NFL 2010 Season Week 7 Picks

	JDUB316 - 29 Posts 10/19/2010 @ 12:58:19 AM
WOW.........I did not know there were so many hard hits this week, I knew about Desean Jackson but DAAAAMN!!!!!! I still think he got the worst hit of the day.....maybe the worst hit of the season. They say they don't know if he will even play against the Colts in 3 weeks, and 1 of those weeks is a bye week. They said their gonna start suspending people for helment to helment hits...... Me, myself, I think I'm undecided on weather I like " THE NEW RULE " or not. I don't want the players to REALLY hurt, but then again it is football. In my opinion thats like going to war and expecting not to get shot. Another thing....... I would really like to know who would you pick as a starting QB Kolb or Vick ? I say VICK !!!!!!!!!!! On another note what happend to the Cowboys ? Maybe it was all that s**t talkin' they did last season and during the off season talkin' about " we goin' to the superbowl since its in our stadium " bulls**t..........F**k em thats what I say.........EAGLES ALL DAY BABY !!!!!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
JDUB316 screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/19/2010 6:38:24 pm

	RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 10/19/2010 @ 06:35:31 AM
JDUB316 Wrote - Today @ 01:58:19 AM WOW.........I did not know there were so many hard hits this week, I knew about Desean Jackson but DAAAAMN!!!!!! I still think he got the worst hit of the day.....maybe the worst hit of the season. They say they don't know if he will even play against the Colts in 3 weeks, and 1 of those weeks is a bye week. They said their gonna start suspending people for helment to helment hits...... Me, myself, I think I'm undecided on weather I like " THE NEW RULE " or not. I don't want the players to REALLY hurt, but then again it is football. In my oppinion thats like going to war and expecting not to get shot. Another thing....... I would really like to know who would you pick as a starting QB Kolb or Vick ? I say VICK !!!!!!!!!!! On another note what happend to the Cowboys ? Maybe it was all that s**t talkin' they did last season and during the off season talkin' about " we goin' to the superbowl since its in our stadium " bulls**t..........F**k em thats what I say.........EAGLES ALL DAY BABY !!!!!!! I don't totally agree with the "new rule". A lot of those hits to the head were purely accidental and some of them were while the receiver was coming down and lowered his own head. Should a defensive player get suspended for that? NO! I think there should only be a suspension for intentional helmet to helmet, and I am sure you can tell which hits are accidental. As far as the Eagles QB... I would stick with there original plan and develop Kolb. He is going to be a great QB and he is still young. I would trade Vick before the deadline to get the most value out of him. Just my opinion. Cowboys are all talk, they have talent, but can't seem to put it all together... maybe they will when they play the Lions.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Musch - 20 Posts 10/19/2010 @ 06:50:24 AM
They might as well make it two hand touch/flag football. Ridiculous.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/20/2010 @ 02:22:57 PM
Musch Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:50:24 AM They might as well make it two hand touch/flag football. Ridiculous. Because the only logical conclusion from the league trying to cut back on helmet to helmet hits and other illegal hits is to actually eliminate all hits altogether.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 10/20/2010 2:28:31 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/20/2010 @ 03:29:56 PM
I think this is one of those "in a perfect world" kind of things. It would be nice if we could eliminate those hits, but ultimately there's no way to do it that doesn't pretend that there is any actual intent to harm most of the time when in fact these are really two movable objects making split second movements. Nor is there any objective standard by which to judge those things. There's only so much you can do when the helmet is a very prominent part of a tackler's body, and the two things he's "supposed" to bring the guy down with are attached 4 inches away on either side of that. All that's going to happen from this are there are going to be guys with nasty hits that get nothing because the guy pops up, and guys that get suspended with much lesser hits, because the guy happened to get hurt. It also doesn't help that everyone related to the NFL are talking out both sides of their mouth on this. We want to crucify every current "headhunter," while profiting off of/replaying/etc his hits, while romanticizing every jackass ex-NFLer with euphemisms like "hard nosed" and "smash mouth"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/20/2010 3:31:12 pm

