Difference between two penalties

[J. Kapp 11]

It was a bad penalty. It's like Billick said. If you have a jailbreak up the middle, you'd better get the block because you WILL hit the kicker. Period.

Even with that happening, the Vikings should have been off the field three plays later. But Jared Allen committed a far worse penalty than Sendajo did. No excuse for that. None.

[VikingLord]

They DIDN'T need to rely on them! They got penalized over 100 yards and still almost had that game. They needed them to make the right calls so that they weren't forced out of winning, but hey, if you see it that way, that's all you.

Aren't you saying that if the ref makes the "right" call in that situation the outcome would have been different?

How is that not relying on the judgment call of a ref?

And on the same note, why are you so eager to call out the refs while not calling out the player who created the situation in the first place? Yeah, if the ref "got the call right", Vikes are off the field, but if Sendajo didn't make contact, it never makes it to the point where the refs can interject themselves.

Seems like the proper place to put the ire for the situation is on Sendajo, but hey, if you see it that way, that's all you...

[Demi]

@Demi:
How can you tell me that THIS does not apply here? They missed the block, it definitely wasn't intentional...so the running into the kicker penalty should be assessed. You're proving my point for me.

I gave a number of examples. The first one being the actual rule book. And his hitting the punter didn't fall into any of those categories. He tried to block it, missed, and ran into the kicker. He was in the air in the direction of the kicker, isn't that intentional? This was the intent of the rule, a kicker was unable to defend himself and was hit in the plant leg by a defender who was not blocked into, unintentionally rolled into, fell into. He drove right into his plant let with his helmet/shoulder and knocked him to the ground. You can't do that.

[J. Kapp 11]

I gave a number of examples. The first one being the actual rule book. And his hitting the punter didn't fall into any of those categories. He tried to block it, missed, and ran into the kicker. He was in the air in the direction of the kicker, isn't that intentional? This was the intent of the rule, a kicker was unable to defend himself and was hit in the plant leg by a defender who was not blocked into, unintentionally rolled into, fell into. He drove right into his plant let with his helmet/shoulder and knocked him to the ground. You can't do that.

I agree with you in principle that it was a penalty, and probably roughing.

But there was no driving into anybody's plant leg. He barely touched the guy. Go back and watch the replay showing the close-up of the play.

[radar55]

I don't care if you guys think I'm being sour - I just want to ask you...what was the difference in the game? A field goal. What did Indy score on that drive with the two personal foul penalties? A field goal. Just saying...

Roughing the kicker =/= running into the kicker. And that's my problem with the whole game. Was the offense ineffective? Yes. Were there some dumb penalties (like Kalil's)? Yes. But the roughing the kicker penalty was the one that set me over the edge on these replacement refs.

I will agree with you that the roughing call was weak at best but you cant make that the scapegoat for todays loss. The vikings had another pathetic defensive effort and that inability to stop Indy is what caused the loss. You also need to only look at the very first Indy drive and the 2 not 1 but 2 facemask calls that should have been made against the Vikes but were missed by those refs. Calls were made and missed for and against both teams and they will be every game with or without replacement refs. Ultimately, its the PLAYERS not the REFS who have the ability to make plays that decide the game and the Vikings simply did not make enough plays on offense or defense and did not deserve to win.

[The Breeze]

The view I got of the replay looked to show the kicker not even being touched. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I saw. All kickers are taught to flop like that and twist into the oncoming defender. Vikes got caught in no mans land there.

Allen's penalty was pure stupidity and just as damaging as far as allowing the drive to continue.

[thatguy]

Well either way you look at it, refs can and have changed the outcome of the games considerably. Just look at the Rams/Skins game if you need any further proof.

[CalVike]

As one poster said, it was a first down either way. 15-yd or 5-yd. To me it was clearly a penalty. Bigger picture, this team was down 2 scores and only tied because they "lucked" into the tipped Burton TD. The roughing the kicker penalty was immaterial to today's loss.

[yesmanfan]

quit crying about a play that was obviously a penalty. 15 yds instead of 5 big deal. the key was 4th and 4 and we gave them a free first down.

[DanAS]

I don't care if you guys think I'm being sour - I just want to ask you...what was the difference in the game? A field goal. What did Indy score on that drive with the two personal foul penalties? A field goal. Just saying...

Roughing the kicker =/= running into the kicker. And that's my problem with the whole game. Was the offense ineffective? Yes. Were there some dumb penalties (like Kalil's)? Yes. But the roughing the kicker penalty was the one that set me over the edge on these replacement refs.

He nailed the guy on the knee. I don't care how hard he nailed him -- he hit him on the knee and didn't tip the ball. It's a quibble to say it shouldn't have been a 15 yard penalty. Maybe it should have, maybe it shouldn't, but you can't second guess a ref for protecting a kicker when he's hit on the knee.

[dead_poet]

Flag day: An in-depth look at all 11 of the Vikings' penalties from Sunday

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 27666.html

[thatguy]

He nailed the guy on the knee. I don't care how hard he nailed him -- he hit him on the knee and didn't tip the ball. It's a quibble to say it shouldn't have been a 15 yard penalty. Maybe it should have, maybe it shouldn't, but you can't second guess a ref for protecting a kicker when he's hit on the knee.

Watch the replay and tell me if you STILL think he "nailed" him on his knee. I guarantee that other than maybe they brushed jerseys that there was no other contact.

[yesmanfan]

Watch the replay and tell me if you STILL think he "nailed" him on his knee. I guarantee that other than maybe they brushed jerseys that there was no other contact.

maybe i misunderstood your original post. the way i read it, it seemed you you were mad it was a roughing the kicker instead of running into the kicker...now you are changing your story and claiming he never touched him?? correct me if im wrong. i usually am : )

[thatguy]

maybe i misunderstood your original post. the way i read it, it seemed you you were mad it was a roughing the kicker instead of running into the kicker...now you are changing your story and claiming he never touched him?? correct me if im wrong. i usually am : )

I'm mad about the entire thing. I don't think he touched him in the first place. Had he, I still don't think roughing the kicker was the right call to make. That's just how I see it.

[yesmanfan]

I'm mad about the entire thing. I don't think he touched him in the first place. Had he, I still don't think roughing the kicker was the right call to make. That's just how I see it.

fair enough, but you should realize its not why they lost the game. completely irrelevant and definitely not worth a thread imo. there are 30 other plays/penalties you can refer to that had a bigger impact on the outcome of the game.