Super Bowl LVII

[Pro Stock John]

Was one of the better Superbowls in recent times, could have gone either way. But like Steve said Burton's record return and that fumble really made the difference.

I saw at least one time where I thought holding should have been called but I'm not a ref at the game.

[jer]

I think I made my point, if you disagree that's fine, but I'm fairly sure you get it.

[Lynn]

Originally Posted by Mr70

Bad call?...here's the word from the man himself.
“It was holding,I tugged his jersey.I was hoping they would let it slide."~James Bradberry

Technically, it was a hold. No question about it. Here is my perspective. I am one of those guys who rarely watches a lot of NFL football. I just don’t care that much. I did watch much of this one, but wasn’t glued to the tv the entire game. The only Superbowl I watched a complete game was the one where the Patriots were unbeaten during the regular season; so I watched just to see they made history. They didn’t.

One of the things that has really turned me off with the NFL is that they do not call pass interference as it should be called. Sadly, this is spilling over into the college game.
It used to be that if a defensive player hit, pulled an arm or a hand of the receiver BEFORE the ball got there, they called interference. Now, they just call it “incidental contact”. I get that the defender has a right to go for the ball. Most times they aren’t even looking at the ball. I have seen plays where a defender has one of the receiver’s hands clearly in his grasp, and there is no call. The commentators always say the refs are “just letting them play.” Sorry, but that isn’t the rule. It shouldn’t be so subjective. I realize that QBs and receivers have gotten so good, that it is almost impossible to defend without interference. Maybe so. If you don’t like that, then change the rules.

Back to the call; Bradbury’s hold was almost nothing compared to many of the pass interference “no calls” I see (some in this game). Making the rules subjective really hurts the integrity of the game.

[SBR]

Agree with Lynn, in that situation I think it was a bad call and I actually wanted KC to win. Another thing I was thinking about is if I am a defender and the opposing team is wearing white jerseys, there is no way I am wearing black gloves! It's probably my OCD kicking in but I would have worn white gloves.

[Charley Lillard]

I think the issue was the Eagles defense could not stop the Chiefs once in the second half. I think they scored on every possession.

[Billohio]

On the hold would KC still have made the field goal if it was not called?

[Steve Shauger]

Originally Posted by Billohio

On the hold would KC still have made the field goal if it was not called?

Yes, however Philly would have gotten the ball back with 90 or so seconds. It would have been a more exciting ending.

[L72copocamaro]

Lynn, thanks for making the point of my contention. The ball was uncatchable even without the insignificant hold. And as far as I can recall, it was the only holding penalty of the game! To me, and with that in mind, at that critical point of the game, they should have let it roll, and let play decide the game. The Chiefs most likely would still have made the field goal and likely won the game, but it robbed the Eagles of a better chance in the end.

[sYc]

Hum..the Eagles had some calls go their way..the fumble that was called a incomplete pass that was returned for a touchdown, or the Eagles receiver who was juggling the ball as he went out of bounds but was ruled a catch.

[Lynn]

Like Steve said on page one; every game has bad calls. Normally, there are good and bad calls that benefit both teams at some point. You cannot expect a perfect job by the refs. The best you can hope for is a fairly called game.