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/20/2010 @ 03:33:31 PM
The NFL has taken steps to eliminate things that are objective. Facemasks, QB below the knees, horsecollars, etc. Things that are avoidable, and obvious. Helmets being involved and viscous hits are inevitable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/21/2010 @ 12:29:52 AM
Some of the hits from last weekend seem like they would already fall under the defenseless receiver rule. It's not possible to completely eliminate helmet to helmet contact, but when there's been multiple players in the last couple days saying that they are trying to or don't mind injuring other players, some harsher repercussions are warranted in my eyes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/21/2010 @ 08:48:50 AM
The whole point of this current situation is simply that they are starting to enforce the current rules in a different way. James Harrison is full of crap, if you ask me. The NFL didn't just make up a rule this week that you can't knock someone out with your forearm. That is already a rule. Given recent events and the number of players who have been knocked out this year alone, they decided to put in stricter penalties. Basically, James Harrison is saying "I've been breaking the rules my whole career, and I've been able to do so because they've only fined me occasionally". Anyone who claims that the NFL is making up new rules about hits is simply ignorant, or just lying. The rules already existed. They are just enforcing the rules differently, hopefully to make players realize the severity of the infractions. And furthermore, it has never been an good idea to use your helmet as a weapon. The tackler is just as much putting his life at risk using his helmet as the player he is trying to hit. I have no time for players whining about the NFL making it a game of flag football when they are taking so freaking obvious boneheaded plays and actually doing something other that telling players "hey, don't do that".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/21/2010 8:59:54 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/21/2010 @ 10:21:43 AM
Well, if the government had some law on the books they never put any teeth behind, then all of a sudden started to enforce it at the opposite end of the spectrum, you could argue that's not a whole lot different than adding a "new law". You could make a case that the NFL changing from "We're going to let you play your game and fine you haphazardly 1/50th of the amount of money you made that day" to "we're going to suspend you" is just as good as adding a new rule. If speeding went from a $80 ticket a week in prison complaining about that would be perfectly valid. Saying "speeding has always been against the law" is really beside the point. (Not to mention you could simply call the new punishments themselves new laws/rules.) The fact that you're just as, if not more, at risk for leading with your helmet is all the more reason to consider the fact that it's often unintentional. Personally I think, if I can continue my driving theme, that a system like a driver's license point system would be a good way to go. Players get fined based on how many points they have left at the time and how egregious the hits are. They then lose a certain amount of points, which replenish at a certain rate. If they run out, they get suspended. That way no one is suspended after a couple accidents, and someone who has three incidents over a season is punished differently than some guy off the bench that has 3 in 2 games.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 10/21/2010 10:22:54 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 10/21/2010 @ 10:42:11 AM
Watching players who do lead with their helmet, I don't buy any argument that it is unintentional. Maybe in some cases, but in most cases, it seems pretty blatant that the player is trying to use his helmet to knock the ball loose or whatever. I think players are just like teenagers that first get their drivers licenses; they have the "it's not going to happen to me" mentality, so they don't think about whether they should do it or not. In a game where head and neck related injuries are up over 50% from this time last year, I think drastic measures might be warranted. Your point system is a good point too. It should at least be an X number of offenses enforcement policy. First offense, a fine, second offense, suspension. The problem is, so many players freely admit that a fine is absolutely no deterrent. Rodney Harrison said he account for $50,000 before each season for potential fines just to keep his reputation of being a big hitter. Clearly the current enforcement was doing nothing to prevent what they were trying to prevent. Maybe they should have waited until next season to change the enforcement to allow players to adjust their playing styles, but either way, I support the change.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/21/2010 10:44:55 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/21/2010 @ 01:29:38 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:42:11 AM In a game where head and neck related injuries are up over 50% from this time last year, I think drastic measures might be warranted. Small sample size plus focus on concussions this year Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:21:43 AM Personally I think, if I can continue my driving theme, that a system like a driver's license point system would be a good way to go. Clearly soccer, with their card system, is years ahead of football.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 10/21/2010 @ 01:36:46 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:29:38 PM Small sample size plus focus on concussions this year So your telling me that the reason more players are being carted off the field on stretchers is because front office officials are paying more attention to it? The reason more players have been knocked unconscious this year is because they are paying more attention to it? And as far as small sample size, it's the only sample available. If you have a better sample to pull from of NFL related injuries, I'm all ears. And as for small sample size, I'm not sure I even agree with that. Every single week, over 1500 players put on pads for a game (53 man roster X 32 teams). So far through 6 weeks there have been over 90 games played. 90 games isn't a small sample size even all by itself, and if you factor in the 1500 players each week X 6 weeks, that is a ton of players involved. And while the actual number of these injuries is only a fraction of a percentage, that number is up drastically this year from previous years. This isn't comparing the amount of home runs from year to year and saying "holy cow this is out of control lets start using rubber baseballs". This is the safety of human beings. If there is something that can indeed be done to address it, and I believe there is, then they are doing the right thing. There is a difference between a vicious hit and an illegal hit. I think the NFL is doing a good job of differentiating between the two, at least they are trying to.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 10/21/2010 2:03:17 pm

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/21/2010 @ 02:06:26 PM
I think that emphasis can have an impact. What we were calling "woozy" and "getting his bell rung" in years past is now a huge deal. It's like autism. People are freaking out because the percentages are skyrocketing, but really it's just because we're better at recognizing the symptoms, on the look out for it, and putting more things under the Autism umbrella. Obviously if you're going to be super careful about watching out for something you never cared about before the number of instances is going to skyrocket. Maybe even as early as last year, but certainly 2-3 years ago, I don't think any one looks for/notices/or cares about concussions like Aaron Rodgers'. I also think you're overselling the number of players actually knocked unconscious. However, even if you aren't it's important to separate a trend from happenstance. If you flip a 500 sided die a billion times there are going to be places where it comes up 43 a few times in a row. Players are bigger and faster than ever before, yes. But the equipment is better, and the guy carrying the ball is also bigger and stronger.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 10/21/2010 2:08:36 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/21/2010 @ 02:13:24 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:06:26 PM I also think you're overselling the number of players actually knocked unconscious. However, even if you aren't it's important to separate a trend from happenstance. If you flip a 500 sided die a billion times there are going to be places where it comes up 43 a few times in a row. Players are bigger and faster than ever before, yes. But the equipment is better, and the guy carrying the ball is also bigger and stronger. 1) I think when player safety is at stake, it should be forgiveable if the league errs on the side of caution even if it is happenstance 2) Since players are bigger and faster than ever before, it's probably not happenstance, but rather because players are bigger and faster than ever before. Although it still could be happenstance, but I personally believe otherwise. 3) It is very likely that with the biggening and fastering of the players, the technology of the pads and safety equipment is struggling to keep up. Also, it is very possible and more so likely that the increased "protection" of the pads and equipment is the cause of players being more reckless. When you have a helmet that protects you better than the leather hats they used to wear, it's no wonder players see that as a green light for using that helmet in their regular practice of pursuit and tackling. The helmet used to be used to protect the head and face. Now it is used to bring down defenders, and the protection is just a side effect.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/21/2010 @ 04:15:38 PM
That point has been raised many times. There's a small movement to have the facemasks removed because then players won't play with such reckless abandon. While there might be some point there it seems to me a silly argument to make players more safe by making the equipment, and in turn the player, less safe. Also, even if that didn't lead to more injuries or the same number of injuries, it would have a negative impact (that's an N.I. a negative impact) on the game. These are the types of things that people shouldn't "do something about" just because not doing anything seems careless/heartless, if there's no actual solution. If there are players actively trying to hurt other players, then get rid of them. They don't need this, to do that, and ultimately no one wants this. The only impact this kind of thing can hope to have is effecting someone's style of play, but I don't want my linebackers pausing and watching the catch be made because getting there "too early" in an attempt to actually prevent a catch might get them suspended. Until the NFL legalizes them bringing a runner down Liu Kang style their helmet is going to be in the area, and there's a good chance the other player's helmet is too. Pairing up something that is in every way inevitable, with a completely subjective way to punish it, with a really severe punishment, can pretty much only lead to bad things. Especially when, on top of all that, it's debatable if the absolute ideal outcome of this is even desirable as a whole. The ends don't justify the means. Here's something that might have an impact in how people play the game, to prevent a somewhat rare occurrence. To achieve that you're instituting a set of rules which can't be fairly enforced if you wanted them to, where the punishment is just as varied and open to interpretation as the crime, including options previously saved for "Got drunk and ran a guy over", and the impact you hope to have is ultimately one that coaches/fans/fellow players won't even want.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 5 times, last at 10/21/2010 4:33:03 pm

