NFL Regular Season 2009

[Scott]

I thought the Packers at the beginning of the game (in general) were being very aggressive and flashy...pushing after the whistle pointing fingers and throwing arms up in the air etc.  Not that Vikings weren't...it was just the Packers were doing it more.

[Jesse James]

I was surprised there wasn't something called at the end of the half when Allen made a tackle right after the ball was released, and it wasn't even like he brick-walled the guy or anything, but there was apparantly mouthing off coming from the Packer's sideline.  I thought that was going to get someone something in the 3rd but it just sort of dissipated.

[JediJman]

This was kind of my thoughts too.  Sort of like a "lets not get too crazy tonight" type of call, the packers just happened to be on the wrong side first. 

That's the only "taunting" specific call that I recall seeing.  There are plenty of instances where guys are shoving each other after a heated play and no call is made - anyone who watches football on any given Sunday has seen this.  I have to think that physical force would be a greater issue than standing over someone yelling - no matter how you look at it, it was a very subjective call and doubly suspicious when it goes against the visiting team. 

I can see the case you're making on trying to send a message, but I don't think that makes it right.  How about a verbal warning from the refs first if they want to send a message instead of a 15yard penalty on 3rd down?  You also typically see calls like that quickly reciprocated with a call against the other team to balance things out (Team A gets questionable pass interference, so team B gets a false start).  There were zero penalties on the Vikings in the entire first half - in fact the only call on them that I recall was a neutral zone infraction late in the game when the Pack was going for a 2pt conversion.

The packers had what seemed like a dozen or so penalties (would love to know how many total and for how many negative yards if anyone knows that), including at least two holding calls on kick returns. Arguably the two costliest calls were the 15yd taunting penalty mentioned earlier and a questionable pass interference call on Charles Woodson (anyone else notice that the flag flew AFTER the Packers interception?). Here's the recap from an ESPN writer "Replays showed Woodson making minimal, if any, contact with Sidney Rice, but Peterson plunged in for a touchdown on the next play to make it 21-14."  Minimal contact, but we saw TWO FLAGS FLY?  Really?  Both penalties were questionable and led to touchdowns. The Vikings got three first downs alone from penalties.

I am the first to admit that the Packers did not scheme well or play overly well, but in a close match like this the lopsided calls definitely had an impact. Take away either TD above and you've got a tie game at the end.  And iff there is a taunting call for 15 yards against the Vikes at Lambeau, I will be the first to point out the ridiculousness of it. 

[Scott]

Take away a touchdown the Vikings Defense doesn't play prevent giving up 9 garbage points and the Offense doesn't play ball control for the entire 4th Quarter

BTW...there were 2 penalties on that Pass Int in the end zone, one for offsides and one for PI.  It looked to me that Woodson pulled on Rice to get to the ball but I didn't see a replay.

[Morgbug]

I saw the replay on the pass interference as I was watching at home and indeed it was dubious.  There was contact and the Packer player had his hand on Rice's waist and appeared to pull but he didn't seem to really alter Rice's path.  At the same time the contact was there and you can't reach around a player to grab them while they are running a route so even if he didn't get a firm grip, the action was there making the call valid.  Minimal contact it may have been, but it's still contact.  Yeah, I read the ESPN quote about "if any" and I disagree.  ESPN is just trying to make news and make it more controversial. 

I never saw replays of the offside though.  Probably the thing to remember is two different refs saw two different infractions and have to decide to react or not.  Replays aren't reviewed on every play so yeah, dubious they may have been but reffing isn't easy so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.  You can rub out the pass interference call all you want for a late flag, dubious call or whatever - the offside flag had been lying on the turf for a while already. 

I also think taking away a touchdown completely changes the way the Vikings play the fourth quarter.  Penalties or not the Packers let the Vikings D run wild.  With more motivation they probably wouldn't have slacked off so much in the 4th. 

