Vikings Message Board.Com

Jordysghost wrote:That non call against Detroit at the end almost costed us this most recent game regardless.

How would the correct call of pass interference against abbredaris have helped you win?

fiestavike wrote: How would the correct call of pass interference against abbredaris have helped you win?

The correct call on his defender would have put us in FG range, but alas the refs aren't perfect.

fiestavike wrote: How would the correct call of pass interference against abbredaris have helped you win?

I suppose it would have allowed another chance to replay the down. Who knows what the refs might have come up with on that one!

Jordysghost wrote: The correct call on his defender would have put us in FG range, but alas the refs aren't perfect.

Your right, I forgot that defenders don't have a right to play the ball when Rodgers throws it. Give me a break. You've got the blinders on.

So is there going to be a Packers game this year that people don't nitpick and rationalize calls as a coping mechanism? No?

Jordysghost wrote:So is there going to be a Packers game this year that people don't nitpick and rationalize calls as a coping mechanism? No?

We'll have to see. so far you are batting 1000

fiestavike wrote: Your right, I forgot that defenders don't have a right to play the ball when Rodgers throws it. Give me a break. You've got the blinders on.

The WR has the right to come back to the ball and the defender made contact as he was turning his head, should have been FG range. You have blinders on, and you seemed to have them after the Vikings game as well. You made similar claims.

fiestavike wrote: We'll have to see. so far you are batting 1000

Why will you not address the bad calls I have presented against us? Its ok for us to be docked 7 points for an incorrectly blown whistle i guess?

I never once actually claimed a loss of ours was on the refs, I only raise that I can raise several examples of bad calls in the opposing teams favor but you are determined not to see them.

This is a sad sad coping mechanism that appears to come into play regarding every team who wins their division with any consistancy, I wonder why..

fiestavike wrote: I suppose it would have allowed another chance to replay the down. Who knows what the refs might have come up with on that one!

Yea, the refs sure had our back in the fail mary! #goldenboys

Jordysghost wrote:
The WR has the right to come back to the ball and the defender made contact as he was turning his head, should have been FG range. You have blinders on, and you seemed to have them after the Vikings game as well.

Obviously this is going nowhere. Like I said, you've lost all credibility with me.

I'm not a knee jerk - "Vikings got screwed" fan. I'm the guy on this board who has no problem with what the Saints did to us in the NFCG. Its called football. I did not think GB should have been called for a facemask on Teddy during out last game, because incidental contact on the facemask is not a penalty. I did not think GB should have been called for grounding on the play where Rodgers was flagged. I'd give the benefit of the doubt that the defender prevented him from getting enough force on the ball to get it out to his WR on that side of the field. I will admit when the Vikings get a call that goes their way.

So far, you have not shown the ability to do anything analogous. I can't think of a call/no call that benefits the Packers you haven't defended or a call/no call the hurts them you haven't criticized. Its just clockwork. Its a joke.

Jordysghost wrote:
Yea, the refs sure had our back in the fail mary! #goldenboys

and again you go back to this... What do you think this is evidence of?

fiestavike wrote: Obviously this is going nowhere. Like I said, you've lost all credibility with me.

I'm not a knee jerk - "Vikings got screwed" fan. I'm the guy on this board who has no problem with what the Saints did to us in the NFCG. Its called football. I did not think GB should have been called for a facemask on Teddy during out last game, because incidental contact on the facemask is not a penalty. I did not think GB should have been called for grounding on the play where Rodgers was flagged. I'd give the benefit of the doubt that the defender prevented him from getting enough force on the ball to get it out to his WR on that side of the field. I will admit when the Vikings get a call that goes their way.

So far, you have not shown the ability to do anything analogous. I can't think of a call/no call that benefits the Packers you haven't defended or a call/no call the hurts them you haven't criticized. Its just clockwork. Its a joke.

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.

fiestavike wrote: and again you go back to this... What do you think this is evidence of?

Why would they allow that to occur to a favorite of theirs? Oh right, they wouldnt.

Sure questionable calls handed us the Lions game, but didn't hand the Bears and Lions their respective matchups earlier in the season. Right.