	mbaraclo 10/21/2010 @ 09:01:28 PM
Sarah, I agree. Dallas is the best, worst team in the NFL right now. We can blame penalties and turnovers all we want. The truth is they don't act like a TEAM. I wonder if they even like each other? hmmmmmm.......		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - Two raw eggs in the morning 10/22/2010 @ 12:51:56 PM
Does the same helmet to helmet rule apply to offensive players also, should they get fined too? I see a lot of running backs lower their heads to break a tackle or plow through a pile. Basically using their head as a battering ram. Peterson, Jackson, Jacobs are good examples of that and they are big if not bigger than a lot of the DB's out there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 10/22/2010 @ 12:57:11 PM
Well, you're supposed to "lower your shoulder" into someone, you just have to do it without having your helmet near anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Musch 10/22/2010 @ 01:05:22 PM
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Today @ 01:51:56 PM Does the same helmet to helmet rule apply to offensive players also, should they get fined too? I see a lot of running backs lower their heads to break a tackle or plow through a pile. Basically using their head as a battering ram. Peterson, Jackson, Jacobs are good examples of that and they are big if not bigger than a lot of the DB's out there. Concurred!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 10/22/2010 @ 01:07:35 PM
True, but offensive players can be the cause of the helmet to helmet and should receive a fine also. It can't always be the defense's fault. I haven't seen the Harrison hits, but on some websites I have read that on one of the hits, the RB(!?) lowered his head, which caused the H2H. Not sure if that is entirely true though as I have not seen the hit.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/22/2010 @ 01:16:12 PM
Well, I don't know about those exact plays, but it happens quite often that a hit is made worse by an offensive player trying to duck under a big hit they see/feel coming.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/22/2010 @ 09:27:32 PM
Well, also, so many defensive players make it such a practice of leading with their head on the majority of the tackles they make. It might be natural, but pretty much every example on ESPN's Jacked Up is a player laying out some player with a tackle that looks like it should be flagged.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/22/2010 @ 09:30:26 PM
I figure, if I pick the Vikings, maybe the Packers might actually win.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 10/22/2010 @ 10:10:20 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 10/20/2010 @ 03:33:31 PM ...Helmets being involved and viscous hits are inevitable. They are, but I'd like my hits to flow more easily.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/22/2010 @ 11:49:40 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:30:26 PM I figure, if I pick the Vikings, maybe the Packers might actually win. Was thinking the same thing, plus Scouts Inc gives the Vikings the edge in 6 out of 9 categories. But they also predicted a GB win and I'll stick with that pick as long as it sounds like Matthews is playing. Maybe I'm over-estimating his worth, but without out him in there I think they would give up 400 yards of offense to the Gophers much less the Vikings.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 10/23/2010 @ 12:24:49 AM
NFL Fines 'Monday Night Football' For Helmet-To-Helmet Hit http://www.theonion.com/articles/nfl-fines-monday-night-football-for-helmettohelmet,18312/		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/23/2010 @ 10:29:00 AM
In what really, truly, amazingly could and should be his last game at Lambeau Field, Brett Favre will make at least one final piece of history in Green Bay. Favre will start his 119th game at Lambeau, more games than any quarterback has ever started at an NFL stadium. Favre is now tied with former Broncos quarterback John Elway, who started 118 games at Denver's Mile High Stadium. And if that weren't intriguing enough, it also will be Randy Moss' first game at Lambeau since the 2005 postseason, when he pretended to moon Packers fans after scoring a touchdown. Favre and Moss returning to Green Bay would rank only slightly below Art Modell and LeBron James reuniting in Cleveland. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=schefter_adam&page=10spot/10week07		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/24/2010 @ 03:20:07 PM
Stupid Saints... relative sidenote, I picked up Kenny Britt this morning for fantasy football. 44 points baby. But, had Brees as my QB instead of Matt Ryan.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/24/2010 @ 08:37:40 PM
How do u call late hit out of bounds when the player being hit is still inbounds?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 10/24/2010 @ 08:55:20 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:37:40 PM How do u call late hit out of bounds when the player being hit is still inbounds? Valid question. No answer for you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 10/24/2010 @ 08:57:31 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:37:40 PM How do u call late hit out of bounds when the player being hit is still inbounds? It was still unnecessary, and the initial contact was inbounds but a secondary shove came later, but either way that puts the breaks at about 2 to 2390482309483. And at least 8 points		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 10/24/2010 9:01:23 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/24/2010 @ 09:34:24 PM
I'm trying to figure out what all the viking fans are complaining about. Other than the touchdown reversal, what has been so bad about the reffing? Rodgers' second int was an obvious hold/pi/illegal contact on jennings that caused the int basically. Typical ciking excuses I guess.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 10/24/2010 9:35:57 pm

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 10/24/2010 @ 09:47:23 PM
Ok, I may have seen the packers commit an offensive holding on that play. So I suppose you now have something to complain about now.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 10/24/2010 @ 09:56:13 PM
Bad spot on forward progrss, followed by blowing the play dead before the play was actually over. Send your thank you card to the stripes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/24/2010 @ 10:31:13 PM
Aaaaaand......win!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/24/2010 @ 10:32:35 PM
Well luckily getting dicked out of 4 points twice had no bearing on this game what-so-ever.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/24/2010 @ 10:36:18 PM
Twice? I'm not even sure they got shafted out of 4 points even once. The really sad thing is that I picked the vikings. What was I thinking?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 10/24/2010 @ 10:36:32 PM
Yuck. Hated that game. Refs were bad, plays were bad, it was all bad. Only good - beating Favre.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 10/24/2010 @ 10:37:05 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:36:18 PM The really sad thing is that I picked the vikings. What was I thinking? That's the sole reason why they won.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 10/24/2010 @ 10:37:44 PM
To be fair, I do think the refs put their flags in their pockets the whole night for both teams.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/24/2010 @ 10:40:46 PM
That must be why the Vikings had 1st and 30 and lost a potential FG at the half.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 10/24/2010 @ 11:01:42 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:40:46 PM That must be why the Vikings had 1st and 30 and lost a potential FG at the half. That was like the 5th time that Matthews got face masked, plus it happened again after that and they only threw the flag once so...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/25/2010 @ 09:36:46 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:01:42 PM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:40:46 PM That must be why the Vikings had 1st and 30 and lost a potential FG at the half. That was like the 5th time that Matthews got face masked, plus it happened again after that and they only threw the flag once so... The Vikings are lucky there weren't more 1st and 30s. Matthews is lucky his face mask is attached to his helmet. At one point, someone grabbed on to his facebook so bad Matthews just threw his helmet off in the middle of the play.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 10/25/2010 @ 10:43:52 AM
Funny how it only got called when the game was on the line. (and never on the other side of the ball)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 01:47:24 PM
Funny, or just that it was finally so obvious as to risk jail time (or at the very least public ridicule) if they don't make the call. Don't blame the refs. Blame your cheater offensive lineman. On another note, the NFL did not turn into flag football this week, as some had predicted. That should come as a huge surprise, since the league was trying to rule out hitting altogether. Yet another side note, how did we all pick against the team that won 59-14 (Raiders-Broncos). In the annals of NutCan Pick 'Em, I bet there has not been a more lopsided pick spread for one game that had such a point spread in the opposite direction. All 21 NutCan analysts picked the the wrong side of a 45 point blowout.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/25/2010 1:51:28 pm

