ARod

[HarveyWallbangers]

I still can't believe the Vikings had more total offense and lost the damn thing!

Is that the equivalent of "losing pretty"?

Let's be real here. We can say this penalty wasn't called or that one. This play or that. This stat or that. The bottom line is that the Packers looked like the better team last night. They don't add punt return yards onto total yards, so that's going to skew the stats. The Packers got 76 yards on one punt return, scoring 7 points, and eliminating a drive. Partly because of that and some of the big plays by the Packers offense, the Vikings had 20 more plays, but only 38 more yards. With the two score leads, the Packers got conservative on offense, so that helped the Vikings out in the second half. I can understand bringing this up if there was a huge disparity in yards or if the Vikings looked like a better team, but that wasn't the case. I hear a lot of whining about the officiating from Viking fans today on KFAN. I also hear things like we just gave up three fluky plays, but at no point did I feel the Vikings looked like a better team. They have a great run defense and they have a Hall of Fame talent at RB, but they just didn't look good enough in a lot of other areas. The Packers looked like a better all around team.

Now, it was only one game, so this season is far from over.

[AV David]

"Watching the replay, if Moll was down field his big toe must have been the only thing that was 5 yards down field. I thought it was sick the way those refs tried to control the game."




I'm not positive, but I think you only get two yards down field in a pass situation.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think you can go downfield at all if you aren't blocking anybody. It was a stupid play by Moll and the Vikings got lucky because they didn't do anything to force the penalty, but the officials got the call right.

On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people say we got lucky on the Shiancoe call, but completions are different than fumbles. Unless they changed the rule, the receiver has to catch the ball and make a football move. Otherwise, the receiver has to maintain possession even after he hits the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble, but the ground can cause an incompletion in that case.

[boiga]

This was on the JSO blog, but I also found it on a old forum: here

Section 2 Pass Interference/Ineligible Player Downfield
Article 1 Pass interference can only occur when there is a forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage. This applies regardless of whether the pass crosses the line.
(a) The restriction for the offensive team begins with the snap.
(b) The restriction for the defensive team begins when the ball leaves the passer’s hands.
Article 2 It is a foul when an ineligible offensive player (including a T-formation quarterback),
prior to a legal forward pass:
(a) advances beyond his line, after losing contact with an opponent at the line of scrimmage;
(b) loses contact with an opponent downfield after the initial charge and then continues to advance or move laterally; or
(c) moves downfield without contacting an opponent at the line of scrimmage.
The above restrictions end when the ball leaves the passer’s hand.
Note: The guideline for officials to use for an ineligible player(s) to be illegally downfield: the offending player must be more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage prior to the pass.
Penalty: Ineligible offensive player downfield: loss of 5 yards from previous spot.
Article 3 It is not a foul for an ineligible receiver downfield when ineligible receivers:
(a) block an opponent at the line of scrimmage drives him downfield, loses the block
and remains stationary;
(b) are forced behind their line;
(c) move laterally behind their line (before or after contact of their initial charge) provided
they do not advance beyond their line until the ball leaves the passer’s hands; or
(d) have legally crossed their line in blocking an opponent (eligible offensive player A1 may complete a pass between them and the offensive line).
Article 4 After the ball leaves the passer’s hand, ineligible forward pass receivers can advance:
(a) from behind their line;
(b) from their own line; or
(c) from their initial charge position, provided they do not block or contact a defensive player(s) until the ball is touched by a player of either team. Such prior blocking and/or contact is forward pass interference.

edit: bolding what Moll did.

[Rastak]

I still can't believe the Vikings had more total offense and lost the damn thing!

Is that the equivalent of "losing pretty"?

Let's be real here. We can say this penalty wasn't called or that one. This play or that. This stat or that. The bottom line is that the Packers looked like the better team last night. They don't add punt return yards onto total yards, so that's going to skew the stats. The Packers got 76 yards on one punt return, scoring 7 points, and eliminating a drive. Partly because of that and some of the big plays by the Packers offense, the Vikings had 20 more plays, but only 38 more yards. With the two score leads, the Packers got conservative on offense, so that helped the Vikings out in the second half. I can understand bringing this up if there was a huge disparity in yards or if the Vikings looked like a better team, but that wasn't the case. I hear a lot of whining about the officiating from Viking fans today on KFAN. I also hear things like we just gave up three fluky plays, but at no point did I feel the Vikings looked like a better team. They have a great run defense and they have a Hall of Fame talent at RB, but they just didn't look good enough in a lot of other areas. The Packers looked like a better all around team.

Now, it was only one game, so this season is far from over.

I never said there was a huge disparity in yards. I said the Vikings got more of them and lost!

I agree the Packers looked like the better team. No arguments here.


Would you add in returns if you were arguing the Bears the last couple of years? Unlikely...


I don't listen to KFAN much since I got XM radio so no comment.

Packers won at home by 5. I thought Arod looked good and hats off to the GB team in general. A game well played....after that horrible 1st quarter by both teams that is.

[Rastak]

I don't think you can go downfield at all if you aren't blocking anybody. It was a stupid play by Moll and the Vikings got lucky because they didn't do anything to force the penalty, but the officials got the call right.

On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people say we got lucky on the Shiancoe call, but completions are different than fumbles. Unless they changed the rule, the receiver has to catch the ball and make a football move. Otherwise, the receiver has to maintain possession even after he hits the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble, but the ground can cause an incompletion in that case.

