Video: The Phantom Trip
Given the amount of discussion on this play, I want to point people to video of Jeff Dugan's tripping penalty. The play, which set in motion a 14-point turnaround, is at the 1:45 mark. The commentators realize what we all knew at the time: It was an absolutely terrible call. Shame it affected the game as it did.
26 days ago
Anthony21
43 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yeah, what a shame.
I was pleased with the way the Vikings controlled this game. Favre was not very sharp today, but the defense really held their own. You know, there are bad calls in every game and the Vikings have had them go both ways, but this penalty was one of the worst I have seen. Oh well, if the defense play like they did today, the Vikes will have no problem beating the Packers next week.
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Oct 25, 2009 8:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Get Used To It
I really thought the Vikings had potential this year until they indulged Favre. For those of us who are objective and don’t crush on #4, seriously what has the man done since my Broncos beat the Packers in Super Bowl 32? Look at that statement objectively. Let’s see, he cost the Packers a Super Bowl berth with costly turnovers in the NFC Championship Game against the Giants and melted down for the Jets last year. Sorry, Vikes, I really like your team but I am an adamant Favre hater. I know that Kyle Orton wouldn’t get stripped like that. He never does anything stupid. Of course, Dugan’s mistake hurts but Vikes fans better hope and pray AD can be the mail carrier. He won’t let you down.
Brad James
by the Bradfather on Oct 26, 2009 7:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess preseason really matters
It would behoove you to know that the Broncos are 6-0, thanks IN NO SMALL PART to Orton’s 9 TD/1 INT ratio. That’s something Favre can’t claim. There are two or three passes Favre throws every week that should easily be intercepted. That old tool sure gets lucky a lot. Watch him choke.
Brad James
by the Bradfather on Oct 26, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously a hater for the sake of being a hater
What has Kyle Orton done that Favre has not in terms of Championships, or even playoff games? Peyton Manning “only” has 1 SB victory since 1998, too!
Have you forgotten the SF game already? The Vikes would have fewer wins without Favre at QB by this time this year.
Also, did you miss his 3 TD passes which weren’t because the receivers (Rice, Kleinsasser on 2 of them) dropped the ball? Or the INT that happened because CT couldn’t haul in a pass which hit him on the hands? Where is the hate for those guys?
Speaking of Sidney Rice, he sure looks much better with Favre than the bust of a WR we thought we saw with TJ and Frerotte.
I hated Favre until he became a Viking, and he’s still no Culpepper of 5+ years ago to me, but there is no question that Favre is the best Vikings QB since Culpepper.
by KC Viking on Oct 26, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I Hated Favre Until He Became A Viking"
Exactly, you condemn yourself.
Brad James
by the Bradfather on Oct 26, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we would have 3 losses without Favre
I’m glad to have him
http://twinkietalk.com
http://thecollegehockeyblog.com
by fetch9 on Oct 26, 2009 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sharp Sunday?
All he did was complete 2/3 of his passes, including another 100+ yards to Sidney Rice (he who gained more receiving yards in week 6 of this year with Favre than all of last year with TJ/Frerotte and more through 7 games in ‘09 as he caught in 2007 and 2008 combined) and 2-3 would-be TDs dropped in the end zone (Kleinsasser and Rice were 2 of the guilty parties). Yes, this was a bad game for Favre (76.8 rating), and that is still better than Tarvaris Jackson’s or Gus Frerotte’s or Kyle Orton’s career ratings. For the season, Favre has completed 69% of his passes for a rating over 100, and he is a top 5 QB by comp% and rating.
I don’t know what you mean about the Vikings controlling the game, either. The Vikings were behind at the end of the 1st quarter. They were behind again at the end of the 2nd quarter. They trailed again in the 3rd quarter, and they lost because they never caught up. They passed more than they ran. The Vikings appear to have controlled the time of possession, but the Steelers obviously didn’t need as much time to do more damage.
Cedric Griffin failed to tackle Santonio Holmes (after he failed to stop the completion in the first place, of course) which led to that huge gain on the highlight reel. Considering that he is the Vikings’ “good cornerback” (I can’t believe I just wrote that), I shudder to think what will happen vs. the Packers’ receivers in what was a shootout last time.
by KC Viking on Oct 26, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, Favre had a great game. After a slow start, he adjusted and went 25 of 31 in the second half.
We controlled everything about the game, except for the score. Time of possession, first downs, third down conversions etc.
Don’t forget, Griffin was not the only missed tackle. Paymah and Sapp missed as well. Griffin ultimately made the tackle at he end of the play, but he has been a pretty solid tackler otherwise.
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bad calls happen.
But it is a shame when they are this blatant.