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 10/25/2010 @ 02:10:58 PM
If you're going to let one team get away with it all day, why bust it out then? Let them play, or don't. Packers were manhandling the Vikings D line all night. If you're going to call a ticky tack probably-technically-was-but-that-call-isn't-made-99%-of-the-time offensive PI on a desperation heave, then call the ticky-tack-but-was-defensive-PI that would have put the Vikes on the 1 to end the game. If you're going to rely on the replay system as a "we'll just call everything a TD and let the coaches sort it out" crutch, then you have to give said coach 2 seconds to make a call, not set the land speed record in an attempt to spot the ball for the extra point. Not that the Vikings should have had to challenge a play where the guy fell out of bounds and didn't even actually catch the ball in the first damn place.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 02:30:50 PM
Well, the booth shouldn't have had to challenge a play where the player didn't even come close to getting his second foot in bounds in the first damn place either. That's why they implemented replay. Teams always do what they can to hurry up a snap when there was a questionable call in their favor. The Vikings had every chance that every other team has to review that play. Don't blame the refs. Blame the fell asleep coaches. Also, the Refs let the O-lines on both sides get away with a lot of stuff. Just because they called a facemask on Matthews doesn't mean they decided to stop letting them play. It was probably the most blatant one of the night, and there were probably, without exaggerating, about 5 other hands to the face penalties against Matthews alone that didn't get called. This one was probably just more obvious.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 02:34:46 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:10:58 PM If you're going to call a ticky tack probably-technically-was-but-that-call-isn't-made-99%-of-the-time offensive PI on a desperation heave You hear commentators say all the time that when a ref sees a receiver push off even slightly, but sees both arms of the receiver fully extending the way Moss did, they are going to call it every time. My only disagreement with your statement here is that it isn't "not made 99% of the time". When a receiver makes no effort to mask his pushoff, it gets called, a lot. The play at the end was at the very least confused as incidental contact as there were about 5 guys within 2 yards of each other the whole time. In other words; A)one on one coverage with arms extended in an attempt to create separation: pretty obvious; B)throwing into quadruple coverage with guys bumping into each other: not so obvious. I'm not saying you don't have at least a little bit of a point. I just don't think the two were as similar and as close as you are making them out to be.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 10/25/2010 2:37:57 pm

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 10/25/2010 @ 02:41:59 PM
There's no penalty in the booth reviewing one. That review was inevitable no matter how that was called. Somehow I think a toe being 4 inches and a fat ass tight end landing with 60% of his body out of bounds, and not actually catching it, are two different things, but that's not really the point. The Vikings ability to review is largely irrelevant. Those are 4 points you didn't earn, assuming the FG is even good. That call could have just as easily have gone the Vikings way. "Bad reffing" or not the Packers still caught a number of breaks the Vikings didn't get. If Shank's TD wasn't an example of the Bert Emanuel rule than neither was the Bert Emanuel play. Seeing as offensive pass interference is called roughly 30 times all season, I'll stand by my comment.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 10/25/2010 2:45:00 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 02:53:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:41:59 PM Seeing as offensive pass interference is called roughly 30 times all season, I'll stand by my comment. I'll stand by Chris Collinsworth's explanation of that particular call.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 03:01:24 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:41:59 PM Somehow I think a toe being 4 inches and a fat ass tight end landing with 60% of his body out of bounds, and not actually catching it, are two different things, but that's not really the point. on the Packers version of this, it was pretty clear that the ref was blocked by a defensive player at the moment the ball came lose. He saw everything up until that point, and it is at least forgiveable that he didn't see what he was prevented from seeing. Again, that is the whole point of replay. The guy who was in position to make the call simply had his view of the play blocked at the last minute. It looked like there was some evidence that the ball jiggled loose on Shank's replay. It was close though. Sure, a bad break, maybe.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 03:03:41 PM
Speaking of bad breaks, the Packers lost possession on 4th and inches when the refs blew the play dead before foward progress stopped. So, there you go. I know, I know. It's completely not the same, mainly because it just isn't and nothing else. But still. A bad call to take possession away can be the same as a questionable call to put/take points on/off the board.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/25/2010 @ 03:09:53 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:03:41 PM Speaking of bad breaks, the Packers lost possession on 4th and inches when the refs blew the play dead before foward progress stopped. This by the way, brings me to another point. You want to know the effect of not having an effecting running game? The Packers are dead last in the league in 3rd and short conversions. With Ahman Green, they were one of if not the best 3rd and short team for three or four years. The Packers twice attempted 4th and inches, and on the two plays gained about a total of .75 yards. I know the Vikings run defense is good, but that's what you get when you have no adequate running backs in your system. I don't know if Ryan Grant was much better on 3rd and short, but regardless, that is one of the glaring deficiencies when you are struggling at the running game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 10/25/2010 @ 03:17:13 PM
Has Favre's career come full circle? He has two separate fractures in his ankle.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 04:05:11 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:03:41 PM Speaking of bad breaks, the Packers lost possession on 4th and inches when the refs blew the play dead before foward progress stopped. So, there you go. I know, I know. It's completely not the same, mainly because it just isn't and nothing else. But still. A bad call to take possession away can be the same as a questionable call to put/take points on/off the board. This was only almost something because the refs DIDN'T blow the whistles when they should have and do in almost every other circumstance. So, this was much closer to screwing the Vikings than an example of something that screwed the Packers. They came running in for the spot so the Vikings let up, but no one whistled for a while for no obvious reason. You almost got a free first down, and probably could have used the challenge that was gifted to you after the Shank TD was over turned (Which the VP of officiating just said should have stood. Thanks a pantload Chet. Lot of good it does now.) I know this seems like the usual Packer/Viking "Everything went your way, no everything went your way!" whining, but this really was a poorly officiated game. Obviously calls go both ways in a game, but the number of calls isn't the point, the calls that happened to not break the Vikings way cost them at least 8 points, and potentially more, in a 4 point game. It's at the very least, unlucky. Even the normally reserved Childress laid into them for the same reasons I listed above. http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post?id=18442		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 10/25/2010 4:24:38 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 04:40:35 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:53:09 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:41:59 PM Seeing as offensive pass interference is called roughly 30 times all season, I'll stand by my comment. I'll stand by Chris Collinsworth's explanation of that particular call. Yes, Cris was offering up some pretty impartial announcing as it pertained to Randy. I was particularly riveted by his explanation in the middle of the 4th quarter of how Moss not sprinting like a mad man to a spot on the field no one would be looking for him anyway led to the holocaust.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 10/25/2010 4:41:34 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 04:42:30 PM
Well, the horribly officiated 4th and inches came after a horribly short forward progress spot, so the Packers did get screwed. But forward progress is another example of the complicatedness of the rules that is, I think, really starting to annoy fans. Honestly, I'm not sure forward progress is reviewable, although Collinsworth said it was. And I'm not sure that they really could have challenged the 4th and 1 spot because it didn't look like any of the referees actually knew if or when anyone blew the whistle. I was 50-50 on whether the Shank TD would be overruled. My understanding is that the ball can touch the ground if you more or less have your hands under it, but he had his hands about 60% of the way down the ball only as it was vertical and the ball definitely moved in his hands when it hit the ground. Not sure how much to blame the running back on the 3rd and short woes. Grant is easily stronger than Jackson so you attribute some of it to that, but handing off to the full back in that situation (which I think they did at least once) is just not going to work. At least not with Kuhn. I thought the Moss PI was extremely flimsy. As far as holding goes, I'm sure both teams got away with some stuff but I didn't notice anything as blatant as Matthews getting hands to the face multiple times. You could probably argue though that the one they actually called was different because not only was it hands to the face (which really is hardly ever called in that situation) but the facemask holding actually caused Matthews head to turn. Some of the others where his facemask got pushed up a little bit I guess they were willing to let go. Edit: They did call facemask, which implies some twisting of the helmet which there was, as opposed to hands to the face, which I'm not sure when or where that rule actually applies.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex perfected this 2 times, last at 10/25/2010 4:47:56 pm

