-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Ouch!
- Thread starter TimmyWA
- Start date
It will be interesting to see how the local sportstalk personalities spin this. Spin the comiseration wheel and see what you get ...
___________
Dangerous Dan
http://DanMcKay.com
___________
Dangerous Dan
http://DanMcKay.com
> It will be interesting to see how the local sportstalk
> personalities spin this. Spin the comiseration wheel and see
> what you get ...
One of em has gotta be, "What do the officials have in common with Dave Grozby's partner?" They've both got gas.
> Dangerous Dan
> http://DanMcKay.com
>
> personalities spin this. Spin the comiseration wheel and see
> what you get ...
One of em has gotta be, "What do the officials have in common with Dave Grozby's partner?" They've both got gas.
> Dangerous Dan
> http://DanMcKay.com
>
> > It will be interesting to see how the local sportstalk
> > personalities spin this. Spin the comiseration wheel and
> see
> > what you get ...
>
> One of em has gotta be, "What do the officials have in
> common with Dave Grozby's partner?" They've both got gas.
>
> > Dangerous Dan
> > http://DanMcKay.com
> >
>
Can the refs be more horrid? Crap-tastic!
-Timmy<P ID="signature">______________
Perfection is overrated...
www.marinifamily.org</P>
> > personalities spin this. Spin the comiseration wheel and
> see
> > what you get ...
>
> One of em has gotta be, "What do the officials have in
> common with Dave Grozby's partner?" They've both got gas.
>
> > Dangerous Dan
> > http://DanMcKay.com
> >
>
Can the refs be more horrid? Crap-tastic!
-Timmy<P ID="signature">______________
Perfection is overrated...
www.marinifamily.org</P>
A
AQH
Guest
Oh geez. The Seahawks didn't win because it was the fault of the officials. Whatever you do, DO NOT credit the Steelers or put ANY blame on the Seahawks. Remember, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault.
Here's a spin some people might put on it: Maybe the Steelers won because they scored more points and were the better team in the game.
Here's a spin some people might put on it: Maybe the Steelers won because they scored more points and were the better team in the game.
> Oh geez. The Seahawks didn't win because it was the fault
> of the officials. Whatever you do, DO NOT credit the
> Steelers or put ANY blame on the Seahawks. Remember, it's
> ALWAYS someone else's fault.
>
> Here's a spin some people might put on it: Maybe the
> Steelers won because they scored more points and were the
> better team in the game.
Oh GEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ. No one is saying Pittsburgh didn't make plays to win, play calling at the end of the first half was not a problem, or that a few dropped balls didn't contribute to the loss. The refs crucified the Seahawks with those penalties, three of which completely impacted the game and were marginal or bad calls (marginal - interference on D-Jack, bad - holding on the Stevens reception to the two called back, clipping on Hasselbeck when he was making a tackle.) Those penalties led to an 18-point swing, and when the game is won be 11 points, that's significant. The job of the refs is supposed to be not to interfere with the game. Love your analysis: The Steelers won because they scored more points (you must be Ron Fairly) and they were the better team (they lost in every other key statistical category except rushing, which Pittsburgh won because of the third quarter touchdown. Seattle out passed them, had fewer turnovers, held the ball five minutes longer.)
And the Seahawks' players cannot complain about the refs due to the fear of being fined. And it's not just locals who are complaining.
> of the officials. Whatever you do, DO NOT credit the
> Steelers or put ANY blame on the Seahawks. Remember, it's
> ALWAYS someone else's fault.
>
> Here's a spin some people might put on it: Maybe the
> Steelers won because they scored more points and were the
> better team in the game.
Oh GEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ. No one is saying Pittsburgh didn't make plays to win, play calling at the end of the first half was not a problem, or that a few dropped balls didn't contribute to the loss. The refs crucified the Seahawks with those penalties, three of which completely impacted the game and were marginal or bad calls (marginal - interference on D-Jack, bad - holding on the Stevens reception to the two called back, clipping on Hasselbeck when he was making a tackle.) Those penalties led to an 18-point swing, and when the game is won be 11 points, that's significant. The job of the refs is supposed to be not to interfere with the game. Love your analysis: The Steelers won because they scored more points (you must be Ron Fairly) and they were the better team (they lost in every other key statistical category except rushing, which Pittsburgh won because of the third quarter touchdown. Seattle out passed them, had fewer turnovers, held the ball five minutes longer.)
