Re: And THAT will awaken the beast...
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:32 am
I know a lot of Packers fans who complain and bemoan the officiating in our SB loss, is it really any wonder why?
A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://vikingsmessageboard.com/
You can say whatever you want backwards or forwards, but it doesn't mean it has any credibility. I've never claimed the Packers benefit from every call. Instead, during the course of our dialogue to date, you have insisted they have NEVER benefited from a call. It was always the right call in your view.Jordysghost wrote: I can say the same exact thing in reverse, every call that you perceive to be in our favor you fixate on and ignore all else, this is the first i've ever seen you ever concede that the Packers dont benefit from every call.
So I guess what im saying, right back at you. I don't think there is a game this season that you didn't act like the Packers got the benefit of every call.
I've never made whatever claim you think you are responding to. Perhaps this is intended to respond to what others have said.Jordysghost wrote: Why would they allow that to occur to a favorite of theirs? Oh right, they wouldnt.
And I never claimed we never benefit from any call, what is your point? Once again, up until a second ago, you never conceded that any call went against the Packers throughout the course of our dialogue either, again, I can say the same thing about you as you are about me.fiestavike wrote: You can say whatever you want backwards or forwards, but it doesn't mean it has any credibility. I've never claimed the Packers benefit from every call. Instead, during the course of our dialogue to date, you have insisted they have NEVER benefited from a call. It was always the right call in your view.
As for your last point, I've never acted that way and have explicitly stated otherwise, including in the post you JUST RESPONDED TO, so frankly I think you might be losing you mind.
Why not just prove it. start by admitting that it wasn't a facemask, then admit it wasn't pass interference on the play before, and then provide us a few examples of calls that went your way in the last 2 or 3 weeks of football and WHAMMO, you'll have your credibility back.Jordysghost wrote:
And I never claimed we never benefit from any call, what is your point? Once again, up until a second ago, you never conceded that any call went against the Packers throughout the course of our dialogue either, again, I can say the same thing about you as you are about me.
Me and Dean Blandino both thought it was enough contact on the facemask to assist in the turn of the facemask, and the blatant PI that nearly costed us the game was quite reminiscent of the last Detroit game where they were given carte blanch to mug our WRs.fiestavike wrote: Why not just prove it. start by admitting that it wasn't a facemask, then admit it wasn't pass interference on the play before, and then provide us a few examples of calls that went your way in the last 2 or 3 weeks of football and WHAMMO, you'll have your credibility back.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Like I said. No credibility.Jordysghost wrote: Me and Dean Blandino both thought it was enough contact on the facemask to assist in the turn of the facemask, and the blatant PI that nearly costed us the game was quite reminiscent of the last Detroit game where they were given carte blanch to mug our WRs.
The incorrectly blown whistle that costed us 7 against Chicago, the non existant pick penalty that costed us a trip to the 1 yard line and first down, just for starters.
I guess me and the NFL VP of Officiating have no credibility anymore because a jealous division rival says so.fiestavike wrote: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Like I said. No credibility.
that "assist in the turn of the facemask" line is pure gold though.
You pretty much just blew yourself up.
I'm afraid you are really struggling here my friend.Jordysghost wrote:So let me get this straight, not holding the same stance as you on the subject negates credibility?
Not at all, I understand clearly.fiestavike wrote: I'm afraid you are really struggling here my friend.