I know the can of worms that would be opened if we were to allow penalties to be reviewed, but there should be some sort of “blatant idiocy” rule where if it is THAT obvious something can be done about it.
The outcome of these games are too important not to have something like this. It is the very reason that replay is allowed in NFL games and is not used in Baseball(save for home runs), Basketball and other sports where one loss to a bad call is not as damaging because there are over 100 other games that they still have to play.
It will only take a few more of this type of call to happen in order for something to be done.
by Bjorno on Oct 25, 2009 9:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Stupid call or not
We did defeat ourselves. Yes, the call was horrid, even the Steelers fans here cringed, but we did give it to them. Farve fumbled, we had the freak ball caught for an INT, we committed 10 penalties (not counting the idiot call) and we gave up 4 sacks. The D did well considering the blunders, but the guys need to shore up those penalties, hold onto the ball better and we still have a slight issue giving up some big yards on pass plays. It could have been alot worse then what it was and even with the gaff’s, take away the freak INT at the end, it was only a 3 point game with us marching towards a TD at that point. Think and hope there is some work in those areas this week before the much hyped trip to Lambeau
"That is the craziest sonofabitch I ever saw, how many more like him do you think are up there?"
by VikesFaninNM on Oct 25, 2009 9:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree.
And I’m always extremely reluctant to blame a loss on the refs, as doing so is typically nothing more than a cop out for a team’s poor performance. The Vikings did did shoot themselves in the foot on offense through legit penalties, and you can’t blame the refs for the two big turnovers. Nor can the refs be blamed for defensive lapses at the end of the first half or the Vikings’ inability to punch the ball in from the one yardline in the third quarter. But this call completely changed the course of the game. I’ll blame the Vikings themselves for the loss before I blame the refs, but this call had a much more significant impact on the game than the vast majority of blown calls do.
by Anthony21 on Oct 25, 2009 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am also
unwilling to blame a loss on the refs, as bad calls happen all of the time. But this call was really bad…as bad as they come. I really believe that the ref that threw the flag needs to be put through some more training. Does anyone know who the ref was and how long he has been doing it?
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Oct 25, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll blame the Vikings themselves for the loss before I blame the refs, but this call had a much more significant impact on the game than the vast majority of blown calls do.
Exactly. The whole paragraph was spot on Anthony21. Momentum shifts are a bigger deal than the NFL refs would care to admit. Could someone explain the D in first half? The second half I thought they played well; technically, the defense only gave up 14 points…and we scored 17 (should have been 24 after the travesty “tripping” call).
You know what though? As I was watching I never felt like the Vikings were going to back away or give up. This team has a different mentality than in past years. I think we come out fired up and corrected next week.
by cutlassbob on Oct 25, 2009 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
3-4 dropped/deflected passes which the players can control > 1 weak referree call.
I didn’t like the call, but it was a low block, and I couldn’t tell from the angle I saw whether it had included a bit of spearing, too. I’m not siding with the ref, just saying that it was far from the worst call I’ve seen.
by KC Viking on Oct 26, 2009 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The bottom line is, we needed to make enough plays to prevent a loss from a Ref’s mistake or a pick six, and we simply did not.
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the uninitiated its called a leg whip
Conrad Dobler made a career out of the old school move Dugan tried. Do you really believe a professional athled gets 2 legs on one of the best pass rushers in football by accident??? Dugan is a bum who leg whipped when his poor attempt at a cut block was defeated. Go watch some 70’s games, they didnt call then but it is against the rules now.
Place the blame where it belongs in the wretched hands of 29.
by Sterling Sharpe on Oct 26, 2009 12:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Slap whatever label you want on it - it still wasn't a penalty
You can toss out all the all-knowing platitudes you’d like but if you watch the video, he does nothing unusual with his legs. He did a lower block, nothing more.
Sh1tty call, changed the game and then they got a ridiculously lucky deflection of the Favre pass. If you look at how many near interceptions we had and the near fumble recovery at a critical time, we could’ve easily won this game by a large margin. Any other Sunday we’d have won this game big-time.
Hard to really give the Steelers props at all, in light of that.
I thought Favre did very well and honestly we had too many receivers dropping the ball at the slightest hint of contact.
The only mistake made by our offense, really, was on the final drive we should’ve been pounding the ball with AP much more – he was clearly destroying the Steelers defense.
by Wytefang on Oct 26, 2009 7:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
No credit to Pitts? You serious man? I’m watchin the game now, and I gotta say.. its looks like they handled the Vikes pretty well, exposed them where they’re weak, and made adjustments where the Vikes just went into desperation mode.