And the Seahawks' players cannot complain about the refs due to the fear of being fined. And it's not just locals who are complaining.
A
AQH
Guest
It's just all familiar stuff to me. In this case, give Pittsburgh the props because someone called you out on it, then go right back to the "Seattle Sports Mantra" of faulting someone else before thinking that the home team might not have had enough mustard to finish the deal. Oh yeah, and I'm Ron Fairly now for telling it like it is.
It was the umpires' fault in 1995 that prevented the Mariners in 1995.
It was the referees' fault in 1996 that prevented the Sonics from winning.
And it sure was the referees' fault in 2006 for holding the Seahawks down.
They may have botched the Darrell Jackson call, but that hardly gave Pittsburgh the Super Bowl. The refs got the Roethslisberger TD call right (despite when it was called) and they corrected their fumble mistake on Hasselbeck.
How about the Seahawks not being able to convert those two field goals? Wait, let me guess -- it was the ref's fault. Oh yeah, the gadget play, wait -- let me guess -- it was the back judge's fault for our secondary biting and letting Hines Ward go. Guess what? Get THOSE plays right and the Seahawks might have won.
Fairly out.
It was the umpires' fault in 1995 that prevented the Mariners in 1995.
It was the referees' fault in 1996 that prevented the Sonics from winning.
And it sure was the referees' fault in 2006 for holding the Seahawks down.
They may have botched the Darrell Jackson call, but that hardly gave Pittsburgh the Super Bowl. The refs got the Roethslisberger TD call right (despite when it was called) and they corrected their fumble mistake on Hasselbeck.
How about the Seahawks not being able to convert those two field goals? Wait, let me guess -- it was the ref's fault. Oh yeah, the gadget play, wait -- let me guess -- it was the back judge's fault for our secondary biting and letting Hines Ward go. Guess what? Get THOSE plays right and the Seahawks might have won.
Fairly out.
> It's just all familiar stuff to me. In this case, give
> Pittsburgh the props because someone called you out on it,
> then go right back to the "Seattle Sports Mantra" of
> faulting someone else before thinking that the home team
> might not have had enough mustard to finish the deal. Oh
> yeah, and I'm Ron Fairly now for telling it like it is.
Ron Fairly calls things like they are by making comments like, "The way to throw strikes is by throwing the ball over the plate or making the batter swing and miss." Your analysis of the score of the game was about as earth shattering as that.
The only person who called me out on it was you. So, let's see how good of a job you did:
> It was the umpires' fault in 1995 that prevented the
> Mariners in 1995.
>
> It was the referees' fault in 1996 that prevented the Sonics
> from winning.
>
> And it sure was the referees' fault in 2006 for holding the
> Seahawks down.
The 95 Mariners lost to Cleveland 4-2 in a seven game series. The 96 Sonics also lost 4-2. The Superbowl is a one game shot. You offered nothing but an apples to oranges comparison as neither of those series hinged on one game.
> They may have botched the Darrell Jackson call, but that
> hardly gave Pittsburgh the Super Bowl. The refs got the
> Roethslisberger TD call right (despite when it was called)
> and they corrected their fumble mistake on Hasselbeck.
Well, I said the D-Jack call was marginal; there was contact and it was a judgment call. I said nothing about Rothelisberger's T.D., and they would have gone for it on fourth down anyway.
> How about the Seahawks not being able to convert those two
> field goals?
Long attempts but they were misses. No complaints there.
Wait, let me guess -- it was the ref's fault.
> Oh yeah, the gadget play, wait -- let me guess -- it was
> the back judge's fault for our secondary biting and letting
> Hines Ward go.
The gadget play was set up by the two calls that turned the game around: Holding on Lochlear to erase the Jerramy Stevens reception to the one yard line, and the Hasselbeck clipping call that moved field position to the 40-yard line following the interception. Seattle trailed 14-10 and likely would have scored without the Lochlear penalty; he didn't hold. Then you have a 17-14 Seahawks lead and who knows if the Steelers get the reverse pass off.
Guess what? Get THOSE plays right and the Seahawks might have won.
>
> Fairly out.
>
Ah, stay in the closet.
> Pittsburgh the props because someone called you out on it,
> then go right back to the "Seattle Sports Mantra" of
> faulting someone else before thinking that the home team
> might not have had enough mustard to finish the deal. Oh
> yeah, and I'm Ron Fairly now for telling it like it is.
