Vikings Message Board.Com

Texas Vike wrote:I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.

Nunin wrote:packers season is toast

Purple Reign wrote: No, point 1 doesn't resolve it - here it is again: (1) falling to the ground, or kneeling, and clearly making no immediate effort to advance

It doesn't just say falling to the ground, is says you also have to clearly make no immediate effort to advance. I think they worded it this way so if a player stumbles and falls to the ground he can still get up and run, otherwise the ref doesn't always know for sure if a player is really giving himself up. By sliding feet first, then they know he is giving himself up.

Bottom line is going to the ground on purpose doesn't mean you are giving yourself up (unless you slide feet first).

Purple Reign wrote: That is an excellent way of putting it.

Jordysghost wrote: Not yet, the injuries might be too much but we are two games out, play both the Vikes and Lions once again yet, and they play each other once to go.

Nunin wrote: speaking figuratively i was

Mothman wrote: I other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.

Texas Vike wrote: I agree with Nunin and Moth. On both occasions last night AR definitely intentionally fell to the ground in a head first dive. I don't think anyone should be able to get up and advance the ball after that. It's like waving a white flag and then shooting the rival once he lets his guard down.

Mothman wrote: I other words: cheating.

While we're on the subject of those insidious packers: what's up with Jordy Nelson getting awarded a catch on that TD?

I'm convinced NFL officials no longer have any idea what constitutes a catch by rule.

Nunin wrote:
((sigh)) i agree. it brings to mind the shiancoe catch that wasn't

Purple Reign wrote: Except for the fact that by him diving head first it doesn't prevent a defender from hitting him. A defender should know that he can still hit him legally. So according to the rule, if Rodgers had immediately gotten back up after diving to the ground, he could have advanced the ball. Since he didn't do that immediately, then yes, it should be called dead.

Jordysghost wrote: Why didnt you challange that? If its the game im thinking of there was 3, yes 3 incorrectly ruled tds in the vikings favor that night and all of then were challenged and overturned.

Jordysghost wrote:I didnt think it was a td either but the endzone is different then the field of play in how long you need to possess it, as is the fact that he wasnt going to the ground.

Right, you who absolves the Patriots of never winning a SB without a cheating scandal claim Rodgers was 'Cheating' trying to take advantage of a rule, its his choice to dive or slide if he wants, he isnt responsible for what the opposing players do.

Nunin wrote: speaking figuratively i was

Mothman wrote: Exactly. It doesn't matter if it's head first or feet first. If the runner goes down intentionally, on his own, he's declaring himself down.