As for the taunting none of us have a hot clue what was said.  Was it subjective?  Maybe.  Maybe the taunt was highly offensive or threatened personal injury outside of what would normally happen in a game.  We don't and won't know what the ref heard, so we can banter back and forth all day long and nobody is going to do anything other than prove what team they were cheering for. 

As for being typically reciprocated, make up calls are BS even more so than any dubious (or not) first call, so even if the penalty had gone against the Vikings I'd rather not see that kind of crap happen.  Two dubious calls don't fix any damn thing other than to call into question the reffing for the entire game. 

[Neal]

On a related note, the Vikes/Pack game was the most-watched cable program ever, with approximately 22 million viewers.

[JediJman]

As for being typically reciprocated, make up calls are BS even more so than any dubious (or not) first call, so even if the penalty had gone against the Vikings I'd rather not see that kind of crap happen.  Two dubious calls don't fix any damn thing other than to call into question the reffing for the entire game. 

Guess I don't see it that way.  It was suggested the call was made early on to let the players know that "funny business" would not be tolerated.  If that was the case, it's far more fair to make the point to both teams, don't you think?  I mean, rather than just giving one team an extra first down and 15 yards to "send a message."

I also don't buy the arguement that the Vikes would have allowed fewer points at the end if the interception wasn't reversed.  We don't really know what would have happened.  Maybe the Packers would have turned it right back over and the scoring would have been exactly the same.  Or maybe the Pack would have scored on that drive and the Vikes would have been playing from behind the rest of the game.  You can't really say how changing an interception call in the end zone when the game is tied would have changed things, which is exactly why I point to those calls as having a significant impact on the game. 

As for the rest of the calls, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that two of the biggest Viking fans on here have found ways to justify it all in their head.  Here are all of the penalties from the first half of the game:

GB - Holding
GB - False Start
GB - Taunting
GB - Holding
GB - Pass Interference & Offisides
GB - Offsides (declined, TD)
GB - Holding

I know I'm a biased as a Packer fan, but doesn't that seem just a bit unusual to anyone else?  Frankly, I'd like to think if the situation was reversed I'd be objective enough to call out the extra advantages my team received.

[GrandMoffNick]

I try my hardest to take games for what they are. What I mean is I don't care what would have happened with out this or that penalty or if this play hadn't happened. They did and the Vikings won and it won't change. The penalties were lopsided, but I don't buy that the Vikings had just as many penalties as the Pack but the refs just didn't call them. And if they did, oh well, Vikes still won. I don't need to justify anything in my head. We won.

My dad always complains about how the Vikings get hosed in penalty calls and I always roll my eyes and ignore him. I guess I should do that more with you.

It sure is a good thing we knew each other so long before our football feud started. 

[Scott]

What were you looking for penalties?  The Vikings broke no big runs so how could they have had holding penalties?    On the road against a hostile and revved up defense you would expect false starts and holds based on the D getting big jumps off the snap.  I agree the taunting was dubious but as I already said, I saw the Pack doing lots more showboating through the first few plays than the Vikings...

As far as hypothetical and the interception, your point is moot, they were already offsides...the Vikes score on the next play either way.  And I stand by assumption that if the game was closer than it was, the 9 garbage points at the end of the game would not have happened and the Vikings would still have kicked their asses

[JediJman]

I try my hardest to take games for what they are. What I mean is I don't care what would have happened with out this or that penalty or if this play hadn't happened. They did and the Vikings won and it won't change. The penalties were lopsided, but I don't buy that the Vikings had just as many penalties as the Pack but the refs just didn't call them. And if they did, oh well, Vikes still won.

Amen.  Like I originally said, I'm not blaming outcome of the game solely on the play calling.  I already posted the Packers mistakes that lead to the loss and am not at all saying they would have surely won if not for said calls.  But I am not willing to just ignore the impact that refs & penalties have on the game, especially when it's this lopsided in one team's favor.  Thanks for agreeing on that point - as you said, it's not going to change the outcome of the game. 

What were you looking for penalties?  

