Refs were far from Super in this one

Kevin Hench / FOXSports.com
Posted: 5 hours ago

This is the space where I get to crow about the frightening precision of my Super Bowl prediction.

Where I get to remind everyone that I guaranteed the Steelers would win the title after they beat the Colts. That they were the only championship-caliber team among the final four. That they would dismantle the Broncos in Denver and waylay whomever the NFC sent at them.
This is the space where I get to wag a finger at my colleague Ian O'Connor, with whom I'd waged a dueling columns battle of opposing prognostication. He picked the Seahawks and made a very strong case for them.

This is the space where I get to say, I told ya so. But I won't. I can't.

I've never felt so empty being right. I feel dirty. I wish I'd been wrong. The Steelers did not deserve to win this game. They were not the better team. O'Connor was right. Seattle was the better team.

So, Paul Tagliabue, how does a team lose when it outgains an opponent by 57 yards, controls time of possession and wins the turnover battle?

Like a crazed CIA analyst running through the halls of Langley screaming into open offices about some impending calamity, I've been shrieking hysterically about the terrible officiating in the NFL and warning that some day the brutal calls were going to affect the outcome of the Super Bowl.

That some day was Sunday.

Every single questionable, marginal or outright bad call went against the Seahawks.

Their first three big plays were all wiped out by penalty calls. On their second drive, Darrell Jackson caught an 18-yard pass on 3rd-and-6 that would have given Seattle a first down at the 23. But Chris Gray was called for holding James Farrior. When Farrior pushed upfield, Gray did hook him with his right arm, and Farrior went down. When referee Bill Levy flagged Gray, it was a bad omen for the Seahawks. Instead of being on the edge of the red zone, they came away without any points.

On their third drive, the Seahawks looked to take a 7-0 lead when Jackson separated from Chris Hope in the end zone and Matt Hasselbeck delivered a perfect strike to his outside shoulder. The back judge looked uncertain —sound familiar, Patriots fans? — then finally jerked his flag out and called offensive pass interference to wipe out the touchdown. The replay showed receiver and defender hand-fighting with Jackson getting the slightest push into Hope's chest before turning to catch the ball. ABC's John Madden thought the call was dubious. FOX analyst and all-time great offensive lineman Brian Baldinger had no doubts, calling it "absolutely horrendous" on his FOXSports.com Super Bowl Instant Analysis. ESPN's Steve Young and Michael Irvin also had no uncertainty, dismissing the call as ticky-tack and insisting the Seahawks got robbed of a TD.

Then came a huge call on the first play of the second quarter. Peter Warrick ripped off a 33-yard punt return to give Seattle the ball at the Steelers 46. But Etric Pruitt was called for holding. How clear was it? Well, Madden thought the call was for Pruitt holding the gunner at the beginning of the play. It wasn't. The flag came in during the runback and it looked pretty minor. Another example of an official searching to make a call.

So despite totally dominating the first 20 minutes of the game, the Seahawks led only 3-0.

Then came Pittsbugh's first touchdown. Whether you think Roethlisberger broke the plane of the goal line seems to depend on which team you were rooting for. The odd part was the line judge seemed to have determined that Big Ben had come up short as he ran in from the sideline. Since Roethlisberger had been pushed back well short of the goal line I don't know what he could have seen as he got closer to the pile that would have made him change his mind. But up went the arms. Had Roethlisberger been ruled short of the plane, that call would no doubt have stood too. But you figure the Black and Gold would have pounded it in from the two-inch line on fourth down so there's not that much here for Seattle fans to complain about except for the continuing storyline that every single call was going the Steelers' way. And the worst was yet to come.

The Seahawks were on the verge of taking a 17-14 lead early in the fourth quarter when officiating disaster struck. Hasselbeck had drilled a pass down the seam to Jerramy Stevens to set up first-and-goal at the one when suddenly Levy appeared in the middle of the screen to call the play back on account of holding on Sean Locklear. No less a source than newly-minted Hall of Famer John Madden came right out and said it was a bad call. This penalty was beyond ticky-tack. Baldinger called it "another terrible call" and added that the Steelers were offsides on the play. It was yet another official searching for a call, desperate to throw his flag, yearning to impact the action. Why, why, oh, why? That's 14 points the officials simply took away from the Seahawks. Incredible.

