Bill Leavy admits he made "mistakes" in Super Bowl XL

[Still MIGHTY]

Basically, the 'Hawks were just participants on the field that day. Had they won, it probably would have been one of the bigger upsets in recent memory.

How do you figure that? Seattle went 13-3 that year and had the best record in the NFC by far. Pittsburgh went 11-5 and didn't even win their own division.

Sometimes, records don't tell the whole story. (Ask the Colts how much a league-best record means.) Bear in mind the Steelers got on a hot streak as (I believe) the #6 seed, from the wild card all the way to the big game. (I'll leave out the tilt versus the Colts, lest I rile up some Coltheads up in here.) Once they got there, the story was set...Steelers going for title #5, team legend/MVP Jerome Bettis playing his last game, the championship game, in his hometown...added to about an 80/20 split in the crowd. (I thoroughly believe every Lion fan in Detroit became a Steeler fan that day.) Add all that up, and you got one helluva story. That's what I meant by one of the greater upsets--had the 'Hawks prevailed, all that buildup would have been for naught.

ing Ben Roethlisberger and his awkward, shouldn't have earthly happened shoestring tackle. (Hey, Nick Harper. YOU ARE A CORNER. You are FASTER than that lugging QUARTERBACK. Run AWAY from him.)

ing :censored: Mike ing Vanderjagt.

[BlueSky]

Investigate this? How? The NFL can analyze the plays and determine whether the calls were correct, but no one can know or prove the intent behind the calls. As for the call that would have had the Seahawks on the Steeler one yard line, sure, they "probably" would have scored...but I'm sure that's what Steelers fans were thinking when they had the ball at the Colts' one as well or just before Warner threw it to Harrison. Point being, we will never know what would have happened.

Besides, Leavy admitted to making two errors in the 4th quarter. He didn't address the Big Ben 'close but no cigar' TD, at least not in the article I saw.

As for the Harrison runback, I agree with Buc that at least one penalty was very obvious (Tim Hightower, the only Cardinal with a reasonable shot before Harrison neared the goal line, was taken out by a blatant shove in the back). But watch Larry Fitzgerald - a great player by any measure - kind of jog out of the end zone just after the pick. Had he kicked into gear immediately he likely would have caught Harrison much earlier.

As for NFL officiating in general, given the speed of the game and how much is going on at any one time, NFL officials do a pretty good job. To me, it's like air safety...it's 99% perfect but when it goes bad, it's spectacularly obvious.

YouTube has several videos with Vikes fans upset over the NFC Championship game, and at least one 'rebuttal' video showing missed calls that favored Minnesota. Frankly, I pride myself on not being a homer when it comes to officiating, doing my best (hey, nobody's 100% objective about their team) to call it as I see it. The PI call against Minnesota in overtime? Horrible. I seriously might have thrown something through the TV had I been a Vikings fan given what was at stake. I really don't know how such a bad call happens, especially in that big a game and in OT to boot. Even in the divisional game, Vilma got away with a ridiculously obvious head shot on Warner.

But in a way that just illustrates the problem with all this. We can all nitpick forever and find this or that missed call. But did it really determine the outcome? The only examples I can think of where I'd say 'yes' are Hochuli's fumble deal with the Broncos and the horrible Oregon-OU onsides kick call a few years ago. Oregon attempted an onsides kick, which 1) didn't go 10 yards and 2) was clearly recovered by OU. The refs gave the Ducks the ball and they later scored the winning TD (with help from a ridiculous PI call on the drive). Even card-carrying Ducks homer Dan Fouts, who was the broadcast color man, said it was a horrible call. So I try to reserve my outrage for instances like that, where the ref seriously should have just turned on his mic and said, "Please give Oregon one more point than Oklahoma and set the game clock to zero."

