Talk:Super Bowl XLIII

Porn Interruption?

Nothing here on Comcast's porn interruption? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.25 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There should be. At the moment, a Google search for "superbowl" gives this. Someone should add it in.  Aaron  ►  07:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait. It already is. Disregard.  Aaron  ►  07:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Noone cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.188.183 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Team Introduction Songs

Does anybody know what the two songs that were playing when the teams ran out onto the field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.126.196 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Arizona Cardinals came out to "Ignition" by TobyMac. --66.206.186.102 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Graffiti

Seriously, cut that shit out. Some of us come here for information. 68.52.243.143 (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That is why America has no faith in Wikipedia, because of idiots who graffiti and sabotauge the articles. 68.191.13.235 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Most of the article is junk, or POV, or both. That's what gives wiki a black eye.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen songs

I need someone to find out what the First Song was.

 Done Playhacker (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasters (Spain)

Someone can add this Spanish broadcasters?:

Spain --> Canal+ (TV) and Cadena Ser (radio). More info here: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/radio/television/Canal/SER/Superbowl/acontecimiento/deportivo/ano/EE/UU/elpepirtv/20070204elpepirtv_4/Tes/. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.26.146 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasters (Taiwan)

Taiwan --> Videoland Television Network TV. The info in the page is wrong. Super Bowl broadcaster in Taiwan is the sports channel of Videoland Television Network. Please correct this. Thanks!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chi3x10 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I wanted to add a trivia section, but the article is locked for some reason.

The piece of info I have is that this is the first Super Bowl since XVIII to feature two previous Super Bowl winning Quarterbacks (Warner with Super Bowl XXXIV and Rothliesberger with Super Bowl XL). I did my research for this on wikipedia, and I do not know how to site that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.181.234 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be cited. However, I've also heard that on television and I would be willing to bet it is in an article somewhere out there; if someone is willing to find that article then it could be cited. blackngold29 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowls 13, 18, 43 all had previous Super Bowl winning qbs against each other. Bradshaw-Staubach, Plunkett-Theisman and Roethlisberger-Warner are the combos. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to also say Super Bowl 10 on the above statement. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pro Bowl Move

Is the "Pro Bowl Move" section really notable enough to Super Bowl XLIII to include in this article? I mean, it's an unrelated game, and the section only serves to say it won't be related to this year's SB. --Rividian (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'lldelete it for you ASAP. Also, can we start NFL playoffs, 2008-09 and have no more redirection to Super Bowl XLIII? Three teams are in the playoffs by winning the playoffs, and it is that time of the year. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:17 PM US EST Dec 8 2008.

Headers

I cut out a bunch of headers for the second time. They aren't needed for a single line of text. It's a waste of space and it extends the table of contents far more than needed. Grsz¹¹ 18:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi prot

I guess something was just won/announced? I have semi'd the page because of the flurry of people who think the decision on the finalists should be theirs. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27 19 January 2009 (UTC).

Controversy surrounding the Steelers last Super Bowl appearance.

Super Bowl XL (February 5th, 2006)was highly controversial due to what many fans and sports journalists considered very poor officiating.

I feel this is an important subtopic of the Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl history. I would like to see someone write a non-partisan paragraph to be included in the Steelers section of this Wiki. I've been registered on Wikipedia since March, 2007, but haven't edited, so I'm locked out. Thank you in advance for any help in this.

Suggested links are referenced on this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_officiating_in_Super_Bowl_XL

Thanks, again!

