"A chop block refers to a defensive player blocking an offensive linemen below the waist while that lineman is engaged with another defensive player."

SHOULD READ:

A chop block refers to an OFFENSIVE player blocking a defensive player below the waist while that DEFENSIVE player is BEING BLOCKED BY, (engaged with), another OFFENSIVE player.

Apologies for the typos. When I'm in a hurry or pissed off, I don't proof carefully enough.

Take a Midol, dude.

Let me try to navigate through your verbal jungle and refute you point by point.

My issue with the Rothlisberger touchdown and NFL "review procedure" is this: I'll use Ben's knee being down as a good example…The visual evidence I saw was disputable. You're a Cardinal fan, so you see it different. I respect that.

My point–a valid one–was the word indisputable means inarguable,l undebatable, without dispute. The call made on that play didn't meet that standard, at least to my eyes. Doesn't matter. Tomlin didn't go for it and Arizona stopped them. If your offense can't gain a yard for a touchdown in a Super Bowl, you deserve what you get.

On the chop block…According to the NFL rule book, the position of the players head is relevant only in a clip. A chop block refers to a defensive player blocking an offensive linemen below the waist while that lineman is engaged with another defensive player. James’ impetus did bring him across the opposing player's legs. The call was correct…

We agree on Warner shredding the vaunted Steeler defense–after the fourth quarter had begun and the Steelers went into a lame Cover 2. Prior to that ill-conceived strategy, Fitzgerald had one catch for 12 yards. Warner passed for 224 yards in the final stanza because LeBeau made a serious error going to a version of the "prevent defense. The defense did not disguise their intentions as well, either.

And Kurt Warner is one of the games best-ever big game QBs. Give him and Haley credit for recognizing the Steelers change of defense and damn near winning the contest.

On penalty calls in general. If I were a venomous, Steeler hatin' fanatic like you, I could "spew" about the cheap holding call for a safety. Rothlisberger had let go of the ball as the player was coming down. I've already commented on the "pussification" of the quarterbacks and receivers. Dansby did not rough Ben.

Great teams–like the Steelers–overcome adversity and are successful because they are resilient, resourceful, and prepared.

The Steelers squandered a 13 point lead that should have been 17-20. The Black and Gold had six plays inside the Arizona 5 in two possession and didn’t gain a yeard. They could have folded. They almost did.

After Fitzgerald’s touchdown, the Steelers could have succumbed to the pressure. They didn’t. Arizona’s defense folded like a cheap accordion.

After a holding call, the Steelers had to go 88 yards to get the winning touchdown.

If you were a true fan of the sport, you would put the blame where it belongs—on the Cardinal’s defense the allowed those yards without a fight. Whisenhut obviously agrees; he canned Clancy Pendergast yesterday.

If you had respect for the game, you would give credit to a superb big game quarterback like Big Ben and clutch player like Santonio Holmes.

Instead, you want to bitch and moan lik a…well, a…. ah forget it, we have females who post on this site who do respect the game.

I’ll just say…Final score 27-23. Quit your cryin’

How’s that Midol workin’ for you?

Again, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be a penalty for running into the holder–there should, he is defenseless–but there was no intent in that play in the Super Bowl. The defender was going for the block and came down upon the holder. That should not be a personal foul/automatic first down. If the defender was gunning for him–absolutely. But he wasn't. Terrible rule.

Punching a player on the ground is not a boarderline call. That's blatant, over-the-top and well beyond unnecessary roughness. I don't want the refs to decide the game, but that warrants something more than a 15-yard personal foul call. The next step up is ejection. Maybe the league needs a punishment level in between? Egregious holds should be called. Doesn't make it right, but everybody knows that there is holding not being called on pretty much every play in the NFL. Something needs to be done about consistency without ridiculous proliferation.

I actually was sure Holmes was in bounds watching it live. Fantastic catch.

Goodell should stop fining for criticizing refs and start fining refs for blowing calls.

Yeah, I know the booth official's job is to make the call on reviewing. However, I've frequently seen plays so obviously right that I was astounded that the booth called a review. That they didn't take extra time here, in the most important game of the year, even if they were sure, is just another example of inconsistency.

Al Michaels alluded to the play being looked at but did not clarify that process. Hence the confusion.

The Booth Guy didn't buzz the Ref because the visual evidence was indisputable.

Woodley knocked the ball loose before Warner cocked his arm BACK. Whether or not, the ball was touching his hand going forward is a moot point.

The Ref's followed proper procedure. Michaels should have given the audience more details. The call was correct.

I tried to look for what preceded Harrison's punch and saw nothing he could use as an excuse. Stupid, yes. Warranting an ejection? Madden thought so. I don't know.

If I had time, I could edit a montage of plays–in playoffs, too–during which Harrison was literally choked to the ground and holding wasn't called. On one hand you correctly lambast the referees for poor execution, yet you say they shouldn't decide the game. You eject Harrison, it's the defensive equivalent of ejecting Fitzgerasld.

Roughing the holder under the "defenseless" player rule was the correct call.

I threw a flag for the Rothlisberger touchdown that was over turned. Just as we pointed out that the NFL has a different dictionary when it comes to terms like "violent and unecessary" use of the helmet to ram, butt, or spear an opponent, the NFL brass and the Refs do not understand what the term "indisputable visual evidence" means.

Very simply it means any human being with a three digit IQ can look at a play and say, "Yep that's a fumble" or, "He dragged his foot, he was in." The first time you hear yourself think, "I don't know, his foot, might be on the white line." STOP LOOKING AT THE PLAY! The visual evidence is disputable.

There was not one shot NBC showed where Rothlisbergers knee "indisputably" touched the ground. Was it close? Very. But any "too close to call" play, by the NFL's definition, must be upheld.

In trying to get calls right, the NFL is losing credibility fast. You know I spit black and sneeze gold, but it wasn't until a friend sent me a still shot where I indisputably saw Santonio's right foot touching the turf that I was convinced he really caught the winning touchdown..

It all boils down to the NFL not wanting full-time, union-repped officials. That's why Goodell fines players 50K for criticizing the refs. The Big Boys don't want to let go of the cash to insure, consistent, intelligent officiating.