No, I think it's a zebra

Remember the Super Bowl beer commercial when the cowboys watching the horses playing football become perturbed with the referee, and one says "What an ass," only to be corrected by his friend, "No, I believe it's a zebra"? Well, I can't help but think the two terms are synonymous, especially now.

The actions of the referees in the Super Bowl were bad enough. Now, NFL spokesman Greg "Only one i in" Aiello is saying "The game was properly officiated, including, as in most NFL games, some tight plays that produced disagreement about the calls made by the officials." That's even more erroneous than the penalty called on Matt Hasselbeck.

I hope, for Aiello's sake, that he doesn't believe the officiating in the game was good. If so, he probably enjoys "Survivor Family Moments", ESPN "Pride of the Program" features, and late night infomercials. If, by "properly officiated" he means that the officials were in the right spot to make the calls and the replays were made as they should have been, I guess he has a point. But, if he means the officials did a good job of officiating the game overall, he's horribly mistaken and should be let go immediately. Obviously, if that is the case, he is not fit for any job, including washing my car.

I won't go into detail about all the calls that were missed, but I would like to point out a couple issues that have been overlooked. Even if Darrell Jackson committed offensive pass interference, the DB committed holding before Jackson made contact (contact that didn't merit pass interference in almost everyone's opinion, except for maybe Steelers fans). Each player did some hand fighting, which is usually allowed, and Jackson made a better break for the ball. He made the play. He made a big play—at least I'd classify catching a Super Bowl TD to go up 7-0 a big play. Unfortunately, the official missed the bulk of the play. That's the only logical explanation I can have for flagging Jackson, without turning into Joey Porter and claiming it was a league conspiracy, although I'll provide more on this later. It would be similar to a ref seeing the second guy throwing a punch and only penalizing the player retaliating. Sure, the 2nd guy shouldn't retaliate, but there isn't retaliation without the initial act, so the initial act should get flagged as well. Ignorance isn't a good excuse for not making the right call. Making the right call is the official's job. This isn't pro wrestling, after all.

The other main point is that Clark Haggans was consistently in the neutral zone, including on the play that Locklear was whistled for holding. Not only did Locklear not hold (he did hold earlier in the game), but he was flagged and Haggans wasn't. The Seahawks should have had a free play. Unfortunately, the ass, I mean zebra, made the wrong call. It should have been offsides, which would have been declined, instead of holding.

Not to get carried away, but I don't understand why people bring up the delay of game not being called at the end of Chicago's loss to Carolina (when Grossman threw the pick) and they don't mention the play with 4:45 left in the Super Bowl when they threw the flag, then picked it up and awarded Pittsburgh with a timeout. That may have prevented the Seahawks last chance at coming back, and it was bad clock management by the Steelers. They dropped the ball. Fortunately for them, the referees caught it and handed it back.

Sure, the Steelers made three big plays. However, they also had two turnovers. The Seahawks wouldn't have had any if the Locklear holding call hadn't been made. Ben Roethlisberger was 9-21, 123 yards, 0 TDs, 2 INTs. That's a bad line. Willie Parker had 10 carries for 93 yards. But, if you remove the 75 yarder (one of the big plays), he had 9 carries for 18 yards, a 2 ypc average. Jerome Bettis averaged 3.1 ypc (14 for 43 yards). The Steelers, overall, weren't effective with either the passing game or the running game.

If the Jackson pass interference and Locklear holding hadn't been made, Hasselbeck's line would read something like 27-48, 300 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's. Compare that to Roethlisberger. Alexander has a solid day on the ground, running for 95 yards on 20 carries. And, I'm pretty sure he would have added a TD on the series when they would have had 1st and goal at the 1 (Locklear holding series). The Seahawks were hurt by inopportune penalties/mistakes, but they played pretty well. They spread the ball around to Engram, Jurevicius, and Jackson. Alexander and Hasselbeck ran well. The D was solid when they weren't giving up the big plays.

If you really look at the game critically, the big plays the Steelers made helped make up for the Seahawks generally out-playing the Steelers. If the officiating was good, the game would have been down to the wire, possibly going to overtime, rather than having the Steelers salt away the last half of the 4th quarter. The Steelers won the game, but only because they were put in a position to do so by the calls the referees made earlier in the game. Otherwise, those big plays may have just tied up the game.