This is what happens sometimes when you ask Favre to win you the game.
by PackaCracka on Oct 26, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can toss out all the all-knowing platitudes you’d like but if you watch the video, he does nothing unusual with his legs. He did a lower block, nothing more.
Come on man. While the call was ticky-tack, there is no denying that he did fling his legs up after he whiffed on the block.
by packallday555 on Oct 26, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes there is denying that.
Look at the video again, and again. He made contact with his hip, and his feet did not come more than a foot off the ground.
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No a leg whip needs to make contact with the player.
Leg whip, as per NFL rulebook definition:
“(A) Striking an opponent anywhere ABOVE the knee with the foot or any part of the leg below the knee with a whipping motion.”
Watch the video. He did not contact him with his legs at ANY point during the block, nor did he trip him as outlined here:
Rule 3 section 38:
"Tripping is the use of the leg or foot in obstructing any opponent (including a runner) below the knee".
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I have no idea
what I may not have “initiated”, but Dugan definitely did not commit a leg whip.
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Oct 26, 2009 12:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
Meant for Sharpe
"Skol pa fiskande"
by NobleSavage on Oct 26, 2009 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Leg Whip
I heard from the guys on KFAN that while Dugan shouldn’t have been called for tripping, he was doing something illegal called a leg whip, which is what the commenter above was referring to.
I’m not familiar with the rule, but I won’t be quick to cry foul until I go out and do some research.
by peterplaysbass on Oct 26, 2009 7:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
I heard this too, and it was “the Superstar” Mike Morris who said this. Considering he played in the NFL as a lineman, I would assume he is familiar with the rule.
by packallday555 on Oct 26, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but the rule states if you STRIKE the opponent with your foot or, and this is the kicker, ANY PART OF THE LEG BELOW THE KNEE.
He did not make contact with the defender with any part of his body, other than the hip.
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was a trip
The TE went for a cut block, steeler jumped over him. TE then kicks out foot to stop him. I think that is the definition of a trip. If you see the video, you’ll see Dugan’s feet alter that guy’s trajectory. If the commentator doesn’t understand physics, doesn’t automatically make it a “Phantom” call.
by LoveBoat1 on Oct 26, 2009 9:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep. I see the video right now and the only thing that altered Harrison’s trajectory was Dugan’s hip.
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Intent
This isn’t the Tom Brady rule, Dugan clearly intended to make a legitimate block and he can’t control the linebacker’s decision to jump and hit his feet, it’s incidental contact. Just like in the Pass Interference rule, if it’s not intentional it’s not a penalty.
I’m usually the first one to say you can’t blame refs for a loss, but it’s hard not to think about that when they take points off the board in the 4th quarter. As ref you’re not supposed to change the outcome of the game.
by cdubs on Oct 26, 2009 9:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Look at the video again. If Harrison hadn’t jumped, what part of Dugan’s body would contact Harrison. His legs. A cut block is not with your legs.
by LoveBoat1 on Oct 26, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harrison jumped because Dugan’s hip hit him.
He did not make contact with Harrison with any part of his leg, therefore is NOT a leg whip.
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't let this be your reason for losing
What about that terrible missed call for holding on the kickoff return by Harvin? Go back and watch that play and you will see a Vikings player running sideways with two handfuls of Steeler jersey. It is clearly in the picture and I saw it on live TV and even called for the holding, and I hate the Steelers. So if that was called, you might have lost the game by 17 points, and I dont think this argument would be brought up.
As for the tripping call, it was the right call. That type of block should be illegal to begin with. He never even attempted to block Harrison, but rather just go for the knees. And he knew he missed, so he stuck his legs up. It is instinct, but also not allowed in this league. You lost to the Superbowl champions, deal with it and take it to GB next time.
Limp and dangling.
by Joe Flaccid on Oct 26, 2009 9:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s not.
We need to make enough plays so that the game CAN’T be decided by a bad call or a fluke play.
Sorry, but the tripping call was a bad call. It is called a cut block and is PERFECTLY acceptable under the rules.
