PDA

View Full Version : THE FUMBLE!



VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 06:44 PM
Antonie Winfield made a play on that last kick return, cause the fumble then Ross clearly had control of the ball, once you have control of the ball and your are touch, you are down RIGHT???? Wrong not when your playing the Packers. Then Larry Ned comes out of the pile with the ball, it's our ball RIGHT??? Wrong not when your playing the Packers.

I'm sick to my stomach the Refs have once again polted the packers past us. Cant blame the loss on the refs but they had a great deal to do with it.

Foreman44
11-14-2004, 06:45 PM
Agreed. That sucked! In fact, the officiating overall in this game was very poor.

NeoVikesTX
11-14-2004, 06:46 PM
If the refs give us the ball after we recovered it, we go down and score and win the game.

Instead, the refs give the ball and the game to the Packers on a silver platter with no explanation. Thanks refs.

so-cal vike
11-14-2004, 06:48 PM
That play clearly showed the bias by the refs. Although it was pretty clear by the lack of pass interference call on the hack. Still, the defense has to take most of the blame since they looked like couldn't tackle my grandmother.

VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 06:49 PM
They FUCKED up all game long, I have to give NATE mad props for kickin Amahd Carrols ass all over the field even though he was grabing his jersey all game. It's kinda obvious when a guy had his jersey pulled under his shoulder pads. Yeah someone was pulling his jersey.

GOOD GAME NATE!!

vikingtim
11-14-2004, 06:50 PM
yea, I say those refs need to get on that play quicker and they would have possibly seen who had control.. but i guess packer player jerked it from ross.

NeoVikesTX
11-14-2004, 06:50 PM
Yeah, and did they ever call pass interference or defensive holding on him once all game? Nope.

No wonder he kept doing it, they never called it.

VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 06:51 PM
"so-cal vike" wrote:

That play clearly showed the bias by the refs. Although it was pretty clear by the lack of pass interference call on the hack. Still, the defense has to take most of the blame since they looked like couldn't tackle my grandmother.

Well you say that then the realize what they did the previous two of three drives. EJ came alive they played really good run defense and they get the ball back to the offense. Specail Teams comes up big and makes a play to get us the ball back, what happens the refs rape us and give the ball the packers.

dart18
11-14-2004, 06:53 PM
here is a question. If moss played would they have called offensive interference on him instead of none at all? We ahd our shots and yes the fumble was a blown call. Maybe they will admit the mistakes after tha game like a couple of years ago but we played shitty d and didnt deserve to even have a chance but Daunte and the o carried a very poor poor defense.

PhxFan
11-14-2004, 06:54 PM
Was our ball...how the ref can give posession to a team when they are still in a pile, and can't even see who has it...yet we got, had it and come up with it!! BS

so-cal vike
11-14-2004, 06:55 PM
"vikingstw" wrote:

"so-cal vike" wrote:

That play clearly showed the bias by the refs. Although it was pretty clear by the lack of pass interference call on the hack. Still, the defense has to take most of the blame since they looked like couldn't tackle my grandmother.

Well you say that then the realize what they did the previous two of three drives. EJ came alive they played really good run defense and they get the ball back to the offense. Specail Teams comes up big and makes a play to get us the ball back, what happens the refs rape us and give the ball the packers.I'll give the D credit for stepping up late in the game yet, it was late in the game. Just one or two more stops anytime during the game and the outcome would have been different.

GBMiah
11-14-2004, 07:00 PM
Officiating was horrendous for sure. I will admit that, on both sides. Our DB's got away with atleast 4 holds/interferences. But we got shafted on the 4th and 1 call with the horrible spot. And yes it did seem that you guys came up with the fumble, however those plays arent reviewable as was stated and they can only go by who had it when the pile cleared. Meaning the refs didnt do anything wrong, it was just bad luck. Same thing with the 4th and 1 spot we got which was clearly way off. If the refs cant see clearly then they have to guess. I thought it was clear enough on the replay that he was clearly past, although you could not see the ball.
again, bad luck call.

Toss2Moss84
11-14-2004, 07:02 PM
"GBMiah" wrote:

And yes it did seem that you guys came up with the fumble, however those plays arent reviewable as was stated and they can only go by who had it when the pile cleared. Meaning the refs didnt do anything wrong, it was just bad luck.
again, bad luck call.

