Refs should have worn yellow and black
The commercials were OK, the game was fair and the officiating
was horrible. About the only really impressive thing on Super Bowl
Sunday was the performance by Mick Jagger. The guy is 62 years old!
Let me say that again for clarity
– 62 years old. That’s the exact same age as my father.
But this guy didn’t look like any 62-year-old dad I know with
his full head of dark hair that whipped around as he jumped around
the stage with a slew of spins and twists that would make have made
Michael Jackson envious 20 years ago.
Refs should have worn yellow and black
The commercials were OK, the game was fair and the officiating was horrible. About the only really impressive thing on Super Bowl Sunday was the performance by Mick Jagger. The guy is 62 years old! Let me say that again for clarity – 62 years old. That’s the exact same age as my father.
But this guy didn’t look like any 62-year-old dad I know with his full head of dark hair that whipped around as he jumped around the stage with a slew of spins and twists that would make have made Michael Jackson envious 20 years ago.
What is his secret?
Clearly, Sir Paul McCartney is starting to lose his edge but Jagger hasn’t changed in years. I don’t think he’s gained a pound in 40 years. And he moved around the Rolling Stones’ trademarked stage as if he didn’t even have a bone in his body. He certainly didn’t have the aches and pains that begin to set in for most guys in their 60s. Heck, I have aches and pains at 40.
Jagger was so limber out there it was almost comical in a surreal sort of way. Maybe the booze, the drugs and the womanizing aren’t so bad after all – at least for this modern day Ponce De Leon.
I joked about it with my mother after.
Unbeknownst to me, she pointed out that she and my dad saw the Stones in 1965 in Atlantic City when she was pregnant with me and said “he was skinny and moving all over the stage then too.”
I remember being impressed by his antics at the Steel Wheels Tour in 1989 at the Oakland Coliseum. I thought he was impressive then for a 46 year old. But I’m more impressed now. I will say that the sound quality was a little weak but so were the game itself – and the horrific officiating.
I’ll admit that my prediction of Seattle winning by a 27-17 margin was wrong. But I believe it might have been right on the money had the officials not performed as though they had been paid off.
Let me start by saying it didn’t matter to me which team won on Sunday. I had no money riding on the game and I’m sure Pete Rose didn’t either.
As mentioned last week, I said that the Steelers were better on paper but they were ripe for a letdown, after going on such an impressive win streak on the road in the playoffs. I didn’t care which team won.
But I will say that if there was ever an investigation on this 21-10 game about an underground payoff or corruption, the first people I’d question were the officials.
Actually, the officiating in all of the playoff games this year was not the greatest. If it was, we wouldn’t have even noticed that the officials were there at all.
In the playoffs and particularly the Super Bowl officials are supposed to let the players play. They do this because any human judgment call at any time can change the outcome of the game. And with 90 million watching and billions riding on the annual spectacle, they want to keep involvement to a minimum.
That’s fine. But they seemed to change that philosophy every time Seattle was driving toward the Steeler end zone.
In all, Seattle was penalized seven times for 70 yards. In contrast, the hard-nosed Steelers had only three yellow flags tossed their way for 30 yards.
The first one of those questionable calls against the Seahawks came in the first quarter when Seattle’s Darrell Jackson caught a touchdown pass that was negated after he was called for pushing off. On instant replay it didn’t look like anything, and it certainly should have come under the let-the-players-play tradition of Super Bowl officiating.
Then there was the phantom holding call in the middle of the fourth quarter on Matt Hasselbeck’s pass to Jeremy Stevens that made its way to the 1-yard line before being negated by the call.
At the time Seattle was trailing 14-10. Even an honest Pittsburgh fan would agree that no holding occurred on that play. Had the call not been made Seattle would have had a first-and-goal from the 1. Instead the 10-yard penalty pushed Seattle back to the Pittsburgh 29. Hasselbeck threw a pick three plays later. Strike three for the refs comes as Hasselbeck tackles the return man with the ball on the same play and gets called for an illegal block. He tackled the ball carrier! How can that be?
And the list goes on and on.
The commentators pointed out that Pittsburgh was off side several times, yet there were no calls.
They also ruled that Hasselbeck fumbled when he clearly did not. Then they had to review the play simply to overturn what was obviously not a fumble.
There’s more, but who cares? Out here we’re all either 49er or Raider fans anyway, right?