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 10/25/2010 @ 04:43:32 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:40:35 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:53:09 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:41:59 PM Seeing as offensive pass interference is called roughly 30 times all season, I'll stand by my comment. I'll stand by Chris Collinsworth's explanation of that particular call. Yes, Cris was offering up some pretty impartial announcing as it pertained to Randy. I was particularly riveted by his explanation in the middle of the 4th quarter of how Moss not sprinting like a mad man to a spot on the field no one would be looking for him anyway led to the holocaust. Are you talking about the interception play? Cause I'm not sure what Favre or Collinsworth were expecting him to do on that one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 10/25/2010 @ 04:50:54 PM
That was one of them. There were 4-5 instances where Cris presumed to know what route Randy was supposed to take in a given situation, then blamed him for some unrelated ill. It's possible on the Bishop play Randy rolled over the top at the end of his route like a normal playbook calls for when in fact the Vikings playbook calls for him to stand there covered, thus ensuring no YAC, which apparently make Childress mad. However, Moss making a mistake, because he's been on the team 3 weeks, or not, is not the same as being "lazy".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 10/25/2010 @ 04:52:28 PM
And I agree with Alex. I don't think anyone was claiming the running game couldn't suffer without Grant, but that play where you hand it to the up back with no running start gets stuffed 99.23% of the time, and deserves to be, so it's hard to make any judgment off that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 10/25/2010 @ 04:53:57 PM
Not sure how official this is, but seems to indicate that hands to the face should be a penalty in a blocking situation "Hands cannot be thrust forward above the frame to contact an opponent on the neck, face or head. Note: The frame is defined as the part of the opponent’s body below the neck that is presented to the blocker." http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/useofhands		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 05:07:23 PM
I don't think anyone was making the case that wasn't a penalty, just that that guy had let both offensive lines get away with the same types of things for 59 minutes. Why then? It wasn't really anymore obvious than some of the other things we've commented on. A guy who has presided over, apparently, 5 of the same calls, and a bunch of ridiculous holding calls with no flags decides to throw one once a team gets into the red zone to win a game? * An ump with a shitty strike zone doesn't matter all that much, if it's consistent. But don't call pitches one way for 8.5 innings and then switch it up. And just like an ump sets a tone that the players adjust to, right or wrong, so did this official. *And just to be clear, I'm not making a "refs should swallow the whistles in key situations" argument. Only a officiate the 60th minute the same way you did the other 59 argument.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 10/25/2010 5:09:22 pm

