Did the Arizona Cardinals Really Win the Superbowl?

[Phoenix-Talon]

All I know is for the 49th year in a row ...... the Eagles did not.

The First AFL-NFL World Championship Game in professional American football, later to be known as Super Bowl I, was played on January 15, 1967!

PT

 

[Bleu Star]

The First AFL-NFL World Championship Game in professional American football, later to be known as Super Bowl I, was played on January 15, 1967!

PT

When was your first Superbowl win?

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

When was your first Superbowl win?

We have two NFL Championship wins (they weren't called the "Superbowl" at that time.

BTW, could you be so kind enough to tell me when was your last SB win?

PT

 

[Bleu Star]

We have two NFL Championship wins (they weren't called the "Superbowl" at that time.

BTW, could you be so kind enough to tell me when your last win?

PT

I'm looking at a big back to back poster in a frame above my desk that says we won back to back Super Bowl titles in 93 and 94, We then won again in 96. So it has been a good 13 years for us. How long has it been for you?

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

I'm looking at a big back to back poster in a frame above my desk that says we won back to back Super Bowl titles in 93 and 94, We then won again in 96. So it has been a good 13 years for us. How long has it been for you?

I'm sure you're a proud Cowboys fan, but no more than I am of the Eagles with their two date NFL Championships.

Yet none of that has anything to do with the Pittsburgh Steelers (once known as the Steagles; both Eagles and Steelers) winning their 6th SB Championship (the most ever in NFL History) ...or not based on the controversial catch (the topic).

I believe he may have made the catch, but I don't think enough of a challenge made based on what was at stake.

I'd even like to see something electronic under the turf/grass that could be activated to determine if two feet are within the goal or not. Same thing could account for breaking the plane of the goal/move the chains during the four downs.

PT

 

[Bleu Star]

I'm sure you're a proud Cowboys fan, but no more than I am of the Eagles with their two date NFL Championships.

Yet none of that has anything to do with the Pittsburgh Steelers (once known as the Steagles; both Eagles and Steelers) winning their 6th SB Championship (the most ever in NFL History) ...or not based on the controversial catch (the topic).

I believe he may have made the catch, but I don't think enough of a challenge made based on what was at stake.

I'd even like to see something electronic under the turf/grass that could be activated to determine if two feet are within the goal or not. Same thing could account for breaking the plane of the goal/move the chains during the four downs.

PT

How about making little sensors on the toes of cleats worn by WRs and making the end zone boundaries live so they can tell if those sensors touched down within the boundaries or not by checking the log.

Silly suggestion. Someone will run with it and we'll see it in football in 10 years. Just remember to give me my cut.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

How about making little sensors on the toes of cleats worn by WRs and making the end zone boundaries live so they can tell if those sensors touched down within the boundaries or not by checking the log.

Silly suggestion. Someone will run with it and we'll see it in football in 10 years. Just remember to give me my cut.

Not so silly -- albeit, your sensors in the toe suggestion may not catch on because I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that one or two knees down, and any other parts of the body can warrant a touchdown also.

Come to think about it, there are several ways to score a touchdown without the "two-feet" rule ...

- such as the ball breaking the plane of the goal

- recovering the opponent's team fumble in the endzone

- landing other parts of the body in the endzone after a completed pass

- two-feet rule on either sideline or at the back of the endzone

The notion of any mechanism to enhance the accuracy of the overall play calling system isn't considered silly at all.

PT

 

[Doomsday101]

True ...but this was the Superbowl! You'd think that the officials would make every effort to capture this type of image before they make that type of game-changing call.

Any other thoughts?

Phoenix-Talon

I think that is a still photo and without seeing the rest of it there is no way to say yes or no. I would also add that even with replay the rule states it has to be conclusive to overturn the call on the field. I have yet to see anything that would be able to overturn the call made on the field. I was pulling for the Cards but in honesty if I had to make the call I would have made the same call as the refs did.

 

[tyke1doe]

A photo is a snapshot of a moment in time.

That photo doesn't really tell us much. That could have been his toe lifting prior to it touching.

But why is this even a discussion?

Based on what was shown at the time, Holmes made the catch.

The Steelers won.

Let's move on.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think that is a still photo and without seeing the rest of it there is no way to say yes or no. I would also add that even with replay the rule states it has to be conclusive to overturn the call on the field. I have yet to see anything that would be able to overturn the call made on the field. I was pulling for the Cards but in honesty if I had to make the call I would have made the same call as the refs did.

When I saw the play as it occurred, I said, "No way he was in bounds."

But after the replay, I thought the officials got it right.

I think all this subsequent discussion is just a way to minimize the Steelers' victory.

 

[Doomsday101]

When I saw the play as it occurred, I said, "No way he was in bounds."

But after the replay, I thought the officials got it right.

I think all this subsequent discussion is just a way to minimize the Steelers' victory.

