Super Bowl – Cardinals won and lost within two minutes

Posted on February 2nd, 2009 by ecthompson md

There’s a lot to be said about Super Bowl 43. First of all, it was an exciting game and it was not a blowout. The vaunted Pittsburgh Steeler defense was nonexistent for the majority of the game. They gave up over 400 yards of total offense. The Arizona Cardinals clearly had their chances to win. 11 penalties killed them. Holding penalties stopped drives. Drives which should’ve and could’ve led to points. Finally, turnovers. Turnovers are the real reason that the Arizona Cardinals are not World Champions.

As I sit here, eight hours after the game, there’s still a couple questions that I have. How did Santonio Holmes get open in the back of the end zone? Did he have both feet down? In spite of having over 200 cameras that never really seem to be a good camera angle of Holmes’s right foot. Secondly, wasn’t Kurt Warner’s arm going forward as he was hit? NBC showed a few replays and then simply moved on. It appeared to me from every angle that his arm was going forward.

BTW, don’t you think that James Harrison, in spite of his personal foul, should have been the most valuable player? Or LaMar Woodley?

More later… what are your thoughts?

Does Holmes have both feet down?  I didn’t see clear and convincing evidence.  Did you?

Tags: Sports // 5 Comments »

  • S. Kemper

    The Front Page of today’s Feb 2nd Arizona Republic shows the right foot was not touching the field when they called it the winning touchdown. Also Warner’s arm was moving forward and that was an incomplete pass. The refs obviously wanted the Steelers to win as there were other penalties called that weren’t like the chop block….the Cardinals should have won the Superbowl….

  • http://www.whereistheoutrage.net ecthompson

    SK –

    I didn’t think that Santonio Holmes had both feet down. I think that it was a great effort but I didn’t see convincing evidence last night. The bottom-line is that I didn’t think that either team was Super. Both teams played a mediocre game. I wish the Steelers had lost because I just don’t like them.

    Thanks for your comments.

  • NF

    As Santonio’s catch was ruled a touchdown on the field, the replay would have to INDISPUTABLY show that his foot was NOT down. This is the evidence that no one seems to be able to provide.

    The burden of proof in these cases is not to prove the call on the field is correct but instead to prove that the call on the field is wrong…

    Either way here you go you whiners….. the pic with two feet down

    http://www.steelersdepot.com/blog/2009/02/picture-of-santonio-holmes-with-2-two-feet-down-for-touchdown/

  • NF

    From another angle looks to be the same time…. different source, if anyone is thinking this may be a photoshop job.

    Picture 36/44

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/gallery/football/2008/flash.htm?gid=691&aid=4136

  • http://www.whereistheoutrage.net ecthompson

    NF –

    There is so much to say. First, thank you for your comments. Secondly, the refs on the field should not have called a touchdown. It was clearly a somewhat controversial play. You, of course, are right that the evidence should be indisputable to overturn a call on the field. The views that we saw that were provided by NBC were not anywhere close to being indisputable. Thirdly, I am not an Arizona Cardinals fan. I just want to see a good football game. One that is not filled with controversy. Mark Warner’s fumble that gave the ball to the Pittsburgh Steelers was yet another controversial play. Before that, there was an intentional grounding call that was missed against Ben Roethlisberger (not the one that he was clearly outside the pocket again a couple plays earlier). The controversy was not isolated to just Pittsburgh. The holding in the end zone was also questioned. I’m not sure that was a classic takedown. I think the offensive player just got run over.

    The bottom line for me is that this was supposed to be a Super Bowl and neither team play particularly well. Yuck!

« »