Richeee (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with this article. Grsz¹¹ 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that game and anything involved with it (including that POV article) is completely irrelevant to this game and article. The vast majority of this article is uncited and could be improved before we start dragging other stuff into it. blackngold29 14:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how both of you are Pittsburgh fans!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richeee (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who would've replied the same either way. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 01:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll never know... but may the best team win, Grsz11, and that the officiating is accurate. I forgot to sign my comment... Richeee (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All non-Steelers fans are encouraged to comment as well! blackngold29 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Super Bowls involved bad calls against the Steelers but the Steelers won anyway. I agree bad officiating is a problem, but if the Steelers, the ones on the losing end of those bad calls, won anyway, does it merit special attention? 69.253.219.207 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is Seattle was guilty of the penalties (by rule) called in Super Bowl XL. I have never heard anyone argue otherwise. The best arguments I heard were "let them play," and the officials shouldn't have such an impact in a big game. Then the whole "controversy" got a life of it's own, and some people started to buy the idea that Seattle was the victim of bogus calls as fact. Maybe if Seattle would have concentrated on catching passes instead of whining about the officiating, maybe they would have had a chance. Furthermore, the NBA loses so much respect because they let so much go uncalled (traveling, double dribble, etc.). What were the officials supposed to do....not call anything....or only call penalties when it didn't reverse a positive play? The fact that Seattle was flagged for legitmate violations of the rules (penalties) does not make it controversial. The fact that Seattle was dumb enough to commit penalties at the worse possible times is what made it controversial. If anyone caused a controversy, it wasn't the Steelers or the Officials, it was Seattle & their lack of discipline & poor timing in when they committed penalties. They have no one to thank or to blame but themselves. Take my word for it, it isn't beneath the NFL to admit when a mistake was made in a game. They do it all the time. Where was the apology from the league in this case? There wasn't one. Where is the controversy? Sorry, people who don't know their butts from a hole in the ground (even in the sports entertainment media) whining, and people who can't think for themselves, do not a legitimate controversy make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.178 (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Without belaboring the obvious... any controversy over Suber Bowl XL belongs in that article, not this one. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Television commercials in Canada

This is a minor point, but I've removed the text under the "international" section regarding the fact that US commercials won't air in Canada during the broadcast. This is not notable, given that it is no different from any other series airing in Canada, but the original poster (User:CrazyInSane) disagrees. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is certainly notable, with this news article ([1]) as an example. I suggest rewording the paragraph about the Canadian commercial/substitution as follows:

“ Canadian English language network CTV will air NBC's feed of the game live throughout Canada. As with its other American programming broadcast throughout the year, CTV is expected to request simultaneous substitution for the game, meaning most Canadians watching NBC (which is available in Canada) will see Canadian commercials during the game rather than the much-hyped American ones. This has become the subject of public controversy over the years. The game will also air on the French cable channel RDS. ”

. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 05:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How, exactly, is it any more notable than any other broadcast in Canada? More to the point, why does it warrant a mention in this article? We're not making a point about commercial substitution rules for other nations. Please separate your professed dislike for Canadian broadcast regulations (as per your previous talk page comments) from what is important to the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The CRTC has an annual press release informing viewers about the Super Bowl simsub broadcast specifically. It's definitely notable; and it provides useful, relevant information to the reader. Commercial substitution at the Super Bowl is not notable in any other nation because they do not receive US networks directly through domestic cable/satellite subscriptions like Canada does, and are not as culturally tied to the United States and its media. Since my initial inclusion of the information, it has been edited by several other editors adding additional information, but was never removed. I believe you'll see many editors agreeing with me about its worth in this article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 06:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion It seems to me that this hinges upon the statement "this has become the subject of public controversy over the years". If this controversy is significant, and well supported by reputable sources, it seems a valid thing to mention. If the controversy is minor, and/or not verifiable, then the information is not really notable, and, while I don't think it truly harms the article, it does not seem necessary to include it, either.