[OnWis97]

This game puzzled me then and puzzles me now. First off bad calls are part of the game. But this one was worse. There were a ton and almost all seemed to go in the favor of one team. I've never known what to make of it because the idea of actually fixing this game just does not make sense. The visual evidence is there for record numbers of people watching the game. Which team wins the game makes no difference (as could be suggested in Lakers/Kings) for any future viewing audiences. The NFL has absolutely no trouble attracting viewers. Fixing the game and subjecting itself to all the backlash seems to have tons of risk for very minimal reward. The best "reward" anyone on this thread has come up with is that more super bowl champ t-shirts would be sold for Pittsburgh than Seattle. And I am sure that's true given Pittsburgh's national following but I cannot bring myself to make that leap. The other stuff..."bettis mania", etc. I really don't think the NFL is going to fix a super bowl for Jerome Bettis, unless he took a photo of Tagliabue with a hooker.

So while I don't think the NFL would fix this game, something seems off. The Vikings have received a couple of apology letters from the NFL for losses at Lambeau, and I am sure that's happened to other teams. (I don't want to sound like a conspiracy guy, but most NFL games I watch are Viking games). In one at Lambeau, they just kept getting robbed (maybe 2003 or 2004???) and ended up getting the letter. Yes, the Packers are America's team, and they may sell a bit better in the playoffs, but I don't think it's worth a risk to fix such a game. But sometimes in sports, I get the idea that officials somehow get "caught up in the moment", particularly for the home team, and start (maybe subconsciously) favoring a team. I felt that way that one day the Vikes were on the wrong end at Lambeau and I sort of had that feeling during the Super Bowl. I cannot quite explain it...just my gut feeling that while the officials came in ready to call a fair game like they always do, the atmosphere, the crowd, etc. sort of energize them and they end up giving the benefit of the doubt to the home (or, in this case, "de facto home") team. Fixed? No. But perhaps plays out less fairly than we'd like. I know that does not make sense.

Or maybe it's just this simple. Bad calls tend to equal out over a game. Team X benefits from one, but Team Y will from the next. But sometimes, including this super bowl, they just don't even out. Sometimes, for just plain bad luck, one team just gets on the wrong side of bad calls. I've watched most super bowls since super bowl XV and this is the only one I had a problem with...it's too bad it happened in such a big game.

[oddball]

This is completely stupid. This is like a guy who walks up to a girl 4 years later and says, "Sorry, I should've taken you to the prom." Who cares. If the girl is still hung up about it, she's a loser. If the guy is still hung up about it, he's a loser. If Seahawk fans are still hung up about a ref's blown call, they are losers. If this ref was so devastated by a blown call, not his first and not his last, then I like the idea he should retire and just admit publicly that he sucked as a ref. Just friggin' move on people.

[Lights Out]

It's a bit hard to get over your favorite team being screwed in one of the biggest events in all of sports, in a game where your team outplayed the other team in every facet of the game and lost because of the officiating.

I'd liken it more to getting up at a high school assembly and asking a girl to prom in front of the whole school, her saying no, and then apologizing for it on Facebook after you've both graduated college. You got rudely denied on a very public stage, and the apology didn't come until way past the point at which everybody else stopped talking about the incident.

[JQK]

By your name, avatar, and signature, i can see you are one of the biggest Seahawks fans there are...

</sarcasm>

[Lights Out]

Never said I was, I was just explaining why a lot of Seattle fans haven't gotten over it yet.

[BaltimoreFan]

It's a bit hard to get over your favorite team being screwed in one of the biggest events in all of sports, in a game where your team outplayed the other team in every facet of the game and lost because of the officiating.

I'd liken it more to getting up at a high school assembly and asking a girl to prom in front of the whole school, her saying no, and then apologizing for it on Facebook after you've both graduated college. You got rudely denied on a very public stage, and the apology didn't come until way past the point at which everybody else stopped talking about the incident.

