Vikings Message Board.Com

Jordysghost wrote:In response the above post, the WR has a right to come back for the ball.

Yeah, and it is defensive PI if the defender doesn't turn his head around and make a play on the ball. Both of which happened on this play. Jeff Saturday even said it was the best way a defender can play that pass.

TSonn wrote: Yeah, and it is defensive PI if the defender doesn't turn his head around and make a play on the ball. Both of which happened on this play. Jeff Saturday even said it was the best way a defender can play that pass.

Defender had the best position and was looking for the ball, good no call.

DK Sweets wrote:JESUS CHRIST.

I clicked on this thread expecting 20-ish posts. This ended up being as big as some of our gameday threads.

Well, what had happened was...the refs made a bad call...

Refs made a good call and I got called a troll in retaliation.

Jordysghost wrote:Refs made a good call and I got called a troll in retaliation.

Questionable call, most news sites are calling it.

Jordysghost wrote:I never retracted my assertion that there was a hook, ever.

How fascinating. Now, where did I claim that you had "retracted" anything? As I actually said, you changed your line earlier in this thread from "hook"/"pull"/"yank" to "push" (presumably because anyone who simply watches the replay can see that the "hook"/"pull"/"yank" bit is a laughable falsehood). Then, when other posters here finally got it through your head that the text of the rule requires a grasp and not merely a "push," you went back to Plan A and resurrected the hope-no-one-actually-watches-the-video "hook" idea.

Anyway, I see you're silently conceding that all of the other lies I pointed out you told—such as pretending that Carey and Blandino declared the call correct—were in fact lies. Good on you.

you say im claiming with no evidence what the majority of others believe, just as several Vikings fans are in reverse.

Another lie. Your interlocutors here have provided evidence that disinterested parties have concluded that the call was wrong: you had Pro Football Today's definitive conclusion cited to you—and you had no response but an empty scoff. (Want more "evidence"? How about the New York Daily News, CBS Sports, the Sporting News, and SB Nation?) Meanwhile, your "evidence" of this phantom majority has been Blandino and Carey—both of which citations from you were lies.

So your false equivalence, your "you guys are doing what you say I'm doing" bit is yet another lie.

Can you find anyone publicly evaluating the call and declaring it correct? Or anything better than "borderline" or "controversial"? If not, your whole notion that the "majority" backs you is another... well, you know.

You keep on crying about calls and playing mental gymnastics to believe the Packers are favored....

Seriously? On this night? After that call? You seriously think it's credible—at this precise moment in time—to claim that it takes "mental gymnastics to believe the Packers are favored" by the officials?

Again: you simply cannot intend that people take you seriously.

Mothman wrote:
Yeah, they find creative ways to lose games.

Check these out:

Browns: https://twitter.com/Sobe_homie/status/6 ... wsrc%5Etfw
Lions: https://twitter.com/barstoolsports/stat ... 7206187008

Sums it up!

https://vine.co/v/iWPaEYFx1gX


Close up video. no facemask that I can see.

Rieux wrote: How fascinating. Now, where did I claim that you had "retracted" anything? As I actually said, you changed your line earlier in this thread from "hook"/"pull"/"yank" to "push" (presumably because anyone who simply watches the replay can see that the "hook"/"pull"/"yank" bit is a laughable falsehood). Then, when other posters here finally got it through your head that the text of the rule requires a grasp and not merely a "push," you went back to Plan A and resurrected the hope-no-one-actually-watches-the-video "hook" idea.

Anyway, I see you're silently conceding that all of the other lies I pointed out you told—such as pretending that Carey and Blandino declared the call correct—were in fact lies. Good on you.
Another lie. Your interlocutors here have provided evidence that disinterested parties have concluded that the call was wrong: you had Pro Football Today's definitive conclusion cited to you—and you had no response but an empty scoff. (Want more "evidence"? How about the New York Daily News, CBS Sports, the Sporting News, and SB Nation?) Meanwhile, your "evidence" of this phantom majority has been Blandino and Carey—both of which citations from you were lies.

So your false equivalence, your "you guys are doing what you say I'm doing" bit is yet another lie.

Can you find anyone publicly evaluating the call and declaring it correct? Or anything better than "borderline" or "controversial"? If not, your whole notion that the "majority" backs you is another... well, you know.
Seriously? On this night? After that call? You seriously think it's credible—at this precise moment in time—to claim that it takes "mental gymnastics to believe the Packers are favored" by the officials?

Again: you simply cannot intend that people take you seriously.

God you are so creepily over dramatic, I didn't 'lie' about Carey or Blandino, they both said that the call was a call that would be made, in Blandinos case, that the penalty was correct, what is your issue?

It is debatable, I could find articles both praising and condemning the call.

Yea I do think it is a bit sad that after every Packers win there is a portion of this board that blames the refs and nitpicks calls to see what they want to see, and tonight is no different.

I think there were several questionable calls in the Lions favor not only tonight, but critically so the last matchup, and yet, im not here pouting and stamping me feet and blaming the officials.

Tonight I saw a questionable call that I could see getting called either way go in my teams favor, a questionable call that while I agree to have fallen on the judgement of the officials, was by the rulebook the correct decision, this following another sketchy at best call, that Im sure most 'Blame the Refs' alumni in Packernation would be harping on to make themselves feel better about being swept by the Lions, had we lost.

But aside from the fact that I agree with the call? I have a hard time feeling sympathetic to reffereeing complaints having witnessed the fail mary.

You can take whoever you want seriously man, I dont mind. I know I don't take people who complain about the refs and cry about calls whenever the team they don't like wins, seriously, and while im not saying that you fall within that category (im not) it is what it is.

me4get wrote:Questionable call, most news sites are calling it.

I've seen "borderline" and "controversial." But also "Facemask rule, as written, wasn’t violated by Lions," "Phantom face mask ... he merely brushed the face mask," "Yeah, that's not a facemask," "The penalty never should have been called," and "The refs missed some big calls late in Lions-Packers."

One word I haven't seen, mysteriously, in any media account of the call is... "correct."

Which is surprising, given our resident... persistent poster's.... insistence that he is in "the majority" in believing that it was.

Funkytown wrote:

Rieux wrote: I've seen "borderline" and "controversial." But also "Facemask rule, as written, wasn’t violated by Lions," "Phantom face mask ... he merely brushed the face mask," "Yeah, that's not a facemask," "The penalty never should have been called," and "The refs missed some big calls late in Lions-Packers."

One word I haven't seen, mysteriously, in any media account of the call is... "correct."

Which is surprising, given our resident... persistent poster's.... insistence that he is in "the majority" in believing that it was.

I haven't heard anyone close to the league call it anything more then questionable, failing Blandinos assertion that it was the correct call.

Funkytown wrote:

Somone should look into the incorrect dead ball that costed us a td last thursday in Lambeau, it is clearly a case of the refs loving the Bears.