After a sack, Hasselbeck threw a pick and then was penalized 15 yards for making the tackle. I'm not kidding. The same thing happened in the Indy-Pittsburgh game in the regular season. It's like the officials become so discombobulated during the change of possession that they just randomly start throwing flags. The call was that Hasselbeck had thrown an illegal block below the waist on the return. Never mind that Hasselbeck wasn't trying to block anybody and did, in fact, make the tackle. Just another terrible call that cannot be reviewed in Paul Tagliabue's NFL.

The Steelers took quick advantage of their enhanced field position and just like that it was 21-10 Pittsburgh when it should have been 17-14 Seattle.

But the stripes weren't done.

First, they blew a fumble call on the field — of course against Seattle — before overturning it after replay. Then, with the Steelers trying to run out the clock, Levy granted Roethlisberger a timeout, even though the play clock clearly read zero before the quarterback signaled for time. It ended up being the final bad call in Seattle's coffin.

As Madden and Al Michaels watched the replay they shared a laugh about a similar bad non-call in an earlier playoff game between the Bears and Panthers. This is what it has come to: Announcers comparing the bad calls happening before them to the bad calls from earlier rounds of the playoffs. Is this really what the NFL wants?


Did the refs get this Ben Roethlisberger touchdown call right? It's certainly up for debate. (Elaine Thompson / Associated Press)


With Cris Collinsworth lobbying for pass interference to be eligible for review on Inside the NFL after New England got jobbed in Denver; Joey Porter inveighing against the league after the game in Indy; Young and Irvin railing at halftime of the Super Bowl; Baldinger being spot-on with his Instant Analysis critique of the officials; and Madden and Michaels wondering aloud about the officiating during the game ... is anybody in the league office listening?

Or can we pretty much count on next year's playoffs being dominated by the officials too?


Was that Mike Holmgren or Mike Martz?
The one area where most people agreed Seattle might have an edge was on the sidelines. Mike Holmgren was supposed to be a better game coach than Bill Cowher. But a funny thing happened to Holmgren at the end of the first half (and again at the end of the game): he became Mike Martz. Not once, but twice, Holmgren basically ran the clock out on himself.

One other decision Holmgren made should haunt him. After Mack Strong did a shameful job of not stretching out for a first down — on a tackle by a cornerback no less — the Seahawks faced 4th-and-inches at their own 26 with a 3-0 lead in the second quarter. The situation reminded me of when Bill Belichick went for it in a similar situation against the Colts in the playoffs three years ago, made it and sent a statement. Despite having an MVP tailback who was 16-for-16 on 3rd-and-1 this season, Holmgren went the safe route and punted. The Steelers scored and Seattle never led again.


Darrell Jackson, what might have been
After tying a Super Bowl record with five catches in the first quarter, Darrell Jackson was shut out. But, oh, what might have been. If not for a holding call, a marginal offensive pass interference penalty and a momentary lapse of knowing where he was on the field, Darrell Jackson could have had eight catches in the first half for 124 yards and two touchdowns.

As it turned out, his five catches for 50 yards will be easily forgotten.


Joey Porter vs. Jerramy Stevens
Joey Porter was pretty invisible. Jerramy Stevens wished he was. Despite scoring a touchdown, he had three huge drops, two of which were drive killers when the Seahawks were marching deep in Steelers territory. Porter may have had only three tackles and no sacks, but the "soft" label he hung on Stevens sure seemed to fit as the 6-foot-7 tight end short-armed several passes and seemed to be hearing footsteps all night.


Kevin Hench is supervising producer of The Sports List on Fox Sports Net.

Wish this show was here!

Blur of the Otherwordly

L'art pour l'art

L'art pour l'art
Twilight of the Idols by Friedrich Nietzsche [1895]

The fight against purpose in art is always a fight against the moralizing tendency in art, against its subordination to morality. L'art pour l'art means, "The devil take morality!" But even this hostility still betrays the overpowering force of the prejudice. When the purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether purposeless, aimless, senseless--in short, l'art pour l'art, a worm chewing its own tail. "Rather no purpose at all than a moral purpose!"--that is the talk of mere passion. A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? choose? prefer?
With all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. Is this merely a "moreover"? an accident? something in which the artist's instinct had no share? Or is it not the very presupposition of the artist's ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l'art pour l'art?