Seahawks fans should be able to get over it by now. My favorite team, the Orioles, were screwed by Jeffrey Maier and the Yankees in 1996. It sucks and you still hate to talk about it, but you get over it pretty quick. The next season should make it a distant memory. What can the NFL do? Rewarding the Seahawks with the Super Bowl would be a very empty victory. Anything else (extra draft picks, etc.) would be too late. There is really nothing that can be done except an apology. Mistakes happen in sports and life, and you've just got to accept that. Just hope that the ones who've made the mistakes are man enough to admit them, in this case Bill Leavy was.

WIth that said, there are 2 things that stick out in my mind about this Super Bowl. The one was Ben Roethlisberger's TD where he fell short but put the ball over the goal line after he was already down. The slow motion replay is still stuck in my head. My dad commented that that was the moment he knew Big Ben was a piece of . The other thing I remember was the promos shown before going to commercial break. They showed different players holding the Lombardi Trophy. I remember the entire first half they only showed Steelers players, and in the second half they only showed like 2 seahawks players and the rest Steelers. That mixed with the bad calls really made the game look bad. I'm not saying that the two were connected in anyway. The combination of the media bias and the ref bias did make the game appear fixed. I'm not saying it was, just that people who think it was aren't totally unwarranted.

[DustDevil61]

It's a bit hard to get over your favorite team being screwed in one of the biggest events in all of sports, in a game where your team outplayed the other team in every facet of the game and lost because of the officiating.

Not to get too off-topic, but this is why I'm still so frustrated at the NBA for not properly addressing (or investigating) its continuing officiating problems, and I'm not necessarily talking about the biggest games and such. Whether it be "The Push", the 2002 Western Conference Finals, or more recently, both the

called on Paul Millsap on New Year's Eve 2009 in Oklahoma City that gave the Thunder the one-point win and the Oklahoma City-Utah no-call that gave the Jazz another one-point win last spring, the NBA still hasn't had an independent investigation of the officiating, nor has addressed the issue. Say what you want, but the Pedowitz guy hired to investigate the league has been known to be close to David Stern.

Admittedly so, I'm biased here, and still haven't quite gotten over "The Push," and the phantom Millsap foul on New Year's Eve 2009. Granted, the win in Salt Lake in April is a case of bad calls evening things up, but everybody seemed to have beef with the no-call because it happened to Kevin Durant, whereas it's hard to find video or dialogue showing the phantom foul on Paul Millsap. It's one of the few bad calls in recent memory that has benefited the Jazz. The league only seems to listen when one of its big stars is involved.

So yea, I do see to some extent what Lights Out is talking about. I'll admit, had those bad calls against the Jazz been called right, it certainly wouldn't have guaranteed a win for the Jazz. What bugs me is that many of those calls essentially erased any chance of the Jazz winning, or at least made it unnecessarily difficult for them to do so.

It seems as though bad calls in both Super Bowl XL and SB XL III benefited the Steelers, as if the NFL wanted "Six-burgh" or "one for the other hand" on purpose. It also seems as though the Steelers weren't the greatest teams in the league both years they won the Super Bowl. But, again, my inner conspiracy theorist is acting up.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, Seattle kind of got jobbed on that QB sneak "TD" among others.

/Dies inside a little

//Still wishes meteor could have struck the stadium.

A meteor striking the stadium is more often than not the best possible outcome of a Super Bowl. Even when the Bears were in it last time. Especially when the Bears were in it last time!

[JQK]

It seems as though bad calls in both Super Bowl XL and SB XL III benefited the Steelers, as if the NFL wanted "Six-burgh" or "one for the other hand" on purpose. It also seems as though the Steelers weren't the greatest teams in the league both years they won the Super Bowl. But, again, my inner conspiracy theorist is acting up.

The Giants, admittedly not one of the best teams in 2007, beat the Patriots, the team of destiny, and the team that couldn't get the NFL off it's c**k if it wanted to (which they didn't)

If the NFL had the power to influence outcomes THAT much, the Patriots would have been 19-0...

[IceCap]

I'm not sure what you want Lights Out.