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 10/25/2010 @ 07:29:42 PM
Well, I'm trying to state the case that the one they flagged was an out and out face mask as opposed to just holding or illegal hands to the face, neither of which they called all night. So it was a different thing that hadn't happened before (as far as I can remember). Game, set, match, I win. The rule thing was just me wondering what the actual rule was for future shouting at the TV reference. Bottom line is, the refs have a huge impact on every game decided by less than 3 TDs. Which is pretty lame, but I don't think there's a lot that can be done. Other then dumping the whimsical challenge system and having all replays come from booth. Has not college football proving that system to be 800 times better? And somehow simplifying the rules would be another avenue for improvement.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 10/25/2010 @ 07:39:04 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:05:11 PM Even the normally reserved Childress laid into them for the same reasons I listed above. http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post?id=18442 Well, whatever credibility Childress had before is gone with his complaint about the Matthews face mask penalty. Look, if you are going to complain that they weren't calling O-line penalties all game, that's one thing. And trust me, they didn't call O-Line penalties most of the night. But they can "let the boys" play and still call what was clearly the worst, most obvious holding/facemask/illegal hands to the face penalty that either team even came close to all night. And I for one do think that particular call was quite a bit more obvious than the rest. Add to the fact that Matthews could have drawn about 5 more it is just simple justice that he got one, regardless of when it came. If you are going to complain that "why now", then really does look like typical "Packer/Viking" complaining. Besides, there were several big plays that Matthews would have snubbed out probably by sacking Favre that he wasn't able to do because he was getting molested the whole night. So take your complaints, make like a tree, and get out. So Childress basically narrowed his complaints to two calls, one (the matthews call) that you have no ground to stand on (because it was worse than the rest of them), and another where the ref simply interpreted whether the ground assisted the receiver in securing the ball. Real good grounds to stand on. Basically, he's saying it's the worst officiated game because his team lost and one penalty went against him. How about last week against the Dolphins where on 4th and 3 the Packers are flagged for lining up on the line of scrimmage square up to the center when the guy who was flagged was not on the line of scrimmage and was about a yard and half back. That extended the drive and led to a touchdown 4 plays later with 5 minutes left in a game the Packers lost by 3. Boo Fricken Hoo Viking fans. Child please. Edit: I'll put it this way. I'll agree that both sides were getting away with holding all night and the refs were letting them. But, both sides certainly not getting away with personal foul facemasks all night (that distinction belonged to the Vikings at the very least the time that it actually called, but probably a few more times on Matthews). That's what makes it different. And that's what makes Childress' complaint all the more empty. Edit2: Also, the writer of the blog thought that Childress blowing a bunch of hot air.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 10/25/2010 8:03:03 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/25/2010 @ 07:41:03 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:52:28 PM And I agree with Alex. I don't think anyone was claiming the running game couldn't suffer without Grant, but that play where you hand it to the up back with no running start gets stuffed 99.23% of the time, and deserves to be, so it's hard to make any judgment off that. Of course their whole philosophy/game plan changes when you have no faith in your running back. Although you did call Grant the most overrated running back in the league. Correction, "one of the most". Edit: Also, I'm directing my frustration with this comment more towards the Packer fans who apparently (and literally) think Grant is the worst running back in Packers history, and still profess throughout this season that whoever they have now at least is better than Grant. He's not the best RB in the world, no doubt, but you don't realize what you had until you are forced to go without.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 10/25/2010 8:15:45 pm

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 10/25/2010 @ 09:13:03 PM
The Packers aren't the only ones that do that. Every coach in the league busts that play out from time to time, and it never works.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	mbaraclo 10/25/2010 @ 11:30:51 PM
Talent means nothing without heart! We need a transplant!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 10/26/2010 @ 07:45:45 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/10/25/vikings.touchdown.ap/index.html?eref=sihp		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 10/26/2010 @ 04:47:00 PM
There were four unanimous game picks this week: Ravens to beat the Bills; Steelers to beat the Dolphins; Saints to Beat the Browns; and Broncos to beat the Cardinals. As a group, we went 2-2, but it wasn't even that good. In our two collective incorrect picks, the winners won by a combined 58 points. In our two collective correct picks, the winners won by a combined 4 points. How could we have all been so wrong on two games we picked incorrectly (games that ended up in a blowout the opposite side of our pick), and so sure about the two games we picked correctly (games that could have gone either way, and one that was decided by a rather controvsial if not questionable call)? Interesting happenings in the can of nuts.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 10/26/2010 4:48:16 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/26/2010 @ 06:48:21 PM
Childress is having a bad week. First he loses again, Then, the NFL fines him for not only complaining about the officiating but for publicizing a private conversation he had with an NFL official. And now, there's rumors that a loss next week could cost him his job.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/26/2010 6:49:12 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 10/27/2010 @ 12:21:11 AM
I applaud Childress for "leaking" the conversation with the NFL. When the officials are wrong, the NFL should be transparent and admit that publicly. That said, the Vikings could go undefeated the rest of the way and win the Superbowl, and I'd still be in favor of firing Childress.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 10:05:46 AM
I prefer the conspiracy/cover up approach to officiating. Leaves more suspense. Because if they then admit they were wrong, you can't feed the conspiracies that the NFL is indeed paying refs to help certain teams win. In this case, the refs just screwed up. Now Jeremy can't think that there is a deep rooted ant-viking/pro-packer conspiracy, since they admitted that they were wrong.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 10:12:51 AM
I don't think that, but shitty calls in this game were at least an 11 point swing, and all in favor of one team. An apology doesn't do us any good. Actually making the right calls would be nice. Though, I don't see how they admitting they were wrong would lead to any tell one way or another if there were a "conspiracy" or not. You can make just as good of an argument that the fact that there's a system in place to tell teams "oops, our bad" after you cost them a game leaves the door open for those calls more so than it "prevents" anything. That said, I've heard many of these apologies in the past, and I never knew before this one they were supposed to be confidential. That's ridiculous (and pointless).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 10/27/2010 @ 10:37:40 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:12:51 AM Though, I don't see how they admitting they were wrong would lead to any tell one way or another if there were a "conspiracy" or not. In any good conspiracy, you don't out yourself so soon. You have to make people think they are getting screwed while admitting nothing. Maybe it wasn't an "official" apology. Maybe it was just a conversation between Childress and the official off the record, and the official was just saying "sorry, it appeared to be wrong. I don't know where the 11 points is coming from. Childress failed to review the Packers touchdown because he's an idiot. The Shanke TD ok, that might be 4 points there since it ended up as a field goal. So the most credible complaint is that the calls cost you 4 points. again, don't blame the refs for not throwing a challenge flag on a questionable call. I'm pretty sure the vikings aren't the only team to have an initial ruling go against them.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 10/27/2010 @ 11:07:34 AM
Childress could have challenged, but it would have been mostly blind since the refs followed up the botched call, which aren't all created equal by the way*, with instantly spotting the ball for the extra point, which they didn't do for the Vikings on any of the 3 TDs they took away, though 2 of those were ruled correctly, and the vikings scored one. *The "you could have challenged" argument only goes so far, because first of all, at some point it's reasonable from a fan's perspective to lament the crap luck that the call was botched in the first place, secondly, at some point the call becomes so bad that a challenge shouldn't be necessary. If some player is 3 yards out of bounds and then dropped the ball the fact that you could win that challenge is small consolation, because you only get 2, and if the refs are going to lean on the challenge system to give anything that could even theoretically be a td the benefit of the doubt, then they should give the opposing coach 5 seconds to make a choice. The Packers didn't score (4 assuming the FG is even good), the Vikings did score (4), and that BS Moss PI call would have put them in (at least) chip shot FG range (3) Any one thing gets called correctly and the end of the game is totally different.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 10/27/2010 11:08:28 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 11:24:27 AM
It wasn't really a botched call in that sense. The ref who was in position was blocked from view for the .0003 seconds that the TE bobbled the ball. By the time the Vikings players got out of his view Quarless already had regained control. Watch the replay and watch where the ref was standing when he made the call. Now, re-enact it yourself with two guys (and quarless' back) between you and the ball. If that isn't an example of what the entire concept of the replay system was put in for, I don't know what is. I don't think the call is really as obviously botched as you are making it out to be. And I'm throwing a flag on you complaining about the Moss PI call. It was pretty darn obvious (text-book PI, one might say), and it certainly didn't put/take points on/off the board. You're being a little too creative with adding up your points. Because I could point out that Greg Jennings was carrying a Viking receiver down the field for about 10 yards (with no flag) on the INT in the endzone near the end of the first half. That's probably 3 point there taken away since they were at the Vikings 27 (44 yard FG attempt), but it wasn't 3rd down, so it could have resulted in a touchdown drive. Wow, it's easy to make up points here and there. Besides, that Quarless touchdown was from the 9 yard line. I don't think it's difficult to assume he makes that kick. And, the Moss penalty took place at teh 17 yard line (34 yard field goal). So you are questioning whether the Packers would have made their 26 yard field goal, but refer to the Vikings 34 yarder as a chip shot? Really?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 5 times, last at 10/27/2010 11:34:53 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 10/27/2010 @ 11:32:50 AM
If the replay system is broke, I don't really disagree. But unless you want the refs to have X-Ray vision, calls like the Quarless one are inevitable. You're in denial if you think otherwise. And Quarless isn't 9 feet tall, so he couldn't have been three yards out of bounds. If it wasn't for that momentary bobble, it would have been a catch, because he got himself inbounds before falling out of bounds. And I don't know for sure if it matters (it probably still matters that he was out of bounds by this time) but the ball never hit the ground. I suppose that since he came to the ground out of bounds the "you can regain control" portion of the rule doesn't apply. But he didn't "drop" the ball persay. My point is you are making it sound like he was waaaay out of the bounds (3 yards would be waaay out of bounds) and dropped the ball. Neither of those things are true. The entire premise of your complaint, or at least the way you are spinning or framing it, is false.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 6 times, last at 10/27/2010 11:41:47 am

