"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 12:46 AM 1/12/2003 -0500 Kevin Tarr wrote:
> >figured I reply now while I'm drunk.
> >
> >REFS 2 - steelers and falcons 0
> >
> >nuf said
>
> Whoa nelly!
>
> First, in regards to the Steelers - I watched the whole game closely and I
> did not feel that it was a poorly reffed game. Indeed, I don't recall any
> particularly bad calls.
I didn't see any really blatant ones there, although there may have been
a couple of times that pass interference really should have been called,
but wasn't. Certainly that was the case in at least one of the Saturday
games.
The Steelers lost because they goofed on opportunities, not because of a
bad call at the end (contrary to what their head coach seemed to be
saying to a ref at the end). The Giants game the previous weekend may
be another story. (And maybe I shouldn't mention the "Snow Bowl" of
last season, lest it stir up any ire....)
Quality of officiating *can* make a difference in close games, and the
quality of officiating in the postseason seems to not be up to the
standard of the best officiating during the regular season.
Questionable calls at the end of close games seem to haunt the
postseason more than they should; my opinion is that the officiating
teams shouldn't be split up for the postseason and the best individuals
given the jobs. The best officiating *teams* should be officiating in
the postseason. After all, we don't break out the best players until
after the postseason; the football team, mistake-prone rookies and all,
goes as a whole to the playoffs -- or none of its players go at all.
The splitting of officiating teams should wait until after the Super
Bowl; send the best refs to Hawaii for the Pro Bowl, and maybe send 2
complements of them, one for each half (or, if we wanted to get really
squirrelly, 4 complements, one for each quarter).
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
