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.