Same here my 1st reaction was let’s see the replay. After seeing it there is no way I could overturn it based on what I saw. Replay was to stop obvious bad calls this was not the case, this was close and I saw no conclusive evidence that would make me think it was not a catch.

 

[Clove]

Even it it weren't a catch, they had 2 more downs to get in, Arizona let them march right down the field, I'm almost certain they would've eventually punched it in, or tied it.

 

[Bleu Star]

It was a catch. The multiple magnified video replays confirmed so. Pictures serve no justice. We all agree on this. No?

 

[tyke1doe]

Even it it weren't a catch, they had 2 more downs to get in, Arizona let them march right down the field, I'm almost certain they would've eventually punched it in, or tied it.

You could assign blame to Warner for the bad throw. But he brought them back.

The Cardinals had the Steelers 1st and 25 on the 12 yard line. And almost had Ben Roethlisberger for a sack at the two yard line.
But not a one of the Cardinals defenders were able to get him on the ground. If they (the defense) sees that play, they likely will kick themselves. That was the defining play, if you ask me.

If you have a team deep in their own territory, you got to keep them there.

The Cardinals defense wilted in crush time.

 

[DCgirl13]

I still believe that was a catch and a TD, but all the other horrid calls and no-calls were what set it off for me. The Cardinals probably sealed their fate with the INT for a TD before the half. Without that, they probably would have won.

Oh well...Stealers for six...

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Based on that single picture, no.

But here's the thing all these whiners and complainers about the refs don't seem to understand.

The refs don't get the beautiful work of still frames days after the game to look at the moment the game happens. They get to see the exact same replays in the hood that they show you on TV. There was NO WAY to tell 100% that it wasn't a catch from any of the TV angles that were shown and that's what they had to work off of.

Now if they could shut the game down for a few hours, at that point, wait till some magazines and ESPN and such got their photos all together and could show them all theses still frames then maybe they could make all these calls 100% accurately.

Fortunately that's not the way the game works and that means that refs, who are human just like everyone else, have to make those calls based on the same footage you get to see on TV. There is simply no way to over-rule that play as a TD.

Just like had there been a call of no TD there would have been no way to visually prove that it was a TD.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

You know what I don't understand about all these silly rules? Why is it that only the ball has to break the plane, on a run, but a reciever has to come down with both feet in bounds?

As soon as he's got in his hands, in the air, above the endzone doesn't that mean the ball has now broken the plane of the goalline and is possessed by a reciever? I mean unless he's juggling the catch why doesn't that constitute breaking the plane?

I wish they'd change the rules, entirely, to eliminate these close calls. No more ball across the plane, or all that BS, they should make it where a player, with the ball, is very clearly in the endzone for a TD or it's not a TD.

From now on it should be at least half, or more, of the player in the endzone, with the ball, or it shouldn't count. Make it be an actual touchdown if you're going to count it. Then you wouldn't have teams trying all these crazy out patterns, and such, right at the out of bounds line causing so many of these questionable, tough to call, plays.

 

[Doomsday101]

You know what I don't understand about all these silly rules? Why is it that only the ball has to break the plane, on a run, but a reciever has to come down with both feet in bounds?

As soon as he's got in his hands, in the air, above the endzone doesn't that mean the ball has now broken the plane of the goalline and is possessed by a reciever? I mean unless he's juggling the catch why doesn't that constitute breaking the plane?

I wish they'd change the rules, entirely, to eliminate these close calls. No more ball across the plane, or all that BS, they should make it where a player, with the ball, is very clearly in the endzone for a TD or it's not a TD.

From now on it should be at least half, or more, of the player in the endzone, with the ball, or it shouldn't count. Make it be an actual touchdown if you're going to count it. Then you wouldn't have teams trying all these crazy out patterns, and such, right at the out of bounds line causing so many of these questionable, tough to call, plays.

You have to come down with the ball and both feet inside the endzone as a WR for possession to take place. If you are outside the goal line then have already maintained possession of the ball the only the nose of the ball must hit the line but again in that case the possession of the ball has already taken place.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

You have to come down with the ball and both feet inside the endzone as a WR for possession to take place. If you are outside the goal line then have already maintained possession of the ball the only the nose of the ball must hit the line but again in that case the possession of the ball has already taken place.

Don't like it. They should make it where it's either clear a TD or not. I have never, and will never ,like the ball breaking the plane thing. That, to me, isn't a TD. The player didn't actually score.

 

[Doomsday101]

Don't like it. They should make it where it's either clear a TD or not. I have never, and will never ,like the ball breaking the plane thing. That, to me, isn't a TD. The player didn't actually score.

It has always been that way so it is clearly a TD when the ball crosses the goal line. Let me ask what part of the player needs to cross the goal line? Are you saying if the player is half way across the line it is not TD? It is the same with getting a 1st down it is where the ball is that will get marked