One question remains: art also makes apparent much that is ugly, hard, and questionable in life; does it not thereby spoil life for us? And indeed there have been philosophers who attributed this sense to it: "liberation from the will" was what Schopenhauer taught as the overall end of art; and with admiration he found the great utility of tragedy in its "evoking resignation." But this, as I have already suggested, is the pessimist's perspective and "evil eye." We must appeal to the artists themselves.
What does the tragic artist communicate of himself? Is it not precisely the state without fear in the face of the fearful and questionable that he is showing? This state itself is a great desideratum, whoever knows it, honors it with the greatest honors. He communicates it--must communicate it, provided he is an artist, a genius of communication.
Courage and freedom of feeling before a powerful enemy, before a sublime calamity, before a problem that arouses dread--this triumphant state is what the tragic artist chooses, what he glorifies. Before tragedy, what is warlike in our soul celebrates its Saturnalia; whoever is used to suffering, whoever seeks out suffering, the heroic man praises his own being through tragedy--to him alone the tragedian presents this drink of sweetest cruelty.

This will keep you busy for hours

http://www.archive.org/

Can feel the brain cells dying...

Having a cup of morning tea and surfing the internet brought me to various msn myspace blogs. All I have to say is that if Anne or Alice ever put one of these pages up, they are gonna get their little rumps paddled.

Some of these kids pages are so chock full of crap that it is almost impossible to tear your eyes away from the visual, audio and verbal diarrhea.
"*groans* *pop* daaamn that was good, i jsut took you're cherry *sparks up a cigarette*" from a young man in the military to a young woman.
"+I'm Indigo+
+I'm a "Mommie" of 4... Azrielle, Axel, Chill & Frisky+
+I'm not what your expecting, so don't think I am+
+Don't label me, I'm not a soup can+
+I state my opinion, don't like it, oh well+
+I'm old enough to know better but young enough not to care+
+I go to shows, I go to raves... Does that bug you?+
+Just like your average teenager, I smoke and I do drugs... But I DON'T drink is that a plus?+
+Yes, I can dress up but then I can dress down+
+I'm me... Please bring yourself to my table and don't try to be someone else, I'll turn you away+
+I'm one of the nicest people you'll meet, but also the biggest bitch+
+Don't bring drama near me... I hate it and don't need it so fuck off+"

This line is my favorite~
"Who I'd like to meet:
+Anyone who can carry on a conversation for more then 2 minutes+"

Between information such as that from teens with angst, to artists blogs where the folks couldnt spell their way out of a paper bag much less paint. What slays me is the tendency to use 'self-taught' and 'outsider' artist as a marketing tool, a phenomenon that has exploded since people starting selling the results of their artistic machinations on Ebay. I won't carry on with this line of thought, as it will make me sound like even more of a bitch than I already am.

Good grades and more

Received my grades for last semester, and they were all A's with one A- (in traditional printmaking, which I feel is my weakest studio class), I'll try harder this next semester to see if I can't remove the -

It was a really fun semester and I felt like I was running/working all the time even though it was only 15 credits (Painting, Video Art/Editing, Printmaking, Drawing Applications, Modern Art History).

Next semester is a full 18 credits with some heavy duty HS (which I need a lot of to finish the BFA), spring classes include Painting2, Video2, Printmaking2, Advanced Digital Imaging, Theory and Practice of Visual Art Criticism, and The Intellectual History of Western Civilization. Should be fun and very interesting.

Here's a favorite Robert Genn letter from November that I never got around to posting. Once again he's got a great site for artists at http://www.painterskeys.com and as always his letters are posted with his permission.

Ignorance

November 25, 2005

Yesterday my friend Joe Blodgett brought a big yellow print
into the studio. It was sort of modern, with a large,
indecipherable signature across the lower end. "What do you
think of this?" he asked. "Interesting," I said, which is what
I say when I don't know what to say. "Why don't you run it
through those 'evaluation points' that you use when you jury?"
he suggested. I protested that my points were subject to
modification--sometimes there's something major that upsets
them. "Like, 'I like it,'" I said.

My evaluation points are compositional integrity, sound
craftsmanship, colour sensitivity, creative interest, design
control, gestural momentum, artistic flair, expressive
intensity, professional touch, surface quality, intellectual
depth, visual distinction, technical challenge and artistic
audacity. If you were to assign a maximum value of 10 to each
of these fourteen points, an almost impossible 140 would be the
top mark. Loosely speaking, a total of around 50 is often
enough for an "in." My system doesn't favour realism over
non-objective work, but my jury duty has shown me that hard-won
realism often wins out with these points.