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 10/27/2010 @ 11:43:49 AM
I'll add a new comment, since Jeremy is probably responding to my past ones already. I don't want to "sneak anything in there". NFL.com has the replay of the Quarless TD, but it only shows the realtime angle. In realtime, with view of Quarless's front side it happened so quickly that it is hard to tell exactly what happened. The Ref was on the other side of quarless with two defenders in his view.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 11:51:39 AM
I didn't even say I was using that play as an example. The out of position/blocked ref didn't see a TD then either, so he still could have called it either way, and on top of everything I can still lament that the Packers get 4 points they didn't earn, regardless of who was blocked, and lament the fact that he was blocked. The Moss PI call was not "obvious," it's easy to see how/why the call was made, maybe, but that's not the same thing. It wasn't offensive PI. That would have put the Vikings first down on the 17, with 40 seconds and 2 time outs. Longwell doesn't miss those, assuming they didn't score 7, and in figuring the "points we were screwed out of", I assumed your kicker makes one from the 9, so if "I'm assuming too many points" on this drive, then fair is fair, and it's still 11. On the Greg Jennings play, where he got bumped for one second, one of the Vikings defensive lineman was being hogtied, drugged, and molested right in front of the guy who didn't make a single call all night, until the game was on the line.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 10/27/2010 11:54:35 am

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 10/27/2010 @ 11:58:55 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:43:49 AM I'll add a new comment, since Jeremy is probably responding to my past ones already. I don't want to "sneak anything in there". NFL.com has the replay of the Quarless TD, but it only shows the realtime angle. In realtime, with view of Quarless's front side it happened so quickly that it is hard to tell exactly what happened. The Ref was on the other side of quarless with two defenders in his view. Right, so the guy who called it a TD didn't see shit because he couldn't see shit. That's supposed to make me feel better about the random guess he made? That works both ways, if he couldn't see that he was out, because it happened fast, and couldn't see he dropped it because he was blocked, then he also didn't see the he was in and held on to it, so what the hell is he making that call based on?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 01:55:33 PM
I'm pretty sure that if the PI wasn't called, Favre would have thrown an interception to Woodson on the next play and he would have taken it back for a TD. The Packers got screwed out of 7 points!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 03:50:12 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:58:55 AM Right, so the guy who called it a TD didn't see shit because he couldn't see shit. That's supposed to make me feel better about the random guess he made? It wasn't a random guess. When the ball was in view, Quarless had control, when the ball came back into view a 1/4 second later Quarless still had control. You can feel how you want I guess.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 04:06:05 PM
To make things fair, let's keep penalties out of it. We can argue penalties until we are blue in the face and when it comes down to it, this is generally the most subjective part of the game. Both teams got screwed on non-calls, as evidence of only 8 total pentalies for both teams (for every one "we got held" that a Vikings fan can complain about, there were probably two "Matthews' head is bending in weird angles everytime he is engaged"). (Furthermore, any way you wants to slice the Moss PI, it was PI, regardless of how they judged other plays throughout the game, but that's not my point) Ok, for the sake of argument, I'll give you the Quarless touchdown and the packers making that FG (for -4 points) (although it's hardly fair because it's the vikings fault for not challenging it, whatever their lame excuses are. For crying out loud, the Packers challenged the Shank TD and according to an apologetic league official, it was obviously not reserveable. And the "we never should have to challenge a play like that" complaint is kind of weak too, because I can probably find 100 replays that were more obvious from lots of angles than the Quarless TD). Then the Shank TD would be good (+4 points). That's 8 points. But that's in the first half, and with time to spare no less. And Rodgers had almost 300 yards as it was, even with a lead in the 4th qtr, so he would obviously have brought them back and thrown for over 400 yards. The Packers play better from behind anyway, so this season has proven anyway. The Vikings were doomed either way.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 05:17:33 PM
Childress not challenging the Quarless touchdown was a huge mistake on his part, but that doesn't negate the fact that the call was wrong in the first place. He landed out of bounds and then bobbled the ball while doing so. If the official was blocked then that's still on him for not being in position or the NFL for not having someone to back him up on the call. Just because a judges rulings can be overturned on appeal doesn't mean that they don't have a responsibility to get them right the first time. By the way, the same official (I'm assuming since it was in the same place in the end zone) also missed a pass interference call on the Harvin almost catch.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 10/29/2010 @ 08:55:53 AM
Matt Wrote - 10/27/2010 @ 05:17:33 PM Childress not challenging the Quarless touchdown was a huge mistake on his part, but that doesn't negate the fact that the call was wrong in the first place. He landed out of bounds and then bobbled the ball while doing so. If the official was blocked then that's still on him for not being in position or the NFL for not having someone to back him up on the call. Just because a judges rulings can be overturned on appeal doesn't mean that they don't have a responsibility to get them right the first time. By the way, the same official (I'm assuming since it was in the same place in the end zone) also missed a pass interference call on the Harvin almost catch. (emphasis added) You could literally say this about every single challenged call in the NFL. You might as well start complaining that the need for replay is just awful since refs should get calls right the first time. We have instant replay for a reason. I don't think the call would have been overturned on the basis of not coming down in bounds. The bobble would have been reason to overturn it.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Scott screwed with this at 10/29/2010 8:56:36 am