Did you not see Larry Ned run out from the pile with the ball?

so-cal vike
11-14-2004, 07:04 PM
Ned had the ball in the end. The refs gave the Hack the ball before clearing the pile

VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 07:06 PM
Alright GB, i will once more explain the 4th and 1. Once you are stopped and leaning on your teamates for seconds your momentum is stopped and that is where the ball is to be spoted. Thats the way the rule is just like the rule of reviewing for a fumble. Fair and square guess, but not really.

Toss2Moss84
11-14-2004, 07:07 PM
Well I think the last person to actually have possession of the ball was the ref. And as we saw and have become grown to see. Ref = Packer.

PAvikesfan
11-14-2004, 07:15 PM
Close games are often decided by dimwit refs... a couple bad spots on the ball for both sides, defensive holding by the Packer corners (I MEAN COME ON! MARCUS AND BURLESON WERE GETTING RAPED THROUGHOUT THE GAME__I THOUGHT THE REFS WERE SUPPOSED TO CONCENTRATE ON THAT NO BUMPS AFTER 5 RULE?) and the Fumble during the last kick-off!
Ross clearly had posession of the fumbl-iyah....
This loss really hurt.

Ross needs to do more arm curls--that weak mother effer... he should have been willing the bite the fingers off of any packer or vike who came within 1 foot of the ball!

I hate losing like this.

Packerguy
11-14-2004, 07:26 PM
"vikingstw" wrote:

Alright GB, i will once more explain the 4th and 1. Once you are stopped and leaning on your teamates for seconds your momentum is stopped and that is where the ball is to be spoted. Thats the way the rule is just like the rule of reviewing for a fumble. Fair and square guess, but not really.

WE know the rules but I disagree with his momentum being done. That was a horrible spot that cost the packers big.

U guys can piss and moan all u want about losing because of refs but basically your defense is one of the worst in the league and u guys are not going to do jack unless u stop teams from scoring 30 plus on u all the time.

u guys gave up 5.9 yards per carry today. That sucks.

And yes the packers defense sucks too

GBMiah
11-14-2004, 07:31 PM
"vikingstw" wrote:

Alright GB, i will once more explain the 4th and 1. Once you are stopped and leaning on your teamates for seconds your momentum is stopped and that is where the ball is to be spoted. Thats the way the rule is just like the rule of reviewing for a fumble. Fair and square guess, but not really.

To the letter of the law that is correct. But that didnt apply to this situation, because 1) There was no significant reversal of momentum (a second plus stop at best. And actually there was no reversal of momentum at all, just a very brief halting. But obviously not enough to warrant a whistle 2) the whistle wasnt blown therefore the play is still live and he continued his forward motion.


Again, momentum or lack there of doesnt stop a play nor does it determine the spot (except in the case of an obvious stopping and gang tackle backwards) The whistle does. So by your logic If a running back advances 5 yards down field and is then smacked 4 yards back but the whistle doesnt blow and then he regains footing and further advances 10 yards, hes down with only a 1 yard gain?

I see what your saying, there is just more to it than that that applies.

NeoVikesTX
11-14-2004, 07:38 PM
The title of this thread is FUMBLE! Not, Packer fans whine about a first half 4th and 1 spot.

You are taking a risk going for it on 4th and 1. You guys could of easily kicked a field goal and been up by 17 points.

Now there's a big difference between that and a fumble with less than 2 minutes remaining and the refs blow the call and give the game away.

There is a logical, legal reason why the Packers did not get that call, momentum had been stopped.

There is NO logical, legal reason why the Packers fumble the ball, a Vikings player is first to recover, and a Vikings player has the ball after the pile is dismantled, yet still the Packers get the ball.

Plain and simple, a blown call by the refs. You guys would be pissed too if it was the other way around.

SacredStar
11-14-2004, 07:43 PM
"NeoVikesTX" wrote:


Plain and simple, a blown call by the refs. You guys would be pissed too if it was the other way around.

Yeah....I agree. Viking fans have a right to be mad as Packer fans would be if the shoe were on the other foot.

VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 07:45 PM
Amen Neo you just said in Brotha!

GBMiah
11-14-2004, 07:56 PM
"NeoVikesTX" wrote:

The title of this thread is FUMBLE! Not, Packer fans whine about a first half 4th and 1 spot.