One of the worst things the officials did was ruin the win for many people. Personally, I'll never think the Steelers were the best team in the NFL this year. I don't think they proved it in the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl was inconclusive. If the officiating had been good, or fair, I would not feel that way. The Steelers beat the Colts and Broncos. They got a lot of help with the Seahawks. They got too much help.

Conspiracy?

I don't think the NFL arranged for the officials to give the Super Bowl to the Steelers. I don't think the NFL arranged for the officials to try to give the Colts a win against the Steelers earlier in the playoffs. However, I don't think it is necessary to believe that such a situation is implausible.

Someone (I think Sean Salisbury) said on ESPN that they didn't think it was a conspiracy because the league wouldn't want to risk tarnishing it's marquee event. If the NFL is found to be tampering with any game, it will ruin the credibility of the league. But, if they are going to risk everything, they might as well do it with the most important game of the season, right? And, if everyone believes "the NFL won't risk it," as Salisbury does, doesn't that give them a free pass to do just about anything they want.

Joey Porter wasn't fined for his remarks after their victory over the Colts, when they were able to overcome the Polamalu-replay reversal mishap. Why? He, essentially, accused the league and officials of cheating for the Colts. Was he not fined because he was right? I hope not, but I don't see any other rationale for him not being fined, even if the officiating wasn't good. I was under the impression that criticizing officiating led to fines. Porter went WAY beyond mere criticism.

On Joey Porter:

A lot of attention was placed on Jerramy Stevens for dropping balls in the Super Bowl after his early week discourse with Joey Porter. The Seattle tight end had a rough game, dropping a few balls. However, he did make 3 catches for 25 yards and a TD. One drop (that was close to being a catch and fumble) was due to a great hit by a DB who put his helmet right on the ball. Stevens flat out missed a couple, and failed to haul in one, in traffic near the goal line, on Seattle's last play.

But, wasn't Joey Porter saying Stevens talking gave him motivation? Porter's line: 3 tackles. Wow. Why didn't Porter get the MVP award? Porter didn't have any interceptions or sacks. He didn't force, or recover, any fumbles. Isn't Joey Porter a Pro Bowler? You'd think if he was jacked up, he'd be able to get more than 3 tackles. Sometimes, stats don't tell the story, but I was paying attention to what Porter did during the game because I wanted to see if he'd back up his talk. He didn't. It's a good thing the zebras had his back this time.

Get off "the Bus" to get in the end zone:

In Jerome Bettis' last game, in his hometown, in possibly the most important game of his career, "the Bus" had a flat. Facing 1st and goal at the Seahawks 3 late in the 2nd quarter, down 3-0, Bettis failed to get into the end zone, not once but twice. Isn't Bettis the Steelers short yardage back? Isn't he supposed to power into the end zone on two runs starting from the 3? I fully expected them to throw or use Roethlisberger on 3rd down because Bettis wasn't going to get in. I was right. Too bad the ref got the call wrong.

In the 4th quarter, the Steelers got the ball with 6:15 left. Two Bettis runs netted 4 yards. Then came the delay of game/timeout fiasco. The Steelers were able to convert on 3rd and 6. Two more Bettis runs netted 7 yards. Did they trust Bettis on 3rd and 3? Nope, Roethlisberger kept the ball and, just barely, made the first down. Three more Bettis runs resulted in 6 yards and a punt. I thought the Steelers were a power running team that was more physical than any other team in the NFL. The finesse Seahawks should have been no match for "the Bus". The reality? The Steelers weren't able to overpower Seattle, and were fortunate to make the two first downs they got.

I don't understand why Jerome Bettis receives as much praise as he does. I don't have anything against him, I just find the whole love affair to be a bit bizarre. Obviously, he can't get the job done any more, at least not like people say he does. This season, he averaged 3.3 ypc on 110 carries. He did have 9 TDs, which probably brought his average ypc down a little, but it wouldn't be significant. Maybe on non-TD runs he averaged 3.5 ypc. Emmitt Smith averaged 3.5 ypc on 267 carries for the Cardinals in 2004, and everyone was saying he was finished. I'm pretty sure the Steelers line was better this year than the Cardinals line Emmitt ran behind. It seems like everyone in the media would welcome Bettis back for more seasons. Why was everyone so eager to push Emmitt out the door (he gained over 900 yards his last year)?