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/29/2010 @ 08:57:31 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:55:53 AM Matt Wrote - 10/27/2010 @ 05:17:33 PM Childress not challenging the Quarless touchdown was a huge mistake on his part, but that doesn't negate the fact that the call was wrong in the first place. He landed out of bounds and then bobbled the ball while doing so. If the official was blocked then that's still on him for not being in position or the NFL for not having someone to back him up on the call. Just because a judges rulings can be overturned on appeal doesn't mean that they don't have a responsibility to get them right the first time. By the way, the same official (I'm assuming since it was in the same place in the end zone) also missed a pass interference call on the Harvin almost catch. (emphasis added) You could literally say this about every single challenged call in the NFL. You might as well start complaining that the need for replay is just awful since refs should get calls right the first time. We have instant replay for a reason. I don't think the call would have been overturned on the basis of not coming down in bounds. The bobble would have been reason to overturn it. My thoughts exactly.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 10/29/2010 @ 09:56:14 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:55:53 AM Matt Wrote - 10/27/2010 @ 05:17:33 PM Childress not challenging the Quarless touchdown was a huge mistake on his part, but that doesn't negate the fact that the call was wrong in the first place. He landed out of bounds and then bobbled the ball while doing so. If the official was blocked then that's still on him for not being in position or the NFL for not having someone to back him up on the call. Just because a judges rulings can be overturned on appeal doesn't mean that they don't have a responsibility to get them right the first time. By the way, the same official (I'm assuming since it was in the same place in the end zone) also missed a pass interference call on the Harvin almost catch. (emphasis added) You could literally say this about every single challenged call in the NFL. You might as well start complaining that the need for replay is just awful since refs should get calls right the first time. We have instant replay for a reason. I don't think the call would have been overturned on the basis of not coming down in bounds. The bobble would have been reason to overturn it. Not true, and irrelevant. First of all, not all missed calls are equal. Using a challenge on a play where a guy might have just barely stepped onto the white at the 5 is much different than the refs somehow missing that the guy took 2 whole steps way out of bounds. There are degrees of bad calls. Using a challenge where they called a fumble on your player when his knee hit 4 nano seconds before the ball came out is different than being forced to waste one when they call a fumble on a guy who's entire lower body was obviously down and the fumble was ground caused anyway. Secondly, it's irrelevant because you keep putting this "we're trying to convince everyone there's a conspiracy because refs are normally perfect" angle on everything, when all we're really saying is that as a fan it was crap luck to have so many things go wrong that directly effected points, especially given the 2 most obviously blown calls would have altered the game by the exact margin of victory. The comment you replied to, if I may put words in Matt's mouth, was that it really doesn't matter what the excuse was, the call was wrong. It doesn't mean the ref is evil/incompetent, but the call was wrong, and the fact that the Vikings could have challenged doesn't make the call any more right, or absolve them of all blame for getting calls wrong. Also, as I said before, if you're going to lean on the challenge system as a "well I didn't actually see the play, but I'll make a call because they can just challenge" crutch, then give the team 5 seconds to see you blew the call. Even if you wanted to take that one bold sentence out of the rest of the paragraph and straw man Matt's larger point: Yes, you could say that about every call that could be challenged....and? No, saying that doesn't mean replay is awful. That sentence is just a statement of fact, with no deeper/hidden meaning. The comeback, to "that call was wrong" of "you could have challenged" doesn't actually address the point. The call WAS wrong, and that's all that says.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 10/29/2010 @ 10:17:38 AM
I agree with everything you just said for the most part. Yes, the call was probably wrong. Ok, fine, the call was wrong. The refs got it wrong. The fact that it can be replayed doesn't change that. But what's the point of that. Me pointing out that you could say that about a lot of calls overturned by replay isn't saying that the call isn't any more or less wrong. What's the point of complaining that the call was wrong when there is a system in place to correct such wrongs that the coach didn't use? I understand that not all bad calls are created equal, but replay tries at least to cover all sorts of bad calls. I think the NFL should use the NCAA replay rules, where the booth reviews every play and doesn't rely on the coach to decide if it's worth taking a risk early in the game when there might be another bad call later in the game. I don't disagree with any of your complaints about the replay system. The call was wrong, so what? Dumb luck? Sure. If all you are saying is that the call was wrong, then fine, that's true. But that's not really a complete thought, because it was correctable.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/29/2010 10:18:02 am

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 10/29/2010 @ 10:23:49 AM
Right, but if you're playing the "what else can go wrong"/"how unlucky can we get" game as a fan that's not one thing negating another, that's 2 things.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 10/29/2010 @ 07:56:31 PM
Teammate tackle Phil Loadholt was fined $20,000 for a facemask against Green Bay linebacker Clay Matthews last Sunday night. Loadholt drew a 15-yard penalty. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5742165		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 10/30/2010 @ 03:52:23 PM
Clearly the refs made a convenient call at an opportune time. Way to throw that one in the mix of your complaints, Brad.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/30/2010 3:52:55 pm

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 10/31/2010 @ 12:23:20 PM
Players get fined for calls not made all the time. The guy called that after he didn't call anything all night and it wasn't much worse than anything else. Acting like because this was fined nothing else came close to being penalty worthy is ridiculous. As the game is concerned it's only 5 yards worth worse than what he watched the Packers do to the Vikings on almost every down. It's comment worthy, which is really all Childress made it out to be. Calls like that get missed all the time, so if nothing else the fact that he finally noticed something is comment worthy. No one said it wasn't what he called.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 10/31/2010 12:25:58 pm