They did drop the the stupid term football move last year actually.

[Chevelle2]

I don't think you can go downfield at all if you aren't blocking anybody. It was a stupid play by Moll and the Vikings got lucky because they didn't do anything to force the penalty, but the officials got the call right.

On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people say we got lucky on the Shiancoe call, but completions are different than fumbles. Unless they changed the rule, the receiver has to catch the ball and make a football move. Otherwise, the receiver has to maintain possession even after he hits the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble, but the ground can cause an incompletion in that case.

They did drop the the stupid term football move last year actually.

Hahah yeah, now its a "discernible length of time" hahah WTF

[Chevelle2]

I don't think you can go downfield at all if you aren't blocking anybody. It was a stupid play by Moll and the Vikings got lucky because they didn't do anything to force the penalty, but the officials got the call right.

From what I understand the penatly for illegal man downfield was Rodgers fault. I believe what happened was this:

He called a run play in the huddle. But, at the line, he audibled to a pass play. Now, in his audible, he checked off to the recievers.

Typically the QB throws the ball immediately after the snap. This time he pumped and waited for Driver to get downfield, during which time the o-linemen went out to run-block, still thinking it was a run play.

The olinemen, thinking it was still a run play, ran downfield to block, while, unbeknownst to them, Rodgers was back there slingin it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

From what I understand the penatly for illegal man downfield was Rodgers fault.

It sounds to me like McCarthy thinks Moll was at fault.

(The illegal downfield penalty on Moll, what is the rule?)

They give you a yard past...Based on my understanding and looking at the picture, the engagement of the block, he ended up falling forward and got too far downfield. But we should have been engaged there, that shouldn't have been a problem based on the defense and the way we were blocking it.

[Chevelle2]

From what I understand the penatly for illegal man downfield was Rodgers fault.

It sounds to me like McCarthy thinks Moll was at fault.

(The illegal downfield penalty on Moll, what is the rule?)

They give you a yard past...Based on my understanding and looking at the picture, the engagement of the block, he ended up falling forward and got too far downfield. But we should have been engaged there, that shouldn't have been a problem based on the defense and the way we were blocking it.

Thanks for the clarification!

[boiga]

They did drop the the stupid term football move last year actually.

Now they have to get two feet down and maintain control of the ball on the way to the ground. He didn't maintain control, and thus it was an incomplete pass. Good call there.

Moll fell forward after losing contact with the guy he was blocking more than 1 yard ahead of the line of scrimmage. He had to remain stationary after losing contact according to the rules I just posted. Ticky tack call.

[Bossman641]

From what I understand the penatly for illegal man downfield was Rodgers fault.

It sounds to me like McCarthy thinks Moll was at fault.

(The illegal downfield penalty on Moll, what is the rule?)

They give you a yard past...Based on my understanding and looking at the picture, the engagement of the block, he ended up falling forward and got too far downfield. But we should have been engaged there, that shouldn't have been a problem based on the defense and the way we were blocking it.

On the illegal man down field penalty, how far down the field is a lineman allowed to go while the quarterback is behind the line of scrimmage? Is there anything else affecting this call? --Max Salk, Northbrook, Ill.

Under NFL rules, it is a foul when an ineligible offensive player, including a T-formation quarterback, prior to a legal forward pass advances beyond the line of scrimmage after losing contact with an opponent at the line of scrimmage. The guidline for officials to use is the offending player must be more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage prior to the pass.

If you watch the replay, Moll wasn't engaged with anyone. I think he maybe doubled on the DE for a split second before moving downfield to find a LB. I think Moll should have stayed on his block longer, he didn't, hence the call.

[Brohm]

I don't think you can go downfield at all if you aren't blocking anybody. It was a stupid play by Moll and the Vikings got lucky because they didn't do anything to force the penalty, but the officials got the call right.

On the other hand, I've heard a lot of people say we got lucky on the Shiancoe call, but completions are different than fumbles. Unless they changed the rule, the receiver has to catch the ball and make a football move. Otherwise, the receiver has to maintain possession even after he hits the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble, but the ground can cause an incompletion in that case.

They did drop the the stupid term football move last year actually.

I thought it was a catch at first and was confident it would be overturned. However, when looking at the replay, it did look like the ball was coming out prior to him hitting the ground, thus the incompletion. Either they saw what I saw or have a much better angle. Or maybe is was just inconclusive and they gave a crappy explanation. Vikings got the 1st afterwards anyways but the loss of the timeout was a kicker for them.

[boiga]

I thought it was a catch at first and was confident it would be overturned. However, when looking at the replay, it did look like the ball was coming out prior to him hitting the ground, thus the incompletion. Either they saw what I saw or have a much better angle. Or maybe is was just inconclusive and they gave a crappy explanation. Vikings got the 1st afterwards anyways but the loss of the timeout was a kicker for them.

From my viewpoint, it looked like the ground caused the ball to come loose. But that doesn't matter. If he goes to the ground, he has to maintain control of the ball through the entire process.

It's the same as if he had gotten two feet in before falling out of bounds, and the ball came loose upon impact. They've made the rules a little more consistent by using the same criteria in both cases. Two feet down, maintain control going to the ground.

Edit: If any one is interested, here's Mike Pereira the NFL VP of Officiating discussing this and the force outs: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80a7b1bc

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just as important, Rodgers demonstrated leadership, poise, and good judgment. .

Plus he excelled in talent, and killed in the swimsuit competition.