You are taking a risk going for it on 4th and 1. You guys could of easily kicked a field goal and been up by 17 points.

Now there's a big difference between that and a fumble with less than 2 minutes remaining and the refs blow the call and give the game away.

There is a logical, legal reason why the Packers did not get that call, momentum had been stopped.

There is NO logical, legal reason why the Packers fumble the ball, a Vikings player is first to recover, and a Vikings player has the ball after the pile is dismantled, yet still the Packers get the ball.

Plain and simple, a blown call by the refs. You guys would be pissed too if it was the other way around.

Well then why did you continue blabbing about all the "momentun was stopped" horsecrap?

And apparently your just stubbornly ignoring my explantion of the RULE of momentum and the meaning of the whistle.
And there is a perfectly logical reason for the late fumble, which I've already explained. Refs cant see the replay angle that you see on the TV, they dont see that Ross had the ball. All they saw was that when the pile was sufficiently clear someone in a green and gold jersey had the ball. After the ref see's it and calls it for green bay, a desperate and disgruntled Viking smacks it away and is then seen with the ball in view of the camera's. Why is that so hard to accept? Because it came out against you, thats why. And yes, if it were a GB player that clearly recovered it but didnt come up with it in the end, I would be incensed. I will definitely agree with you there. But alas... It wasnt, it was the other way around. So that entire argument is rendered moot.

In situations like this, any good coach will say.. "we never should have put ourselves in a situation where we had to rely on the correct call from an official to decide the game" And that DEFINITELY applies here.

LosAngelis
11-14-2004, 08:31 PM
I got into this argument after the Redskin game. This would probably be contstrued as a bad officiating day.

The big gripe in the Redskin/Packer game was the illegal motion call on the WR. My counterpoint was that they HAD been calling those ticky tacky calls ALL GAME, so when Thrash stopped, they called it. They called it consistently.

This game, the refs sucked. They couldn't make a call. I don't know how they do it, but usually refs have it right, and if they don't, the replay system fixes it. There were calls all night that were not called.

I saw the physical contact by the Packer DBs. There were a couple that were blatant, but a lot of the others I see every game (the jersey grab on a cut, the hand on the backside).

Obviously, the Vikings have a case to present to the NFL on the inconsistencies of the "point of emphasis" rule.

However, the Packer DBs saw the refs were consistently letting things go, so they continued to do it. The midget CB pushed it as far as it would go (wrestling the WR off the field of play), so they knew what would get called.

Personally, if the situation was reversed, I would have spent less time whining about the missed calls and been going back to the sideline and telling my DBs what the refs were allowing today. Then, go out and rape the Green Bay WRs.

It's not good when the refs call the games too loose. It's much, much worse when they call the game inconsistently.

I didn't disagree with many of the calls, but I will admit the fumble call confused me. I don't know if I ever saw a really clear replay that showed who got the ball. But, I'd be ticked, because that one call basically decided who would get the ball for the FG.

GBMiah said it pretty well, though. If the Packers would have quit inexplicably trying to rush 8 guys in the fourth quarter and just contained Daunte and played good coverage, that play would have never happened to decide the game. Conversely, if the Vikes would have been playing up to their ability all game, you probably would have never been behind.

In short, though, Packers have the win, they are tied for the lead with you, and have the tougher schedule, and you have a chance for revenge on Christmas. Frankly, nothing is decided, and you will have Moss back in two weeks.

Game on.

ItalianStallion
11-14-2004, 08:59 PM
Very good points Los. I will concede that on the 4th and 1 play he clearly "looked" like he got it, but the replay did not show any evidence where the BALL was, and thus not enough evidence to overcome (according to their retarded replay rules).
On the replay of the fumble it was pretty damn clear that ross recovered, or at the very least I NEVER saw any Packer come anything close to recovering it.

Hell we were the first one in and the last one out with the ball, gimme a break, look at the replay refs.

VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 09:16 PM
You know i dont know what the hell they are gonna have to do, maybe they should put i ref every five yards on the sideline, cause there not handling it right now. Like Italian said is was pretty clear the vikes had the ball before the pile up, thats when the call should have been made. They didnt make the call therefor they f*cked up. Just cause the vikes get that ball doesnt mean they would win but it does mean they should have had a chance to win and the packers should not have had a chance to win in the last 1:20. The vikings on the 50 the way they were playing Offense i'd say they had a hell of a chance.