The quote above includes a citation for the controversy, but it does not link to anything in this talk page, and I don't see it in the recent edit history for the article, either (though it may well be there somewhere!). Either way, it's that evidence that I would suggest we should be looking at. So, cite please? Anaxial (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the two cited articles are here: [2] and [3]. Here's another one I found as well issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commision: [4]. I can find more if necessary. Thanks for your input. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 08:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That the Canadian broadcasting commission deems it notable enough to issue a specific press release and FAQ seems like reasonable evidence to me that there is a controversy worth mentioning here. It doesn't need more than a couple of sentences, mind (not that anyone has so far suggested otherwise) - if a longer discussion is needed, it would, IMO, be more fitting for the Super Bowl advertising page. Anaxial (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though, that this is not a new development - and also no different from any other series or sports broadcast where a Canadian network purchases the rights. As such, the previously mentioned article on SB advertising is a more appropriate location for this. (Otherwise, one could argue that it should be mentioned in every Super Bowl article.) We have to differentiate between what is a standard practice, and what is truly "controversial"; from my experience, very few people really care about this, especially now that most commercials can be accessed on-line if desired. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggest it should be kept small. And it does appear to be different from other sports broadcasts, in that there is no specific press release referring to those, whereas there was one for this particular Super Bowl contest. This implies that, while presumably not a mass public outcry, there is some degree of controversy over the broadcasting of this particular event, over and above that for other, lesser, events. If there were no section on foreign broadcasting at all in this article, I could see no reason for including this fact, but since there is, I see no problem with a (minor) reference to it. Anaxial (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is it always the case that the Canadian broadcaster broadcasts the American broadcast in full w/o interruptions even for commercials? Like for other sporting events that rely on U.S. broadcasters, for example. –Howard the Duck 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are commercials, but Canadian broadcasters are permitted to replace US commercials with Canadian ones during the broadcast. There are a host a regulations that govern this, such as the program content having to be the same and the shows having to air in the same time slots. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Then the Canadian case is virtually the same with every other broadcaster outside the U.S., so I dunno how this can be notable, unless Canadians had seen the full U.S. broadcast, incl. commercials in the recent past. –Howard the Duck 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Canada receives the US networks directly through cable. In Canada, we can watch the US feeds of NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox. For example, if you're in Eastern Canada you can get the Boston feeds, Detroit feeds or otherwise. In the West, you'd get Spokane. The Canadian broadcaster, however, has the right to ovverride the US network's signal if they broadcast the American show at the exact same time, meaning that regardless of whether Canadians tune into the Canadian network or NBC, they will see the Canadian network's broadcast. This is why the issue is controversial—because we get US networks directly otherwise, unlike any other non-US country. Also, Canada is very strongly tied to the US culturally, so we want to see the famed commercials. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so on cable, the commercials on U.S. channels would be blocked? –Howard the Duck 05:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not just the commercials are blocked, the entire program is replaced by the Canadian broadcaster's signal. So for example if you tuned into NBC in Canada during the Super Bowl, you would actually be forced to watch the CTV broadcast, with the CTV bug, commercials, and all. This can be a nuisance in many ways, including lesser-quality HD signal, and the Canadian broadcaster coming back late from commercials (since the event is live), resulting in a few seconds of the program being cut off after each commercial break. Find out all about this practice at the simultaneous substitution article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CiS, please don't forget that the broadcaster is required to have an equal or better-quality signal in order to substitute, and that "coming back late" (or any other variations that change the length of content from that of the source) can invalidate the simsub right. Again, this is because NBC does not own the broadcast rights for Canada - CTV does. Other US networks - A&E for one - sometimes have to black out their Canadian feed because they do not have the right to show a certain program in Canada. Per the article you linked, US stations also have situations where they black out non-local or non-US stations airing the same programme. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is fine, and I understand that CTV has every right to have their signal placed overtop NBC's signal, but it's the actual controversy that's the subject of discussion here. Certainly simsubbing in general is not controversial on a wide scale, but I do think it causes enough controversy around the Super Bowl to merit a brief mention of it in the "International broadcasts" under "Canada" at this article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Simultcast on CTV I live in Quebec city and I watched the Superbowl on Sunday on both CTV and NBC and there was no simsub on WPTZ the local NBC station. VincentG (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just get DirecTV like I did and you'll have no regrets. All you need is a valid US address for subscription purposes and then you'll get the direct US feed up here even in Canada. Don.

reference 17 needs fixed

Reference 17 - the link goes to the wrong page. The website is http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/american_football/7018632.stm - the current revision has an l at the end (as in stml). Would change it myself, but article is locked. 86.149.200.10 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Liine

I wanted to reference the opening line posted in the Super Bowl pre-game notes section to this source: http://www.point-spreads.com/football/012609-current-super-bowl-odds.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddspub (talk • contribs)

 Done. I added it to that section's third paragraph where it does talk about the spread. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The spread needs to be changed in this article. The popular line at almost all large sportsbooks was 7 for the steelers, not 6.5, at game time.

