So... somebody says:

Now be honest !!! The Seahawks GAVE the game to the Steelers !!!

Between three absolutely wrong referee calls ( like giving the Steelers a touchdown when he clearly had fumbled ) and four stupid, amateurish blunders by Seattle ( like holding ), how could the Steelers have lost ???

I think the Seahawks could have played better, but I also think that even if they played better... the Steelers still would have won.

Ben's touchdown was a touchdown. Unlike the rest of the game... it matters not where the ball is when the player lands (unless you're talking about the other three boundaries of the end-zone on a passing play)... it's whether or not he passes the plane of the goal.

1. Ben moved over the goal line not beyond it, but over it... vertically over it.
   
2. Ben was pushed back to the front edge of the line
3. Ben lost his grip on the ball as he descended from the tackle
4. Ben recovered the ball as he was hitting the ground (no seahawk had a prayer of recovering the ball and "fumble != loss of posession")
   
5. Ben pushed the ball over the goal line as he was on the ground

What's interesting is that everybody that wants to discredit the touchdown pays attention to #s 2 - 5 above. The key, however, is that he got the ball to be vertically "over" the goal line. If *any* small, miniscule portion of the ball is vertically over the line... that is a touchdown. The seahawks could have knocked him back to the 20 yard line... and it still would have been a touchdown. Besides... even if it WASN'T a touchdown... it was only third down. With nothing left to go... a quarterback sneak would have given them a touchdown. Even if they didn't score a touchdown... it would have been an easy field goal... well... for the Steelers at least.

Both teams had penalties... in that sense it was a sloppy game. However, it was a question of who could "seal the deal" when it came to capitalizing on those penalties. The Seahawks simply couldn't. The Steelers didn't rush like they usually do (until the few sacks in the second half) but kept great coverage on the Seahawk receivers... effectively shutting down their offense. When you have a kicker who misses TWO field goal attempts in a DOME... that doesn't help you either.

It could also be pointed out that there were several occassions where penalties and turn-arounds went in the favor of the Seahawks. One that sticks clearly in my mind was when Palomolu was robbed (again in the play-offs!) of a turn-over... this time it was a fumble recovery instead of an interception. It was a judgement call on which set or rules to apply. Was Hasselbeck "down by contact" when he began to fall before being touched by the Steelers? Some referees are saying no. Clearly a grey area in the rules.

Did the Steelers play the best games of their lives? Sure as heck no... if they did... the game would have been a BLOWOUT with the Steelers leaps and bounds ahead of the Seahawks. But... after beating the THREE BEST TEAMS in the NFL, in a ROW, ON THE ROAD... I definitely think that the Steelers belonged in "the show" and that they managed to execute where they needed to execute. Flawless? No. A winning game? That's what matters in the end.

The Super Bowl isn't usually a good game. While not the best on technical merit... it sure was an emotional rollercoaster. Much better than seeing one team try to score as many points as they can while the other mopes around the field as has happened so many times since free-agency became a reality. The Super Bowl has a long history of "great rides" that end in disaster at the big game as the pressure crushes the drive and enthusiasm of the players.

I think the Steelers earned it. If not in "the game"... they earned it by turning a good season to a great one and sealing the deal with a "decent" game. Neither team played their best, but I think the steelers got closer than the seahawks did.

It was a great ride. The excitement here was more than I remember it being when the Chargers went to the Super Bowl in 1995. Lots of fun!