LosAngelis
11-14-2004, 09:43 PM
http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/WIMG10711150124.jpeg[/url]

Toss2Moss84
11-14-2004, 09:45 PM
"LosAngelis" wrote:

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/WIMG10711150124.jpeg[/url]

The scrum was in front of the Packers' sideline, but Green Bay coach Mike Sherman didn't exactly express confidence in the call.

"I'll have to look at the tape to see who got it. Ben Steele was credited with it," Sherman said. "I'm just proud of the effort we showed today, even at the end when we did fight to get the ball."

Ross said he was robbed by referee Ron Winter, plain and simple.

"Clearly, I had the ball. Yeah, we had the ball," Ross said. "I don't think the referee did a good job of getting everybody off the pile to see clearly I had the ball."

Ross said a 300-pound lineman -- who was actually the 250-pound Steele -- pried one of his arms back and he was helpless to do anything about it: "I'm on the bottom of the pile for two minutes, eventually he's going to win that one."

VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 09:47 PM
LOS dont disapoint me, is that the best you can come up with, our backup safety that fail down. That just isn't gonna cut it around here.

VikingsTw
11-14-2004, 09:49 PM
Intristing that i didnt see your text the first time i looked at your post, i thought you were taking a shot at the vikings.

MY BAD

XTAP59
11-14-2004, 09:53 PM
"LosAngelis" wrote:



http://www.grassyknoll.homestead.com/1010LombardiShrine.html

LosAngelis
11-14-2004, 09:53 PM
Nope...I was actually just looking for a good game photo that might have shown who had possession.

On the replay, it looked like a Viking had the ball, and was being touched on the leg by a Packer, but then I thought I saw the ball squirt out again after that. They sure didn't show it a lot.

GBMiah
11-14-2004, 10:01 PM
"Toss2Moss84" wrote:

"LosAngelis" wrote:

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/WIMG10711150124.jpeg[/url]

The scrum was in front of the Packers' sideline, but Green Bay coach Mike Sherman didn't exactly express confidence in the call.

"I'll have to look at the tape to see who got it. Ben Steele was credited with it," Sherman said. "I'm just proud of the effort we showed today, even at the end when we did fight to get the ball."

Ross said he was robbed by referee Ron Winter, plain and simple.

"Clearly, I had the ball. Yeah, we had the ball," Ross said. "I don't think the referee did a good job of getting everybody off the pile to see clearly I had the ball."

Ross said a 300-pound lineman -- who was actually the 250-pound Steele -- pried one of his arms back and he was helpless to do anything about it: "I'm on the bottom of the pile for two minutes, eventually he's going to win that one."

Clearly Ross' own statement hear clears things up. Yes, he did have CLEAR possession of the ball initially. But the refs didnt see that, nor is it there fault they didnt see it. You just cant see everything. And he states in his own words that is was taken from him during the melee. Meaning they did exactly what they were supposed to do and upon clearing the pile, they saw a Packer with the ball. So ruled. It sucks definitely but its the call that should have been made. As far as the refs not clearing the pile fast enough, Please, lets see how fast you could clear a bustling pile of 10, huge men fighting tooth and nail for the ball when your 55 years old. The play was called as it should have been, its just one of the bad breaks your going to catch every now and then.

Toss2Moss84
11-14-2004, 10:06 PM
Clearly Ross' own statement hear clears things up. Yes, he did have CLEAR possession of the ball initially. But the refs didnt see that, nor is it there fault they didnt see it. You just cant see everything. And he states in his own words that is was taken from him during the melee. Meaning they did exactly what they were supposed to do and upon clearing the pile, they saw a Packer with the ball. So ruled. It sucks definitely but its the call that should have been made. As far as the refs not clearing the pile fast enough, Please, lets see how fast you could clear a bustling pile of 10, huge men fighting tooth and nail for the ball when your 55 years old. The play was called as it should have been, its just one of the bad breaks your going to catch every now and then.

So because the ref is 55 years old it's ok for them to miss the call.....

hovan
11-14-2004, 10:10 PM
"LosAngelis" wrote:

I got into this argument after the Redskin game. This would probably be contstrued as a bad officiating day.