Ron Fairly calls things like they are by making comments like, "The way to throw strikes is by throwing the ball over the plate or making the batter swing and miss." Your analysis of the score of the game was about as earth shattering as that.
The only person who called me out on it was you. So, let's see how good of a job you did:
> It was the umpires' fault in 1995 that prevented the
> Mariners in 1995.
>
> It was the referees' fault in 1996 that prevented the Sonics
> from winning.
>
> And it sure was the referees' fault in 2006 for holding the
> Seahawks down.
The 95 Mariners lost to Cleveland 4-2 in a seven game series. The 96 Sonics also lost 4-2. The Superbowl is a one game shot. You offered nothing but an apples to oranges comparison as neither of those series hinged on one game.
> They may have botched the Darrell Jackson call, but that
> hardly gave Pittsburgh the Super Bowl. The refs got the
> Roethslisberger TD call right (despite when it was called)
> and they corrected their fumble mistake on Hasselbeck.
Well, I said the D-Jack call was marginal; there was contact and it was a judgment call. I said nothing about Rothelisberger's T.D., and they would have gone for it on fourth down anyway.
> How about the Seahawks not being able to convert those two
> field goals?
Long attempts but they were misses. No complaints there.
Wait, let me guess -- it was the ref's fault.
> Oh yeah, the gadget play, wait -- let me guess -- it was
> the back judge's fault for our secondary biting and letting
> Hines Ward go.
The gadget play was set up by the two calls that turned the game around: Holding on Lochlear to erase the Jerramy Stevens reception to the one yard line, and the Hasselbeck clipping call that moved field position to the 40-yard line following the interception. Seattle trailed 14-10 and likely would have scored without the Lochlear penalty; he didn't hold. Then you have a 17-14 Seahawks lead and who knows if the Steelers get the reverse pass off.
Guess what? Get THOSE plays right and the Seahawks might have won.
>
> Fairly out.
>
Ah, stay in the closet.
A
AQH
Guest
Right. It's anybody but the Seahawks' fault.
Championship teams are able to overcome things like that.
Even with the 'marginal' calls, Seattle had several opportunities to overcome. But Stevens' inability to catch balls, Hasselbeck's poor clock management and Brown's inability to make two field goals -- let's all forget that and blame the officials. Which official should we blame for letting Willie Parker run 75?
EVERYBODY knows that Pittsburgh thrives on trick plays, yet it was one that sealed the game's fate. Inexcusable for ANY team to fall into that trap.
I wanted Seattle to win just as much as anyone. But it's really embarassing to be crying wolf on TV...national TV nonetheless and blaming other people for the Seahawks' shortcomings. Roethlisberger's 22 passer rating is perfectly plausible given how 14 points were scored. One where the Steeler offense caught the Seahawk defense completely with their collective pants down, and there goes Parker for 75 yards. And the trick play had nothing to do with Roethlisberger's stats, that pass was thrown by Randle-El.
Seriously; Pittsburgh didn't win it, Seattle lost it.
As for the Mariners and Seahawks references, you probably weren't around for those series. Many people were complaining about the officiating and claiming a west coast bias. Everyone was claiming a "Michael Jordan bias" in 1996.
I'm not saying the officiating was stellar, it was far from it. But like I said earlier -- championship teams can overcome things like that. Pittsburgh did it against Indianapolis, Seattle couldn't. Get over it. The Seahawks lost.
Championship teams are able to overcome things like that.
Even with the 'marginal' calls, Seattle had several opportunities to overcome. But Stevens' inability to catch balls, Hasselbeck's poor clock management and Brown's inability to make two field goals -- let's all forget that and blame the officials. Which official should we blame for letting Willie Parker run 75?
EVERYBODY knows that Pittsburgh thrives on trick plays, yet it was one that sealed the game's fate. Inexcusable for ANY team to fall into that trap.
I wanted Seattle to win just as much as anyone. But it's really embarassing to be crying wolf on TV...national TV nonetheless and blaming other people for the Seahawks' shortcomings. Roethlisberger's 22 passer rating is perfectly plausible given how 14 points were scored. One where the Steeler offense caught the Seahawk defense completely with their collective pants down, and there goes Parker for 75 yards. And the trick play had nothing to do with Roethlisberger's stats, that pass was thrown by Randle-El.
Seriously; Pittsburgh didn't win it, Seattle lost it.
