Anybody who reads takes this clown seriously is riding in the same Beetle

You mean the "clown" who was claiming that there's no indisputable proof either way? The one who's entire column you not only read, but that you've taken the time out to respond to twice? The one who doggedly returns to his DVR to review each and every point made by commentors to his column and re-examines the evidence? The one who politely responds to each point with balance and logic? The sports world could use a few more "clowns" like that!

oh, the fine science, er, art of officiating. i enjoyed reading your article about the inadequacies of the NFL rules and the weight they impose on the officials trying to decipher the NFL's version of cuneiform.

but just like every other article on officiating, the critiques are many but the solutions are few. and i am not criticizing your views.

the status quo for officiating excellence is an ethereal construct, a surreal, vague signified forever embroiled by its signifier.

or, to put it in bar room terms: at what point do we put our hands down and say, "officiating is now a perfect science. we can watch games in peace."

unfortunately for the zebras, that day will never come. it's like that philosophical quandary where you're told to walk halfway across the room then halfway across the remaining distance, and so on. in theory, you're never going to get to other side.

the zebras will never reach perfection. for every side preaching robbery, the other extolls excellence. i suppose it's a zero-sum game. any inequality can only mean someone got robbed more often than the other.

Oh, another clown popped out while I was writing.

As for the the majority - know they don't necessarily know - though if they're logging to ESPN they're probably not watching their first game - but I'd certainly go with the take of a bunch of HOF players over some clowns without a clue.

Read the Fox analyses, the one already pointed out and this

http://foxsports.foxnews.com/nfl/story/5311792

and you might get one.

I'm surprised, and even a bit saddened, to see Fox so more accurate and honest (that first one is brilliant in that regard, saying that even though he should get to crow, he can't - shows a little graciousness and humility that's strangely lacking here) than Salon.

OK, enjoy the clownfest. Here comes the giant pie...

The clowns just keep coming.

> First off, King is exactly right on the goal line

> lunge. Absolute certainty on either side is a

> credibility-killer. If it was across, it was by

> maybe 3 inches. If it was shy, it was by fewer than 6.

Well, the official is only supposed to call it if he actually sees the ball break the plane, which he didn't. Which he couldn't have.

Even Steelers fans have told me they thought it was a bit short, as did the majority of people watching it. At best, it's dubious, such that there's no way to understand how the ref could've made the call. If frame-by-frame can't establish it, you're telling me that the side judge could?

There's just no way he could've seen the ball definitively break the plane.

Which is probably why he ran in signaling that it hadn't.

I'm done here. Anybody who reads takes this clown seriously is riding in the same Beetle.