Cruising the print and looking at it in different lights over
the afternoon, I was hard pressed to find points to hand out.
It ended up with 30. While it had a sort of confident flair and
a look of audacity, it was mostly what I call "basic." As a
piece of print art--embellished or not--I saw it as
unchallenging and average. Though bright in colour, it was dull
in spirit. It suggested some sort of bare ambition--which has
its appeal, but is often not enough in the big scheme of
things. As a juried show-piece the print wouldn't make it. Mind
you, some other juror--even using the same set of points--might
have evaluated it differently. Joe phoned later and told me the
print was the work of Dale Chihuly. "Chihuly's the
internationally-known glass artist. That one is worth a couple
of thousand--edition's almost sold out." I told him I hadn't
been aware that Chihuly made prints. "That's how ignorant you
are," said Joe.

I've asked Andrew to illustrate Chihuly's print in the current
clickback. See URL below. Once again I had been victimized by
my ignorance. Or was it innocence? I'll stick to my guns.
Ambition and audacity are quite frequently mistaken for talent
and value.

Best regards,

Robert

PS: "Knowing is false understanding. Not knowing is blind
ignorance." (Nan Ch'uan)

Esoterica: Do we all crave a level playing field? It's been my
observation that innocent-eyed jurors--often from another
village--are best able to separate the better from the
poorer--the grain from the chaff. All art carries a provenance
that ranges from humble to exalted, from non-existent to
stellar. What we're looking for here is the truth. In art, is
the truth possible? "Real knowledge," said Confucius, "is to
know the extent of one's ignorance."

Creativity and love

Creativity and love

This morning Rita E. Acuna of Philadelphia, PA, wrote: "I think
I would have preferred not to be gifted with creativity. I had
found a true soulmate. He was a pilot, a man of high intellect,
who wrote the most extraordinary poetry for and about me. He
could communicate and share his deepest thoughts and feelings
to me. And I lost him. I was careless, my fault. So sad. I
would appreciate your thoughts as to the selfishness, demands
and impracticality of being creative in a practical world as it
relates to the great loves of our lives."

Thanks Rita. Good question. I don't know enough about your
particular situation to know whether it was your creativity
that caused your pilot to take off--but I do have a few
thoughts on the dark side of creativity. Many of us are focused
to such a degree that it's easy to become inconsiderate of
others. After all, the sun rises and sets on us, doesn't it?
Sometimes it's the "law of opposite effect"--sensitivity,
believe it or not, can breed insensitivity--a rotten thing for
the near and dear. Fact is, art-love competes with human love.
And art-lovers can drive their significant others to drink.
Serially.

The good news is that it's not either/or. Many of the
successful creators that I know tend rather to keep their
creativity bottled up. This way it doesn't get on other's
nerves, and it may also be good for the muse. While it's all a
wonderful riddle, quiet, creative action should be the main
currency. This leaves plenty of time for being nice. Both
personal art and human relationships can be mystical unions
that exact the highest of standards.

My advice is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Being big in art need not mean being small in life.
Historically, many artists have left trails of hurt and fields
of broken dreams. But these "enfant terribles" with all their
rough edges may be an outworn myth. Rita mentioned "selfish,
demanding and impractical." In my books art doesn't have to be
any of these. Actually, it's the flip side--unselfish,
undemanding of others, and dedicated practicality--that make us
the interesting and attractive folks that we are. For those who
would venture into the wonder of art-making, it's important not
to confuse the valuable "child-like approach" with common,
garden-variety immaturity.

Best regards,

Robert

PS: "The heart of creativity is an experience of the mystical
union; the heart of the mystical union is an experience of
creativity." (Julia Cameron)

Esoterica: Rita's cup bubbles over. "Every day I'm reborn," she
writes, "because of the creative process and the use of its
gifts. Every breath I take, every sight I see is a miracle to
appreciate and enjoy. It renews the creative spirit that plays
within my soul and being." Brilliant as this sentiment is,
sometimes it's difficult for others to live with. Personally, I
think it has to do with "art envy,"--something I've been
meaning to discuss with Sigmund Freud. It's pretty hard to beat
this all-encompassing joy. "Creativity," says therapist Eric
Maisel, "is the gift that keeps on giving."

Current clickback: If you would like to see selected responses
to the last letter, "Art direct," about the art-marketing ideas
of Elin Pendleton, and others, please go to:
http://www.painterskeys.com/clickbacks/art-direct.asp