As for the Mariners and Seahawks references, you probably weren't around for those series. Many people were complaining about the officiating and claiming a west coast bias. Everyone was claiming a "Michael Jordan bias" in 1996.
I'm not saying the officiating was stellar, it was far from it. But like I said earlier -- championship teams can overcome things like that. Pittsburgh did it against Indianapolis, Seattle couldn't. Get over it. The Seahawks lost.
For God's sake, get over yourself. The question posed by Dangerous Dan asked what the local spin would be, and the officials clearly were part of the local spin.
Since you seem to want to challenge my wit, I did watch the Chicago - Seattle series. The notion that Jordan got calls existed long before that series. Did you really think the Sonics would come back from a 3-0 deficit, or did you remember they were down 3-0? Remember Rodman taunting Brickowski at the foul line? The Mariners: Won a one game playoff against the California Angels to win the division (hey an apples-to-apples comparison with the Superbowl, one came making a difference - think about that some time), down 0-2 and won three straight against the Yankees, lost 4-2 to the Cleveland Indians. Yeah, Fairly, you tell me what I should know; it'll make such a difference. Get the last word in if you want, I won't write back.
Since you seem to want to challenge my wit, I did watch the Chicago - Seattle series. The notion that Jordan got calls existed long before that series. Did you really think the Sonics would come back from a 3-0 deficit, or did you remember they were down 3-0? Remember Rodman taunting Brickowski at the foul line? The Mariners: Won a one game playoff against the California Angels to win the division (hey an apples-to-apples comparison with the Superbowl, one came making a difference - think about that some time), down 0-2 and won three straight against the Yankees, lost 4-2 to the Cleveland Indians. Yeah, Fairly, you tell me what I should know; it'll make such a difference. Get the last word in if you want, I won't write back.
A
AQH
Guest
Dude, it's not a 'last-word' or any 'one-uppance' thing. The point is that the same cries of 'foul' by Seattle fans are happening now as they were back in those sports series.
B
barrisfan
Guest
and the cries of foul for sb40 are being echoed not just in seattle, but all over (well, except for stealer fans)
A
AQH
Guest
> and the cries of foul for sb40 are being echoed not just in
> seattle, but all over (well, except for stealer fans)
Seahawks blew it. Get over it.
> seattle, but all over (well, except for stealer fans)
Seahawks blew it. Get over it.
O
OttoM
Guest
> > and the cries of foul for sb40 are being echoed not just
> in
> > seattle, but all over (well, except for stealer fans)
>
> Seahawks blew it. Get over it.
>
Absolutely correct. But the truth sometimes is hard to accept.
And all those "cries of foul"? Doesn't mean a hill o' beans because it won't reverse the outcome. Besides - today the NFL said it stands by its refs as having done an excellent job Sunday.
> in
> > seattle, but all over (well, except for stealer fans)
>
> Seahawks blew it. Get over it.
>
Absolutely correct. But the truth sometimes is hard to accept.
And all those "cries of foul"? Doesn't mean a hill o' beans because it won't reverse the outcome. Besides - today the NFL said it stands by its refs as having done an excellent job Sunday.
> > > and the cries of foul for sb40 are being echoed not just
>
> > in
> > > seattle, but all over (well, except for stealer fans)
> >
> > Seahawks blew it. Get over it.
> >
>
> Absolutely correct. But the truth sometimes is hard to
> accept.
>
> And all those "cries of foul"? Doesn't mean a hill o' beans
> because it won't reverse the outcome. Besides - today the
> NFL said it stands by its refs as having done an excellent
> job Sunday.
So far, Hammas and al-Qaeda haven't claimed responsibility either, so I guess we'll just have to accept it as it is....
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"If I were in this business only for the business, I wouldn't be in this business." Samuel Goldwyn
[email protected]
</P>
>
> > in
> > > seattle, but all over (well, except for stealer fans)
> >
> > Seahawks blew it. Get over it.
> >
>
> Absolutely correct. But the truth sometimes is hard to
> accept.
>
> And all those "cries of foul"? Doesn't mean a hill o' beans
> because it won't reverse the outcome. Besides - today the
> NFL said it stands by its refs as having done an excellent
> job Sunday.
So far, Hammas and al-Qaeda haven't claimed responsibility either, so I guess we'll just have to accept it as it is....
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"If I were in this business only for the business, I wouldn't be in this business." Samuel Goldwyn
[email protected]
</P>
- Status