Can someone please add France 2 to the list of Superbowl 2009 broadcasters in europe

announcement here: http://sport.france2.fr/sports-us/51060773-fr.php (live starting at 00:10h CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.176.73 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done «O7³» 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Coverage in Australia

Channel 10 are televising Super Bowl XLIII starting at 10am Monday AEDST. Go Cardinals! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.239.106 (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Recession Bowl"

I've found a lot of articles that supposedly say this game has been dubbed "The Recession Bowl" because of the economy's effect on commercial advertising and even ticket prices for the game. Here are links. I don't know where to put it all in the article, but I thought I'd help out and give a warning instead of having somebody delete it and say it wasn't relevant. I believe it is relevant to include the effect of the recession on the game. NFL lockout real possibility in 2011, Super Bowl feels boot of global recession, Goodell: NFL, partners not immune to recession, Super Bowl Parties, Corporate Functions Fall Victim To Economy, Super Bowl XLIII Commercials Have No Best Bets: Advertisers’ Buzz Not a Sure Win in the 2009 Recession Bowl, Finding meaning in Super Bowl darkness

conman33 (. . .talk) 20:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and added a section. Please don't delete it because like I said this is important to the article, if anything just move the info around in the article or merge into a new section. conman33 (. . .talk) 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anartica

Personally, I like to call that Antarctica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.149.74 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it since the Wikipedia article is titled "Antarctica". «O7³» 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasting

TV3,Ireland is broadcasting the Superbowl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.118.152 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Viasat SportN is broadcasting the Superbowl every year, also in 2009, from near midnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.132.50 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sport Klub is broadcasting the Superbowl in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobra (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Error in the Infobox

Gen. David Petraeus should be listed as being involved with the coin toss, as he was actually responsible for tossing the coin. I can't edit since I just registered.

 Done(Jj04 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Final Super Bowl!?

In the Broadcasting section, under Television and then United States, it states that "this will be the Final Super Bowl." I think that's a bit of a stretch, and I can't find anything that corroborates this. It would be great if either a citation could be posted or the blurb itself removed.

Thanks. FxChiP (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You should have read the entire sentence: "Super Bowl XLIII will be the final Super Bowl, and one of the final major American sporting events to air in the analog television format in the United States before the nationwide digital television transition scheduled for February 17, 2009." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I read this too incorrectly until i reread carefully.... I think it might be a good idea to reword.... Stealth (talk)

Done

Periods

I have noticed that many sections need some work with grammar. I don't have the time to do it which is why i am not but it needs work. Some sentences had 2 periods which I corrected, but others are like this:

(USA). And need to be (USA.)

So if anyone has time to correct this it would be good Stealth (talk)

Change the score

Change the score already, Steelers are up 20-7. 76.111.67.200 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Been fixed for a while.... Stealth (talk)

Sorry, I posted this a little bit before the 3rd quarter was over, when the article wasnt updated yet. 76.111.67.200 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for List of players for touchdowns, field goals, etc per team

I have a suggestion: Can anyone have the list of players for touchdowns, field goals, etc per team for Superbowl XLIII? RYAN 3000 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are such lists, and I believe they get posted at a later time. Stealth (talk)

 Done Has been added now Stealth (talk)

Change the score!

Arizona scored a touchdown! Steelers leading 20-14 against cardinals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryansworld100000 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Was changed shortly after this. Probably because of editing conflicts it took a bit Stealth (talk)

Request for semi-protection

I have a request for semi-protection in case of vandalism, because Super Bowl XLIII is is a popular sports event (I think) RYAN 3000 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is already semi-protected due to vandalism. – wodup – 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't call it until it's over!

Just saw the article with the introductory paragraph removed, and the line "St. Louis has won 23-20 with 48 seconds to go." near the top of the article. Meanwhile, the scoreboard shows the Steelers at 27...24.23.245.246 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Louis? What? ROFL.

Spam I believe Stealth (talk)

The Cardinals were previously based in St. Louis (and Chicago before that). Useight (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow that explains nothing. They aren't in St. Louis now. Sooo, the Rams won? 69.253.219.207 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was explaining the possible mixup between St. Louis and the teams playing in Superbowl 43. Useight (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive

We need to archive this tomorrow... Stealth (talk)

Section under game summary titled Referees

The following statement, "The game was noted for the amount of questionable calls favoring the Steelers and some "unfair" calls aimed at the Cardinals" is pure crap and needs to be removed. It's completely subjective and totally without merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microphobia10 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The penalties in Super Bowl XLIII that went against the Cardinals were rather questionable, so put a statement about it in there somewhere! 123.2.87.23 (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if it can be referenced. Otherwise should be removed. Stealth (talk)

Exactly why I said the statement is subjective and without merit. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microphobia10 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK fair enough but REALISTICALLY IF there are any major news stories that come out later on that contain substantiated criticism of the officiating in SB XLIII (which I believe to be somewhat likely, although not as likely and to the extent of the officiating in SB XL), then that should DEFINITELY be added to this article. My suggestion. 123.2.87.23 (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And it most certainly will be. Stealth (talk)