Stripping the Steelers of the title that year is moronic for a variety of different reasons. First Mr. Leavy admitting he made mistakes while calling the game does not equate "pro-Steelers conspiracy." In fact it makes the case that there wasn't a conspiracy. If there was you can bet that Mr. Leavy wouldn't have admitted mistakes were made. The fact that he did says, to me anyway, that he's simply looked back at the game, realized he made mistakes, and wants to admit that he made them. This proves that 1) humans make mistakes in the course of their jobs and 2) some of them feel the need to admit those mistakes for personal reasons. It does not prove that the refs fixed the game for the Steelers.

Secondly, even with the questionable calls going against them the Seahawks still could have won the game. They had a solid game plan and plenty of opportunities to put it away. They failed to execute their game plan effectively, and when they got chances they blew them. Mike Holmgren showed us one of the worst examples of clock management from a NFL coach in Super Bowl history. At the end of the day, even with all of the bad calls, the Seahawks lost this game themselves.

Finally stripping the Steelers of their title in Super Bowl XL opens up a whole new can of worms. What about the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXVI. There were some pretty questionable pro-Pats calls in that game. Or what about game seven of the 1993 Western Conference Finals and the non-call on Gretzky's high stick? I know a few Leafs fans who would like to see the results of that one changed. Or how about any game ever played? Humans make mistakes, and thus no game has ever been perfectly officiated. If you change the results of one game due to poor officiating five years after the fact you open up the results of every other game ever played. You essentially invalidate the results of every game that has been played and that will be played.

Yes, there were some bad calls made. It happens though. The game's been over for five years. The Steelers won it. Move on.

Now I know you said that perhaps calling for the Steelers to be stripped of the title that year is a little harsh and you've taken it back. That goes back to my first question, however; What do you want?

Do you want an investigation? To what end? The game had some bad calls. That's it. Investigation over.

Do you want an apology for Seahawks fans? Why? They aren't the first team to be the victim of bad calls in a game. What makes them so special as to deserve a league apology? The head ref for the game admitted he made mistakes. That should be closure enough.

[The Six]

What do you want?

A rematch.

Get all the original rosters back, even if some members are retired. Get everybody. Go back to the stadium. Recreate everything. LET'S DO THIS.

[Brian in Boston]

As a die-hard fan of the Seattle Seahawks since the franchise entered the National Football League, I'm honestly sick to death of hearing people espouse the asinine theory that poor officiating cost the 'Hawks the Vince Lombardi Trophy. The Seahawks cost themselves victory in Super Bowl XL. Had the team turned-in a Super Bowl performance that contained half of the focus, intensity and desire that it showed in the NFC Championship - hell, a third of said focus, intensity and desire - it would have captured the Lombardi Trophy easily. Instead, Mike Holmgren's piss-poor coaching decisions (getting away from Shaun Alexander being the focus of the offensive attack far too early in the game. piss-poor clock management), Jerramy Stevens sub-par performance after "flapping his gums" about the impact that he'd have during the game and the Seahawks generally looking as if they were emotionally overwhelmed by the prospect of playing in the Super Bowl all played a role in the team "spitting the bit" in Super Bowl XL.

Bill Leavy may well be ready to fit himself with a hairshirt and bear the weight of the Seahawks' loss upon his martyr-like shoulders. Frankly, I'm not buying it. The 'Hawks simply came-up short in a piss-poor Super Bowl. They couldn't put back-to-back quality performances together in the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl and it cost them. Period.

[Jimmy!]

As a die-hard fan of the Seattle Seahawks since the franchise entered the National Football League, I'm honestly sick to death of hearing people espouse the asinine theory that poor officiating cost the 'Hawks the Vince Lombardi Trophy. The Seahawks cost themselves victory in Super Bowl XL. Had the team turned-in a Super Bowl performance that contained half of the focus, intensity and desire that it showed in the NFC Championship - hell, a third of said focus, intensity and desire - it would have captured the Lombardi Trophy easily. Instead, Mike Holmgren's piss-poor coaching decisions (getting away from Shaun Alexander being the focus of the offensive attack far too early in the game. piss-poor clock management), Jerramy Stevens sub-par performance after "flapping his gums" about the impact that he'd have during the game and the Seahawks generally looking as if they were emotionally overwhelmed by the prospect of playing in the Super Bowl all played a role in the team "spitting the bit" in Super Bowl XL.