The big gripe in the Redskin/Packer game was the illegal motion call on the WR. My counterpoint was that they HAD been calling those ticky tacky calls ALL GAME, so when Thrash stopped, they called it. They called it consistently.

This game, the refs sucked. They couldn't make a call. I don't know how they do it, but usually refs have it right, and if they don't, the replay system fixes it. There were calls all night that were not called.

I saw the physical contact by the Packer DBs. There were a couple that were blatant, but a lot of the others I see every game (the jersey grab on a cut, the hand on the backside).

Obviously, the Vikings have a case to present to the NFL on the inconsistencies of the "point of emphasis" rule.

However, the Packer DBs saw the refs were consistently letting things go, so they continued to do it. The midget CB pushed it as far as it would go (wrestling the WR off the field of play), so they knew what would get called.

Personally, if the situation was reversed, I would have spent less time whining about the missed calls and been going back to the sideline and telling my DBs what the refs were allowing today. Then, go out and rape the Green Bay WRs.

It's not good when the refs call the games too loose. It's much, much worse when they call the game inconsistently.

I didn't disagree with many of the calls, but I will admit the fumble call confused me. I don't know if I ever saw a really clear replay that showed who got the ball. But, I'd be ticked, because that one call basically decided who would get the ball for the FG.

GBMiah said it pretty well, though. If the Packers would have quit inexplicably trying to rush 8 guys in the fourth quarter and just contained Daunte and played good coverage, that play would have never happened to decide the game. Conversely, if the Vikes would have been playing up to their ability all game, you probably would have never been behind.

In short, though, Packers have the win, they are tied for the lead with you, and have the tougher schedule, and you have a chance for revenge on Christmas. Frankly, nothing is decided, and you will have Moss back in two weeks.

Game on.


Los you deserve to be happy, because you are one of the only true Packer fans on this board....but the Vikings were jipped. I'm sure the league will issue a statement apologizing to the Vikings for costing them the game just like they did in 02. Most of us are just bitter because Moss is out. I can handle being without Jimmy K and are starting right tackle..but being without Moss is just wierd. Vikes covered the spread..and won me 50 bucks...but the sick feeling is there. :(

GBMiah
11-14-2004, 10:21 PM
"Toss2Moss84" wrote:




Clearly Ross' own statement hear clears things up. Yes, he did have CLEAR possession of the ball initially. But the refs didnt see that, nor is it there fault they didnt see it. You just cant see everything. And he states in his own words that is was taken from him during the melee. Meaning they did exactly what they were supposed to do and upon clearing the pile, they saw a Packer with the ball. So ruled. It sucks definitely but its the call that should have been made. As far as the refs not clearing the pile fast enough, Please, lets see how fast you could clear a bustling pile of 10, huge men fighting tooth and nail for the ball when your 55 years old. The play was called as it should have been, its just one of the bad breaks your going to catch every now and then.

So because the ref is 55 years old it's ok for them to miss the call.....


There is no "missing a call" when you cant see through 8 bodies fighting for a ball. But your fellow Viking fan seems to suggest that the ref didnt get in there fast enough and throw bodies aside to see who had the ball, which is rediculus for anyone to do especially a 55 year old ref.

SacredStar
11-14-2004, 11:09 PM
"LosAngelis" wrote:

The big gripe in the Redskin/Packer game was the illegal motion call on the WR. My counterpoint was that they HAD been calling those ticky tacky calls ALL GAME, so when Thrash stopped, they called it. They called it consistently.

I have to disagree there Los.

They did not call that penalty consistantly as Washington sent 3 tapes to the league office showing that the exact same play with the exact same motion was run 3 times but only whistled once, negating the go ahead TD for the Redskins.

Washington is also questioning that if the play was an illegal shift, why wasn't the whistle blown and the play called dead like any other offensive penalty? Why was the flag thrown only after the reception and not before the reception? Gibbs is convinced that the refs wanted GB to win that game. The game was officiated by White and his 1-2-3 crew, the same refs that did their best to give GB the win over the Titans on a Monday Night game a few weeks back. Jeff Fischer complained that his team was flagged numerous times for phantom penalties that never happened and the refs turned their backs on penalties against the Titans by the Packers that were never called. Fischer also sent tapes to the league complaining of the refs favoring the Packers.