Major news stories are written by individuals with a certain amount of bias as well. For every questionable call one individual says went in the Steelers favor, another individual with a different bias is going to question a call that went in the Cardinals favor. These types of close calls are highly subjective and don't really belong in an encyclopedia article even if they come from some reputable news source. Unless a huge controversy over a particular call ensues and the NFL owns up to the error, these are really non stories and nothing but a particular groups sour grapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.60.34 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not without merit but there isn't any news articles about it. Gune (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Game Summary

Under Game Summary the points scored section, it has times all over the board. pick a timezone and stick to it please. Stealth (talk)

The game is already being considered one of the gratest by the pundits

Somebody should include this. Neverfades (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, go ahead and add it. If not, then it's original research and should not be added.

Big Three Automaker Commercials

"Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, the Big Three automobile makers, decided not to purchase television advertisements following the three companies' business struggles in 2008 and early 2009." I heard from a friend of mine that they were required not to advertise as part of the bailout. Does anyone have any information on this? It wouldn't make sense with all the Cadillac advertising on the NFL website. kevinthenerd (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have heard nothing like this, and would strongly discourage anyone from adding any information to this effect unless authoritative reliable sources can be found. GlassCobra 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Commercials

All slots were sold? I counted atleast 7 local commercials. Were those always intended to be local programming or were they unsold slots? Grsz¹¹_Review 18:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard there was a 1-second commercial by a beer company, and there was also supposedly a one-half second commercial from a local broadcaster. If true this should be added to the Commercials section, with data on how much they cost and what the reaction was like. Tempshill (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why my station would have local commercials and not elsewhere. Meaning there had to be atleast some spots that were reserved for the local station to broadcast their regular commercials at regular price (as they didn't reach any wider of an audience than usual). As for the 1-second commericial, I'm not sure how much it cost. Grsz¹¹_Review 04:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kurt Warner fumble controversy

This is a section that in my view should be added to the page. It is definetly a point popping out in more and more sources. I am new to wiki editing, and i don't know how to add it myself, so i wrote it here.

With five seconds remaining in the game, the ball was knocked out of Cardinals' QB Kurt Warner, and, after falling to the ground, caught by a Pittsburgh player. It was ruled a fumble on the field, which resulted in a change of possesion and consequently ended the game. Many football fans and news outlets noted that a booth review should have been conducted, since there had been a chance that Warner's arm was moving forward at the time the ball came out, which would have changed the play call from a fumble to an incomplete pass. If proved true, that would have given the ball back to the Arizona Cardinals for a play from Pittsburgh 29 yard line, with five seconds remaining. While there were other ambiguous calls made by the referees during the game, this was the most debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.223.139 (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would they have gotten the ball at the 29 yard line? If reviewed and overturned, it wqould have been an incomplete pass with the ball returned to the previous line of scrimage? I personally thought it should have been reviewed, but that it would not have been reversed--Tom 14:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would have been at the 29 because of a dead ball personal foul against Pittsburgh after the end of the play. I still cannot find a definitive source to answer whether or not an actual booth review was conducted or not. I've seen claims both ways, but it was an awfully short amount of time between the end of that play, and the next play where Pittsburgh took a knee to end the game. And the referees never stopped the game or indicated that the previous play was under review. I think there were a lot of people watching at home who were confused by this as well. Rpine75 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to ESPN's PTI a booth review took place, but they deemed the call correct and did not believe it necessary to buzz the referees. If something like 84.190.223.139's comment it added it needs to state the specific outlets, as "many football fans and news outlets" is POV and fan opinions generally aren't notable. blackngold29 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any inclusion of facts somehow elevating any kind of "fumble controversy." The sources are quite suspect, and I highly doubt we'll see any coverage in reliable, big-name outlets. The game's over, people; move on. GlassCobra 16:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should cook up a controversy ex nihilo. The fact that the Cards got away with holding all game; Larry Fitzgerald's bobbled catch that was ruled a TD; the Kurt Warner fumble - all these are really irrelevant. Playing endless counterfactual games ("What if the refs called holding on the Cards? What if the Fitzgerald drop had been called correctly?") is nothing more than a useless mental exercise. 64.111.153.16 (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.104.14.65 (talk)

Factual Error in Statistics section of this article regarding the safety scored in Super Bowl XLIII

The sentence below that reads the fifth one scored (safety) is incorrect. It needs to be changed to the 'sixth' one scored. But this article is semi-protected, so I am unable to make the correction.