Bill Leavy may well be ready to fit himself with a hairshirt and bear the weight of the Seahawks' loss upon his martyr-like shoulders. Frankly, I'm not buying it. The 'Hawks simply came-up short in a piss-poor Super Bowl. They couldn't put back-to-back quality performances together in the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl and it cost them. Period.

Very well spoken, sir.

[Lights Out]

Sorry, I'm not buying that. The Seahawks played poorly but they were still far and away better than the Steelers that game. They gained more yards, possessed the ball for more time, committed less turnovers, and Hasselbeck had a far better QB rating than Roethlisberger. Holmgren's gameplan wasn't perfect but Cowher's gameplan was an abomination. If the referees had called the game with a semblance of fairness and the game otherwise played out exactly the way it did, Seattle would have won. You can't fault the Seahawks for being unable to beat the refs.

[Brian in Boston]

The Seahawks played poorly but they were still far and away better than the Steelers that game.

"Far and away better"? No, they weren't. In point of fact, Super Bowl XL was a mediocre football game on the part of both teams. Neither team covered itself in glory that day.

They gained more yards, possessed the ball for more time, committed less turnovers, and Hasselbeck had a far better QB rating than Roethlisberger.

Yes, and the Steelers picked up more yards per pass, accumulated more total rushing yards and gave up fewer sacks. The point being, we can both cite areas in the game in which one team or the other had the statistical edge. At the end of the day it boils down to which team found the endzone more times. The Seahawks came up short in that category. Period.

You can't fault the Seahawks for being unable to beat the refs.

The Seahawks didn't play the refs in the Super Bowl. They played the Steelers, which happened to be the team that beat them. If anything, the Seahawks helped Pittsburgh to beat them by failing to execute at crucial moments in the game. End of story.

Bottom line? If the Seahawks had played against the Steelers the way they had played in the NFC Championship, the Vince Lombardi Trophy would be sitting in a display case in Renton, Washington. Further, if the "Hawks had turned in an NFC Championship-calibre performance in Super Bowl XL, there's no way the refs could have had any impact on the game.

They lost the Super Bowl. It is time for my fellow Seahawks fans to get over it.

[maz]

I think that most people thought it was fixed, though if that was the case, this guy probably wouldn't be admitting these mistakes. Still, it's safe to say that most rational people (other than Maz) feel that the referees either intentionally or inadvertently handed the game to the Steelers, and Seattle got hosed.

Most rational people would not think a professional sporting event, especially one of the biggest ones on earth, to be fixed.

Yes, the officiating was ty, but the Seahawks still had their chances. They blew it. Had they made the most of their chances they definitely would have won that game. The Steelers were terrible. You can say "well the Hawks outplayed the Steelers and still lost." Yeah, but they didn't make the most of their chances. The Steelers were outplayed in much of their first two playoff games that same year, and the penguins were outplayed in most of the 2009 Stanley Cup Finals. Both teams made the most of their chances.

Both teams have rings.

If the Hawks had played like they did in the NFC Championship, or if the Steelers had played like they did in the AFC Championship, it wouldn't have been a matter of officiating because it would have been a blowout one way or the other.

Just because both team's payed a mediocre game is why this is an issue.

And I can understand calling the homer glasses on me when it comes to the pens, but when it comes to the Steelers, no. Because unlike most Pittsburghers (the primarily penguins fans no less), im actually somewhat sick of them and all the attention they get, and couldn't care less about them. I was amazed when they won Super Bowl XL because that was the first Pittsburgh championship i'd ever seen after years of the Steelers being the only respectable team in the city, and still choking regularly. But when they won Super Bowl XLIII, It was great and all for a few days, but I didn't really care. Partially because I was more concerned with the tenth-place-and-falling penguins at the time.