And then tonites game, making a crucial mistake on the k/o fumble basically cost the Vikings the game.

Something is going on here.

lifelongvike
11-14-2004, 11:27 PM
"SacredStar" wrote:

"LosAngelis" wrote:

The big gripe in the Redskin/Packer game was the illegal motion call on the WR. My counterpoint was that they HAD been calling those ticky tacky calls ALL GAME, so when Thrash stopped, they called it. They called it consistently.

I have to disagree there Los.

They did not call that penalty consistantly as Washington sent 3 tapes to the league office showing that the exact same play with the exact same motion was run 3 times but only whistled once, negating the go ahead TD for the Redskins.

Washington is also questioning that if the play was an illegal shift, why wasn't the whistle blown and the play called dead like any other offensive penalty? Why was the flag thrown only after the reception and not before the reception? Gibbs is convinced that the refs wanted GB to win that game. The game was officiated by White and his 1-2-3 crew, the same refs that did their best to give GB the win over the Titans on a Monday Night game a few weeks back. Jeff Fischer complained that his team was flagged numerous times for phantom penalties that never happened and the refs turned their backs on penalties against the Titans by the Packers that were never called. Fischer also sent tapes to the league complaining of the refs favoring the Packers.

And then tonites game, making a crucial mistake on the k/o fumble basically cost the Vikings the game.

Something is going on here.

I agree and hope that Tice pursues it. This crew should not be allowed to ref any more GB games. How do they get 3 in a whole season let alone half a season. Maybe it is part of the Farve Farwell Tour.

cajunvike
11-15-2004, 01:35 AM
I didn't get to watch the game because of work, but I saw the video and it looked like Ross got robbed...I guess that the refs saw it different, so Ross gets screwed. Tough for the Vikes when that call changes the balance of the game...I agree that the league needs to look more closely at this kind of SH*T!

Kleinsasser40
11-15-2004, 02:23 AM
Also, Udezi had the other fumble coming out of the pile in the endzone...hhhmmmm...if the refs were from the area of the home team I would have to say that "I smell home cookin." But they aren't. But yeah, those were horrible calls, and any pack player that won't admit that is in denial even after they won...

hawaiianvike21
11-15-2004, 02:24 AM
"GBMiah" wrote:

Officiating was horrendous for sure. I will admit that, on both sides. Our DB's got away with atleast 4 holds/interferences. But we got shafted on the 4th and 1 call with the horrible spot. And yes it did seem that you guys came up with the fumble, however those plays arent reviewable as was stated and they can only go by who had it when the pile cleared. Meaning the refs didnt do anything wrong, it was just bad luck. Same thing with the 4th and 1 spot we got which was clearly way off. If the refs cant see clearly then they have to guess. I thought it was clear enough on the replay that he was clearly past, although you could not see the ball.
again, bad luck call.

At least youre one packer fan that has seen some reality from the game.

After all many wont agree with each other since its such a heated rival and had to be determined by the zebras.

purplepat
11-15-2004, 08:35 AM
Nevertheless, I did think the refs jobbed the Vikings many times during the game, especially with the lack of defensive holding calls that should have been made on the Pack DBs.

I clearly THOUGHT that Ross had possession of the ball, and was subsequently touched (downed) by a Packer player. However, I'm not sure that a replay would have overturned the refs call. With Ross' body blocking out a clear view of the ball and showing how well/long he possessed it, I don't think there was indisputable visual evidence to say that he clearly had possession. Also, in postgame interviews I have read, it appears that Steele had possession of the ball (or at least shared possession) when the refs made their determination of who had possession. At that point, when the refs told Steele he had possession, he let go of it, which is how a Viking came out of the pile with the ball.

I also thought the Vikings recovered that ball in the end zone, but a TV replay seemed to show a Packer recovering it, though it didn't really seem to show if the Packer had control of the ball...just had both hands on it in the end zone. I may have to watch that replay again (if I can stomach it).

