Really? That is hard to believe, what a joke. Didn't read the whole thread for reaction to this comment, but it's not possible for there to be anything other than a no-touch rule after initial contact. I agree during the play in question, the touch amounted to almost nothing. However, even the initial contact rule opens the door to uneven refereeing; after the receiver and defender have progressed down the field and the ball is in the air, there is no way to uniformly enforce a rule which allows contact. Incidental contact is a different issue, but for the play in question, the receiver clearly reached out and touched the defender. It wasn't a push-off, but even that arm outstretched can create room between the receiver and the defender. It was a mistake on the part of the receiver, IMO. Looked like a reflex action, but it's against the rules. The Seahawks have nothing to complain that hard about. They didn't go out and take the championship. They let it get taken away from them.
lol... Z, weird to find you here, commenting on something so mundane. Somehow, I just don't picture you as a guy that has spent a lot of time hanging out in a locker room with the other dicks. This comment above is ridiculous and completely wrong. What makes it wrong is the fact that pro athletes hardly ever think that the ref is 'on their side'. If anything, 99% of the time that they have an opinion about the bias of a ref, it is a belief in a negative bias. If anything, this is the kind of feeling that can motivate a pro athlete to perform better. And please, Z, don't bother with the post that says 'Did I say which effect a negatively biased ref would have on an athlete'? We've seen that tactic from you before. To describe the effect of an athlete's belief about the competence or bias of a referee as 'huge' is melodramatic, to say the least.
No, instant replay highlights the ref's errors. Probably in the long run, it provides the negative feedback these guys need to get it right... well, get it right more often.