Statistics In Super Bowl XLIII, Arizona and Pittsburgh combined for the fewest rushing attempts (38) and the fewest rushing yards (91) in Super Bowl history.[45] The Cardinals outgained the Steelers in both passing yards (374 to 234) and total yards (407 to 292), but committed 11 penalties for 106 yards. Arizona's safety in the fourth quarter was only the fifth one scored in Super Bowl history,[46] and the first one earned by a penalty against the opposing team in the end zone.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbowlfanatic (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Checking the source attributed to that sentence (a New York Times blog), it seems to corroborate everything except the part about the safety. However, I was unable to find a source that said how many safeties there have been in a Super Bowl. If someone can find a source to back up what the above user is saying, I would support the change. GlassCobra 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The other safeties in previous Super Bowls were in IX (Minnesota QB Fran Tarkenton covering a botched handoff), X (Dallas punter Mitch Hoopes getting a punt blocked out of his own end zone), XX (New England QB Steve Grogan tackled attempting to pass), XXI (Denver QB John Elway sacked), XXV (New York Giants QB Jeff Hostetler sacked). NFL Films recaps covered all of these fairly well except XX (probably since it was the last points of a 46-10 blowout). Since none of these plays had penalties associated with them, the article's assertions about the number of safeties (six) and the unique nature of the sixth safety are correct. Hope this helps.RomeoMike (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. The sentence has been corrected to "sixth" and now has a citation linking to http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/records/superbowls/player/safeties Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a Force Fumble if you look at the video you can see one of the steelers player pushing or hitting the ball out there fore the Steelers got the ball and Card lost the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.78.38 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

International Broadcasters - Hungary

Hungary's Sport1 is wrongly listed among radios, it's a TV. Their presenters Richard Farago (play by play) and Sandor Szabo (color comm) were in Tampa. It was a full length live broadcast starting 23:45 CET Sport1 is the home of NFL in Hungary for 5 years and they have just signed a contract to broadcast NFL for the next four years in Hungary Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.218.12 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reaction

Should there be a reaction or "reception" section?

--Dtothediesel (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reaction", because "reception" sounds like it was a hit movie or album and it got lots of praise from critics. It even sounds like some other sort of reception or speaking of Super receptions, something like this. But that's just the football fan in me speaking. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Darnell Dockett Credited with 3 Sacks

The NFL announced on Feb. 5, 2009, that after reviewing the game, Darnell Dockett had 3 sacks, tying Reggie White for most sacks in a Superbowl. Can someone edit this in the main article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raiderbarry (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Officiating controversy

There are four big ones that I've noticed sports WRITERS AND BROADCASTERS (not just bloggers and pissed off fans, so don't go there) discussing:

• No booth review for the Kurt Warner fumble. The article can discuss that questions arose as to why there was no review and the correction that a review took place and was quickly determined correct, resulting in the confusion.
• Block in the back penalty during the James Harrison interception return that was done in front of a referee and not called, which would have negated the touchdown had it been. (Source: Sportscenter, aired 1/4/2008, 4PM/E)
• Unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against Santonio Holmes for using the ball as a celebratory prop that wasn't called (it was rather blatant, as everyone's focus was on him), which would've given Arizona much better field position on their attempted come-back drive. (Source: same as #2)
• Emergence of an HD photo that proves that both of Santonio Holmes' feet weren't in bounds on his game winning TD catch. (http://i44.tinypic.com/351fmts.jpg)