I pretty much cared more about this past Super Bowl and Super Bowl XLII.

[Punch]

I think that most people thought it was fixed, though if that was the case, this guy probably wouldn't be admitting these mistakes. Still, it's safe to say that most rational people (other than Maz) feel that the referees either intentionally or inadvertently handed the game to the Steelers, and Seattle got hosed.

Most rational people would not think a professional sporting event, especially one of the biggest ones on earth, to be fixed.

Yes, the officiating was :censored:ty, but the Seahawks still had their chances. They blew it.

Most rational people think that the game wasn't officiated fairly, but only a percentage of those people believe the game was fixed. Rational people are the ones who believe the game was officiated poorly at points. Irrational people are ones who thought the game was fixed. Rational people are ones who think the score was effected by the poor officiating. Irrational people are ones who think the Seahawks deserve to have the game outcome reversed in their favor. Just my 2 cents.

EDIT - Didn't see your edit.

[illwauk]

This game puzzled me then and puzzles me now. First off bad calls are part of the game. But this one was worse. There were a ton and almost all seemed to go in the favor of one team. I've never known what to make of it because the idea of actually fixing this game just does not make sense. The visual evidence is there for record numbers of people watching the game. Which team wins the game makes no difference (as could be suggested in Lakers/Kings) for any future viewing audiences. The NFL has absolutely no trouble attracting viewers. Fixing the game and subjecting itself to all the backlash seems to have tons of risk for very minimal reward. The best "reward" anyone on this thread has come up with is that more super bowl champ t-shirts would be sold for Pittsburgh than Seattle. And I am sure that's true given Pittsburgh's national following but I cannot bring myself to make that leap. The other stuff..."bettis mania", etc. I really don't think the NFL is going to fix a super bowl for Jerome Bettis, unless he took a photo of Tagliabue with a hooker.

So while I don't think the NFL would fix this game, something seems off. The Vikings have received a couple of apology letters from the NFL for losses at Lambeau, and I am sure that's happened to other teams. (I don't want to sound like a conspiracy guy, but most NFL games I watch are Viking games). In one at Lambeau, they just kept getting robbed (maybe 2003 or 2004???) and ended up getting the letter. Yes, the Packers are America's team, and they may sell a bit better in the playoffs, but I don't think it's worth a risk to fix such a game. But sometimes in sports, I get the idea that officials somehow get "caught up in the moment", particularly for the home team, and start (maybe subconsciously) favoring a team. I felt that way that one day the Vikes were on the wrong end at Lambeau and I sort of had that feeling during the Super Bowl. I cannot quite explain it...just my gut feeling that while the officials came in ready to call a fair game like they always do, the atmosphere, the crowd, etc. sort of energize them and they end up giving the benefit of the doubt to the home (or, in this case, "de facto home") team. Fixed? No. But perhaps plays out less fairly than we'd like. I know that does not make sense.

Or maybe it's just this simple. Bad calls tend to equal out over a game. Team X benefits from one, but Team Y will from the next. But sometimes, including this super bowl, they just don't even out. Sometimes, for just plain bad luck, one team just gets on the wrong side of bad calls. I've watched most super bowls since super bowl XV and this is the only one I had a problem with...it's too bad it happened in such a big game.

I agree with pretty much everything here. I've seen a few games (of which SBXL is one) where it seemed like the refs were making calls that went far beyond the scope of genuine human error, yet seemed to have little to no incentive to do such a thing. Your theory is about as good as I've heard anyone come up with. I had no idea that the league sent out apology letters for bad officiating, but if that is the case, I certainly hope the Packers received one for each of the last few times they were in Dallas (especially 2007 and the 1995 NFCC).