To be sure, if the Vikings could play defense or special teams worth a damn, we probably wouldn't be grousing about these calls. It was a Herculean effort to rally from 14 behind to tie the game with 1:20 to go. Packer fans should enjoy their win, but not too much. It wasn't a dominating performance despite the 14 pt. lead, Moss will be coming back, and the rematch is at the Dome. Packer fans should be letting out a big sigh of relief that the last fumble was called their way...it could have just as easily went to the Vikings.

ItalianStallion
11-15-2004, 08:56 AM
I just don't understand why they can't challenge possession on a replay. Especially when there is clear evidence, and typically your normal way to determine who has it is to wait 10 minutes after people claw around in the pile.

loudog
11-15-2004, 10:21 AM
Look at it this way. The GB fumble on the goal line was jumped on by a GB player in which he was considered to be down when he recovered, and throughout the scrum, a Viking player ends up with the ball. This equates to Packer's ball. On the kickoff fumble, a Viking player clearly jumps on the ball and is not considered to be down after being jumped on by many Packer players. (By the way, Ross had the ball all by himself in clear view.) The Packers end up with the ball after the pileup. This also equates to Packers' ball and win. If the Packers deserve the kickoff fumble, then the Vikings deserve the goal line fumble. Now I do agree that the Packers earned and got the touchdown on the goal line fumble. That was a good call by the refs, however, the kickoff return was easily the Vikings ball. There should have been no question as to who recovered the kickoff return fumble, just as there was no question as to who recovered the endzone fumble.

snowinapril
11-15-2004, 10:37 AM
"Kleinsasser40" wrote:

Also, Udezi had the other fumble coming out of the pile in the endzone...hhhmmmm...if the refs were from the area of the home team I would have to say that "I smell home cookin." But they aren't. But yeah, those were horrible calls, and any pack player that won't admit that is in denial even after they won...

See the Refs called it a TD before he fumbled.

We would have had to Challenge the call before they would have admitted it was a fumble.

snowinapril
11-15-2004, 10:44 AM
End Zone Fumble was not a fumble

Technically, it was a TD. It would only been a Fumble if we would have challenged the play

we obvioulsy thought that we were going to lose the challenge because they covered it in the endzone.

I don't think a player can recover a fumble forward themselves?????????? So if we would have challenged it it could have been spotted on the one foot line???????

purplepat
11-15-2004, 11:03 AM
"snowinapril" wrote:

End Zone Fumble was not a fumble

Technically, it was a TD. It would only been a Fumble if we would have challenged the play

we obvioulsy thought that we were going to lose the challenge because they covered it in the endzone.

I don't think a player can recover a fumble forward themselves?????????? So if we would have challenged it it could have been spotted on the one foot line???????

According to TV, the end zone fumble was indeed a fumble, and you could clearly see that on the replay. According to the referee, the Vikings did not challenge that the ball was fumbled before the TD because the referees had ruled that the Packers recovered the fumble in the end zone. So, according to the referees, even if Tice had challenged the original TD call, the Packers would have still been given a TD for recovering the ball in the end zone. I don't know if that referee ruling (recovery in the end zone) could have also been challenged, but it did look like the TV replay showed a Packer player (Fisher?) with both hands on the ball in the end zone.

That "fumble forward" rule might only apply in a certain time frame, like the last five minutes (or two minutes, I forget) of a half.

XTAP59
11-15-2004, 11:09 AM
"snowinapril" wrote:

End Zone Fumble was not a fumble

Technically, it was a TD. It would only been a Fumble if we would have challenged the play

we obvioulsy thought that we were going to lose the challenge because they covered it in the endzone.

I don't think a player can recover a fumble forward themselves?????????? So if we would have challenged it it could have been spotted on the one foot line???????

I believe its the Dave casper rule. Only the player that fumbled can recover the ball if fumbled forward.

GBMiah
11-15-2004, 11:16 AM
I think its like this: Only the fumbling player can ADVANCE a fumble forward. Anyone can fall on it after going forward for the extra yards to count. Within 2 minutes there is no foward fumbling rule period. As was explained by the ref in the game during the kick off fumble.

I think thats how that goes, feel free to correct me if Im wrong.

snowinapril
11-15-2004, 11:19 AM
I wish that I would have taped the game, I was pretty sure that they weren't admitting to the fumble. I know the refs didn't initially see the fumble, they signalled a TD, before the fumble scrum occurred.

I am not saying that I am right, that is just what I remember.