Does anyone else think that that's enough for a section on the officiating? Helltopay27 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No controversy on Holmes TD catch

http://www.azcentral.com/i/sized/1/8/0/e905/j1000/PHP4988EE6A3E081.jpg

Warrior™ (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good counter, sir. But, for the sake of argument, was possession established before his right foot left the ground? Oh well, not our place to argue. I withdraw my argument. Helltopay27 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to join the ongoing discussions on the #Section under game summary titled Referees and the #The Kurt Warner fumble controversy sections on this page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to mention the constant holding calls missed against the Cardinals. You also seem to have missed, in your obsessive review of touchdowns that should have been called back, the fact that Larry Fitzgerald bobbled the ball and clearly dropped it. I smell the creation of a "the Cards were robbed!" myth, one that utterly ignores the numerous calls that went the Cards' way throughout the game. Wikipedia is manifestly not the place for aggrieved fans to whine about bad calls. When those bad calls went in the favor of their team at least as much, such fans tend not to notice. Let's drop the entire stupid issue. 64.111.153.16 (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that first section there, sorry. As for 64.111.153.16, A) I'm not a Cardinals fan, B) the only talk about the officiating has been that the referees blew it for the Cards, C) the Cardinals set a Super Bowl record for penalties, so I'm pretty sure the refs were calling penalties against them, D) you sound like a Steelers fanboy yourself. Helltopay27 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A) Never said you were. B) Thank you for supporting me - the only talk has been on one side, failing to even hint at a need to cover every aspect of the issue. Wikipedia isn't a place for partisan grievances, and if one wants to talk about bad officiating, one should explore the issue thoroughly. C) That's a massive logical fallacy. That the officials called some penalties does not mean that they called all the appropriate penalties. The Steelers got penalties called on them, right? So, by that logic, there's no cause for complaint. D) You're supposed to assume good faith in Wikipedia, aren't you? Or did they drop that policy along with all their credibility? Stop the personal attacks. 64.111.151.124 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

@Helltopay27 - "the Cardinals set a Super Bowl record for penalties" - The refs did not make Gandy take three holding penalties, nor did they make Adrian Wilson (it was him, right?) level Mitch Berger, and they certainly did not cause Holmes' face mask to be grasped. That's 50 yards right there, all on objective no-brainers. "the only talk about the officiating has been that the referees blew it for the Cards" - of course. The media likes to create controversy, and the losers want to feel like they are the rightful winners. There's simply no reason for anyone to come out with an article talking about the non-calls against the Steelers.

It's been said before that there was a booth review; it just wasn't phoned down to stop play because they felt it wasn't necessary. NFL Network addressed the Holmes celebration...they said that the ref watched him for about ten seconds. Holmes did his thing after that. It was obviously a penalty, but it just wasn't seen on the field.

With the advent of 434382904 photographers and HD cameras at all angles, the subjectivity of officiating has been exposed. No official in any sport ever gets every call right, and with every objection in this game, it can be explained away or countered with a call that went the other way. Wikipedia could open controversy sections with every single NFL game played, but it'd be pointless. --66.206.186.102 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently alot of Steelers fans edit Wikipedia. To say this game had no controversy is absolutely ridiculous. And this is coming from a Saints fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.189.250 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

If there is going to be a game summary in the lead, I don't really care, can it at least be written without all the POV color commentary thrown in for effect? I trimmed some of it, but it really could use a complete rewrite. Thanks, --Tom 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice it had significantly changed since I originally added that short summary in the lead section at 06:47, 9 February 2009 UTC. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks, looks much better. Cheers, --Tom 13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

game summary ERROR (to say the least)

can someone please fix the last paragraph of the "game summary" section, which currently incorrectly states:

"Pittsburgh got the ball back on their own 22-yard line with 2:37 left in the game and two timeouts remaining. On their first play, a holding penalty pushed them back 10 yards. Roethlisberger then completed two passes to Holmes for 27 yards. After an 11-yard reception by Nate Washington and a 4-yard run by Roethlisberger, he completed a 40-yard pass to Holmes at the Cardinals 6-yard line. Two plays later, Holmes caught a pass in the corner of the end zone and managed to land his toes down right before falling out of bounds for a touchdown. After a booth review, the touchdown pass was reversed with 35 seconds remaining. Following an interception, Warner completed a 20-yard pass to Fitzgerald and a 13-yarder to J. J. Arrington, moving the ball to the Steelers 44. With 18 seconds left, Warner prepared to attempt a Hail Mary pass with five seconds left. Warner threw a TD pass to Fitzgerald sealing the Cardinals' first Super Bowl title."

obviously incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.118.68 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Best ever?

I put in a link under game summary for a couple of websites (on of them was SI.com) proclaiming XLIII to be the best Super bowl ever. If that view holds up (I suspect we will see the usual rash of such lists as Super bowl XLIV approaches) we can perhaps consider putting better references (meaning: not snap decisions by reporters the day after the game) and moving it up to the lead section. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)