Vikings Message Board.Com

Nunin wrote: my challenge flag was in my other pants

Just seems like more of a team issue then an officiating issue.

Mothman wrote:

Which part of the sentence isnt true? Im curious why you think Rodgers responsible for the Defense.

Purple Reign wrote:to disagree. Now you are requiring the refs to make a judgement call.

Yes, which they're required to do constantly, in every game.

Did he go down intentionally or did he just trip?

That's usually obvious.

Mothman wrote: In 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.

Obviously the difference in that play was that Nelson wasn't going to the ground to make the catch. He caught the ball, had both feet down, possession of the ball and then the defender knocked it out of his hands so it should be a td. Now if he had been going to the ground while making the catch, then it's an entirely different story and it would not have been a catch.

Mothman wrote:

It's as if you don't even comprehend the discussion.

The "cheating" occurred when intentionally going to the ground, waiting, and then trying to advance the ball. That's not taking advantage of a rule. that's breaking one. It's not the same thing.

Its pretty clear he was 'Trying' to pop up in time to still advance the ball, the fact that he failed at doing so hardly constitutes 'Cheating', in fact, it doesnt even help the Packers because it gets blown down.

Jordysghost wrote:Which part of the sentence isnt true? Im curious why you think Rodgers responsible for the Defense.

He's not.

Jordysghost wrote: I hear you, but I think its more then just a statistical possibility at this point, but again, the injuries to the secondary are just getting overwhelming.

of course you do because you are a packer fan and there is a certain amount of emotionally fixed deniability that comes with being a fan....but to an outsider who can just look at it from an analytical perspective,the past 4 games have been the worst defensive performance since before the lombardi era. the injuries are still piling up.

if the vikes hadn't pulled Bradford outta their azzes...they'd be in the exact same boat on the other side of the ball.

packers fans believe that with rodgers, they always have a chance. which is true to a point, just not when they have to score 40+ to win.

Mothman wrote: In 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.

I agree. Even Jordy knew that it wasn't a TD, you could see by the way he reacted.

Mothman wrote:

right? what am i missing here? unless the dive is just to gain a first down or td...dude is down

Mothman wrote:

It's as if you don't even comprehend the discussion.

The "cheating" occurred when intentionally going to the ground, waiting, and then trying to advance the ball. That's not taking advantage of a rule. that's breaking one. It's not the same thing.

Maybe they didn't blow the whistle right away and he thought the play was still live. He wasn't really "cheating", they didn't allow him to advance the ball. Can't blame a guy for trying - can you?

i don't think he's cheating really.

but he is setting himself up to being hit. the way bradford got popped by peterson...only harder.

Mothman wrote: Yes, which they're required to do constantly, in every game.
That's usually obvious.

Key word there is 'usually'. I'm all in favor of removing any judgement calls that they can. Guess I should have said it requires the refs to make 'another' judgement call.

Purple Reign wrote:Maybe they didn't blow the whistle right away and he thought the play was still live. He wasn't really "cheating", they didn't allow him to advance the ball. Can't blame a guy for trying - can you?

Fine. He was trying to "gently bend the rules" to gain an advantage...

... or whatever else will end this discussion.

Nunin wrote:right? what am i missing here? unless the dive is just to gain a first down or td...dude is down

Not according to the rule book - that is just your personal opinion.

Purple Reign wrote: Not according to the rule book - that is just your personal opinion.

the rule speaks directly to intent. there is no other way to interpet it. so, when a qb dives to the ground before taking a hit so that he doesn't have to take a hit his intent is to be down without contact....giving himself up.
-
the only reason the head first vs feet first rule is there is because RBs and WRs will sometimes dive to gain yards...NOT to surrender. so they need to be downed by contact.
the feet first rule was put in to protect QBs from getting hurt as well as where to mark the ball when sliding on a wet field....but a qb sliding vs a qb diving is the same exact thing in terms of what the QB's intent is.....'i surrender'
To try to say it's within the spirit of the rule to deek the defenders the way it's being suggested is unfair and unsportsmanlike.
if it ever happens it will happen one time...and following that every QB who dives will experience contact.
-
you can have the last word