Oh, I don't know maybe something more balanced?  Maybe a single call against the Vikes?  Do you not find it at all unusual that the home team would have a 7-0 advantage in penalties in a heated rivalry game?  Take a look at any other game this season and tell me you've seen anything remotely close to this scenario.  I've seen plenty of games where the refs are getting too involved and making too many calls or likewise missing obvious calls that should have been made, but in most of those cases, the penalties are hitting (or not hitting) both teams.  Seven penalties on the Packers and none on the Vikings at home is just plain biased. 

Anyway, I guess we're all entitled to our own opinion and you're biased beyond the point of ever admitting any fault with your team.  I hope to God we see the exact reverse when the Vikes go to Lambeau, so that we can hear all of your objective reasoning for the calls.

[Scott]

Wait...wait...so what about the Packers being the 3rd highest flagged team last year and the 2nd highest this year?  I guess they think they need to cheat to be competitive?  The refs should just throw flags against the non cheating team to make it closer, so you can feel better and rationalize your team getting their asses handed to them all night long?

[Rob]

As for the rest of the calls, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that two of the biggest Viking fans on here have found ways to justify it all in their head.  Here are all of the penalties from the first half of the game:

GB - Holding
GB - False Start
GB - Taunting
GB - Holding
GB - Pass Interference & Offisides
GB - Offsides (declined, TD)
GB - Holding

I know I'm a biased as a Packer fan, but doesn't that seem just a bit unusual to anyone else? 

Maybe one team was playing disciplined football and the other wasn't.

Maybe the crowd noise and being on the road has something to do with it.

Or, maybe it's a grand Favre conspiracy by the league.

[JediJman]

Wait...wait...so what about the Packers being the 3rd highest flagged team last year and the 2nd highest this year?  I guess they think they need to cheat to be competitive?  The refs should just throw flags against the non cheating team to make it closer, so you can feel better and rationalize your team getting their asses handed to them all night long?

This is exactly the kind of blind devotion to your team that I'm talking about.  How did we get from penalties to the Packers cheating?  How do you cheat by taunting?  And if you watched the game at all, you saw the Packers moving the ball well on the Vikes in just about every series.  What did Peterson have, 50 yards against them?  Please.  I think you will rarely find 400 yards of offense from a team "getting their asses handed to them all night long." 

But come on, don't avoid the question. Have you ever seen a game where a visiting team was handed 7 penalties in the first half and the opposing team received none?  I guess I could buy it if the Vikes were squeaky clean, but just look at their penalties from the 49ers game.  Delay of game, roughing the passer, defensive offsides, false start, illegal formation, and offensive holding all in the first half of the game.  But against division rival Green Bay Packers, they did ...nothing?  Oh, they were just more disciplined in this game?  Yeah, that seems pretty likely. 

I'm not going to call it cheating - that's reserved for things like piping noise into the metrodome.  The only "cheating" going on here is being done by either your optometrist or your therapist.

[Scott]

You are funny...two weeks ago when Favre had yards against the 49ers defense in prevent that didn't count for you...but when the Packers do the same thing this last week it does?  The Vikings played a squeaky clean game and the Packers got caught cheating 7 times...pretty basic.  Sort of like figuring out the Fantasy Football standings, right?

[JediJman]

You are funny...two weeks ago when Favre had yards against the 49ers defense in prevent that didn't count for you...but when the Packers do the same thing this last week it does?  The Vikings played a squeaky clean game and the Packers got caught cheating 7 times...pretty basic.  Sort of like figuring out the Fantasy Football standings, right?

Yes, you've convinced me.  The Packers did nothing and got 400 yards of offense against a prevent defense in the last few minutes of the game.  The Vikings, while racking up numerous penalties just the week prior, played an error free game, while the Packers attempted to cheat on every down.  Furthermore, they put out 3 fires, performed a heart transplant, and helped six old ladies cross the street during half time.  Thank you for the objective reasoning from Mankato to put this all into a realistic perspective.