Mike from San Francisco writes, "The NFL office defended the officiating in the Super Bowl, claiming that "no mistakes" were made during the game. Did they keep a straight face while announcing this?"
Sure, the officials made no mistakes at all during the Super Bowl. And the war in Iraq is going just as planned. And Marilyn Manson is an average American. And Tom Cruise is totally sane. And signing Terrell Owens is not a risky acquisition. And Drano makes great mouthwash. And Kobe Bryant is totally committed to the assist. And Paris Hilton is virginal.
The NFL is right. The officials made no mistakes — on extra point conversions. The rest of the game was another story. The NFL must be so busy defending its officials that they are overlooking the fact that the officiating in the playoffs was the worst ever. In three of those playoff games (New England at Denver, Pittsburgh at Indianapolis, and the Super Bowl itself), the officiating could have possibly changed the outcome of the games. Did it change the outcomes? We'll never know. But, the fact that most of the disputed calls came at crucial points in the games is the most disturbing issue.
If the same flags would have been thrown at less important times of the games, we wouldn't be talking about them. Officials need to understand: if you want to make a call that may impact the outcome of a game, you better be darn sure about it before you toss that yellow hanky from your pocket. If you want to make a questionable pass interference call, make it in the first quarter, not the second half. Not sure if that was a fumble or an incomplete pass? Swallow your whistle and let the replay booth sort it out. Was that a hold? Maybe in the first quarter, but not in the fourth.
In any case, officials need to be held more accountable for their mistakes. Sure, the league will admit when a mistake is made, but do the officials really suffer as much as the victim of the bad call? No, but that has to change. The heck with fining the officials — what they need is punishment that truly resonates. Punishment that will make them think twice the next time they reach for a flag. Like locking an offending official in a four-by-four cell with Pittsburgh linebacker Joey Porter and a megaphone.
Or, enrolling an official in an etiquette class with Randy Moss. Or, forcing an official to face Bill Cowher while Cowher recites the tongue twister "She sells seashells by the seashore" over and over. Or, being in Michael Irvin's car during a traffic stop with Irvin and several of his closest friends, fresh out of the rehab clinic. Frankly, with those in mind, I'd be afraid to call any infractions. Maybe that's how it should be. Let 'em play. And you guys in charge of officials — wipe that grin off your face and train your officials not to ruin the game.
Rodney from Long Island, New York asks, "After two straight wins to start the season, is Tiger Woods poised to win the Grand Slam in 2006?"
Tiger is certainly off to a great start this year, but let's not let that overshadow the accomplishments of one John Holmes, last weekend's winner of the PGA Tour's FBR Open. Allegedly, Holmes won the tournament with the use of only one club, albeit a very long one. Holmes won by seven shots over a field that included such notables as Phil Mickelson, Justin Leonard, Vijay Singh, and Harry Reems. Holmes is reportedly the only golfer on tour who, when he hits an errant shot, yells "Fore-teen!" instead of "Fore!"
Anyway, back to Woods. Is he "poised" to win the Grand Slam? Of course he is. Then again, so is every other golfer entered in all four Grand Slam tournaments. I was "poised" to win the lottery last week after buying 12 tickets, but I didn't. But, if any one golfer is capable of winning the Grand Slam, it would be Woods. Ask a panel of golf experts to choose one golfer capable of winning the Slam, and most, if not all, would take Woods.
The key word here is "capable" — Woods is the only golfer with the range of skills necessary to handle the different types of courses that host the four legs of the Slam. He is physically the most gifted golfer on the tour. Heck, he could win two majors with his teeth alone. And his mental preparedness is always sharp. Take Woods out of the majors equation, and most of those same experts would defer on choosing a golfer capable of winning the Grand Slam. It's either Woods or no one.
Will Woods win the Grand Slam? No. Three majors? Probably not. Two? More than likely. Woods may list his goal for the 2006 season as winning all four majors, but realistically, his goal is matching and passing Jack Nicklaus' total of 18 career majors. Nicklaus never swept the majors in a single year, and won his last at the age of 46.
Woods has won 10 majors, and is only 30. Time is on his side, and he may still be improving. Woods' game will almost always put him in position to win the majors, but to pull out four this year would be nearly superhuman. I wouldn't be stunned if he did it, but I would be surprised.
So, Rodney, if anyone were to win the Grand Slam, it would be Woods, and only Woods. He's got game, and he's got the most intimidating caddy of all time, Steve Williams, who never met a camera he didn't rip from a fan's grasp and toss into a pond. I say Woods wins the Masters and the British Open.
Joe from Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania writes, "Joe Montana reportedly asked for $100,000 to appear in the Super bowl XL pre-game festivities with other Super Bowl MVPs. Is he crazy?"
If Montana did, in fact, demand a $100,000 appearance fee, then I can't fault him for following the laws of supply and demand. If the NFL paid Super Bowl XXX MVP Larry Brown $1,000, then, economically, shouldn't Montana be able to ask for a hundred grand and not be criticized?
Let me explain. Brown is a Super Bowl MVP thanks to Pittsburgh's Neil O'Donnell, who all but handed Brown two interceptions in the 1996 finale. Montana is a three-time Super Bowl MVP and earned every one of them. Isn't he at least one hundred times better than Brown? You'd pay $500 for a signed photo of Montana, right? But would you pay $5 for one of Brown's? Not that Larry Brown, but maybe for Larry Brown, coach of the Knicks, you would.
Montana claims he couldn't attend the Super Bowl because he wanted to watch his son's basketball game. That's what I call admirable fatherly devotion. That's a legitimate reason for not attending the greatest spectacle in sports, and get paid. Montana's played in four Super Bowls and attended countless others. Maybe he's just sick of it. Now, it would take more than my son's basketball game to keep me from the Super Bowl. Maybe is he were graduating college, and getting married, and having a child on Super Bowl Sunday, I might skip the game. Probably not, though.
Anyway, Montana's not crazy. Maybe he's just a little selfish, but mostly for all the right reasons. The NFL helped cultivate Montana's fame, so the least he could have done was shown up, waved to the crowd, plugged FedEx and the RZ Trainer Football, collected a check, and left. His son will have other basketball games. Most of the other MVPs in attendance looked thrilled to be there, especially Joe Namath. I guess $1,000 was enough for Joe Willie. I think he spent some of that having the Jets' logo printed inside his jacket. In fact, the NFL could have saved $1,000 and told Namath that Suzy Kolber would be on the sidelines.
Get Your Questions Answered!
Do you have a question or comment? Did "Dear Abby" not answer your question? Have you committed a heinous crime, and need cheap representation? Need cash, but have no more organs to sell? Then send your question/dilemma/desperate circumstance along with your name and hometown to [email protected]. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, February 24th.
Leave a Comment