Ya, I think that fumble forward rule is only in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Jer
11-15-2004, 06:03 PM
We don't get screwed on 4th and one we scored a touchdown up by 21 at that point we never ever get to the fumble. Now I would understand the fumble argument had the blown 4th and one call not been made. If the 4th and one call is made correctly we don't see that situation.

Another thing-You guys having Moss doesn't automatically give you the win next time. Our defense couldn't stop you guys a lick w/ or w/o Moss in the lineup. The part where it got bad for you was the fact that you couldn't stop Favre and company.

We won yesterday and thats all there is to it. I won't come here and laugh at you guys because I'm just not like that. I've been on the losing end before and I know what its like.

I think we can all agree that Nate Burleson will be in a Viking uniform next year.

Erock
11-15-2004, 08:01 PM
I posted this on another topic.
Posted: Today at 7:55 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could be way off base here, but this is my understanding of the call.
It wasn't ruled a fumble, it was ruled a touchdown. The refs got together and confirmed that the ball crossed the goal line before he fumbled there fore it is a dead play and unreviewable to see if minnesota recovered the footbal, just the same as if he was ruled down by contact. However if they would have called it a fumble then whoever comes out of the pile with it has either a touchdown or a touchback. Thats why when Tice threw the red flag the ref told him he could not review the see if it was a fumble just to see if he crossed the goal line. Thats when he decided not to review it.
If it would have went the way some of you had described, that the ref would have said that the play was unreviewable, witch is not what he said, he said that "minnesota has decided not to review the play. Witch be the way we should have done anyway to show that it was not a touchdown. We wouldn't have gotten the ball, but it would have been 4th and 1 for the Packers.

cajunvike
11-15-2004, 09:10 PM
Welcome to the board, Erock!!! I think that Tice should have challenged...God knows he has wasted timeouts before...it couldn't have been worse to waste one there!

vwo32
11-16-2004, 08:45 AM
The refs did indeed rule the play a fumble. However, they said the Packers recovered it in the endzone and therefore a touchdown. The fact that we came out of the pile with the ball did not mean anything. As you can tell after Sunday, it doesn't mean anything to recover a fumble. We recovered two fumbles and didn't get the ball for either one of them. The refs just decided who they rather have the ball, and when you are at GB thats who they choose. It was a creative screw job by the refs. They knew that if they said it wasn't a fumble we could easily challenge that and show that they were lying. However, if they admitted that it was a fumble and said the Packers recovered it (even though they didn't) then we wouldn't have anything to challenge, our hands were tied. It was like when the Packer receiver caught the ball 4 yards out of bounds and they said he would have came down in bounds if he wasn't pushed. They knew that was bullshit but they also knew that we wouldn't be able to challenge that, we tried anyway. At least I didn't see Favre throw any TD's with no time on the play clock like Manning did. I guess we have that to be thankful for. I can't wait to get another apology from the league this week, that will make up for it.

cajunvike
11-16-2004, 09:01 AM
Welcome to the board, vwo32! The league definitely needs to look into this...unless they are in on the conspiracy...and it definitely is a conspiracy...LOL!

mxpx003
11-16-2004, 05:03 PM
For anyone that missed it, you can see a clip of the fumble at http://www.packerssuck.com. It is obvious that Derek Ross has the ball.

Somebody has probably already said this in this thread, but this game brought back memories of a couple of years ago, where the refs admitted to missing 7 calls (even though there were undoubtedly more), one being an interception by Jack Brewer on the Packers' final drive that would've most likely given us the win.

Many factors contributed to the Vikings loss. There were a lot of things that we could've done a whole lot better (our defense, time managment, etc.) There was even some after The Call. (Brian Russell gift wraps an interception for the other Brian and he can't come up with it.)

That being said, this missed call was the one factor that completely changed the game. It is obvious that the Vikings had the momentum with their sweet comeback, and to have it taken away in that fashion... That is a huge blow to a team. The right call would have put us in the position to win, or at the very least, force overtime. You can blame it on our defense, or on our coach, or on the absence of Mr. Moss. However, none of those things matter when you consider that we put ourselves in the position to win, despite these things, and had that taken away from us by a poor call.

VKG4LFE
11-17-2004, 08:25 PM
Man I have to see this game on tape! Seeing the game live you miss so much stuff!!!