Tripping, as stated in the rulebook:
"Tripping is the use of the leg or foot in obstructing any opponent (including a runner) below the knee" He made contact with his hip.
by Bjorno on Oct 26, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
bad calls WENT BOTH WAYS.
the bad calls went both ways. heath miller knocks a guy half his size down and no one bothers to care? seriously…he wasnt even looking, he turned. thats considered INCIDENTAL contact. even if the person falls, if its not intentional its not pass interference. not to mention both were away and not in play for the ball. there were far more defenders closer to holmes to make the play against him than the db who fell was. that was a bad call.
how about the holding on the run back by harvin? that was bad call as well. look stuff happens, but dont take away plays. im posting because someone decided to say that if it were not for these penalties we(steelers) would have lost. i disagree. there were silly mistakes and bad call on both sides.
first, the heath miller penalty(that was A TD)
then our fumble(again we made mistakes too) at the 5 yard line. chances are the way things were going we’d have points up there(at the least a field goal) but oh no mendenhall tried to pull an AP-he’s amazing btw, I hate william gay-thats going to be a highlight reel for decades.
then you guys claim it was bad call on the tripping-rule book says its intentional, not necessarily succesful tripping(i.e. contact need not apply)…but it goes either way, lets say it is A BAD call…in fact, lets say we dont get both defensive touchdowns. and instead you get both touchdowns. whats the score with all these IFS AND BUTS??
steelers, up by 21 points if you add 4 to the field goal we had to settle for. add another 7 if we actually got the touchdown instead of a stupid fumble. now add 14 to the 10 points you originally had(exculding the kick off return which was holding) and so you’re up 24 to 21. and who knows how much time was remaining either way for a steelers field goal or a defensive stop. again, im actually giving you 14 points on the defensive touchdowns we got assuming you manage to get A TOUCHDOWN at least one more time instead of the second defensive touchdown we had…and assuming we get another touchdown for ourselves(instead of the fumble).
if you look at goal line successes. we actually went inside and scored just as much as you did(if you include the TD that was called back by tripping).
all in all this was a close game. did favre throw far more? yes, but most passes were under the zone coverage and to the sidelines on screen passes. things happen. you know? both teams played well. honestly if we played 10 times we’d win 5 you’d win 5. how many teams have bottled up your running game. we’re the only team to have done so.
give credit where credit is due!
by surag238 on Oct 26, 2009 10:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Carefuly My Friend...
While you’re right, the Favre apologists will claim you’re a heretic. It’s a shame that you could be burned at the stake for sharing this opinion in Viking land. As an objective Broncos fan (speaking of the teams cumulatively, I hate Favre with a passion), I watched this game on DVR and it appears bad calls went both ways like every other game. Good teams find a way to overcome them. There’s no good reason that the Vikings didn’t at the least get a Ryan Longwell field goal attempt. Of course, St. Brett eradicated all chance of that with his fumble. Oh my gosh, I’m a sinner. I said Brett Favre makes mistakes. Forgive me Lord Sovereign #4!
Brad James
by the Bradfather on Oct 26, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
how many teams have bottled up your running game. we’re the only team to have done so.
by Jugurtha on Oct 26, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I learned this week and recently
The Vikings haven’t played very well vs. quality competition.
The Steelers stopped AP. The passing game stopped itself by dropping and deflecting passes and getting penalized. Cedric Griffin couldn’t shut down Santonio Holmes (of course) or even tackle him to prevent a ginormous gain. The Vikings trailed by the end of every quarter of this game.
The Ravens were a better kicker away from defeating the Vikings the previous week after scoring 21 points in the 4th. Remember how terrible the Ravens were with Kyle Boller? Joe Flacco must be for real. The Vikings couldn’t stop him with his modest cast of receivers. At least the Vikings led at the end of each quarter.
Speaking of Kyle Boller, the Vikings didn’t own and dominate the Rams enough to feel great about that win, either. Same with the Browns, who GB absolutely trounced, 31-3.
I don’t know if SF or GB will still look like a quality opponent by the end of the year, but the Vikings barely won those shootouts and the Packers are probably the favorite to win the next matchup.
Bottom line: in order to win 1 or more playoff games this year, the Vikings must play better vs. quality teams. Despite their 6-1 record now, I imagine a 10-6 season or 11-5 at best.
by KC Viking on Oct 26, 2009 12:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding me?
Who on our roster says ’’defeat’’ to you? The hardest games of our schedual are over.
by Jepp The Viking on Oct 26, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
GB: this time will also be a shootout without Winfield preventing the extra TD or three.
CHI: will win at least 1 vs. the Vikings because they almost always do.
ARI: got off to a poor start but should be better on D and just as good on O to beat the Vikings. They won’t be hung over like the last time the Vikes played them, and if the 6 week report is accurate, Winfield will still not be 100% by the time of this game.
CIN: is for real this year.
NYG: has been for real for some time, although they may be playing their backups again.
Those would make it a 10-6 season, and the Lions or Panthers could still pull off an upset, too. Ultimately, I think it will be a 10-6 record again, maybe beating the Giants but losing to the Lions or Bears a second time or Panthers who are oddly very much the same team as last year’s playoff contender.
by KC Viking on Oct 26, 2009 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Vikings have not even come close to playing a complete game...
if they ever do and the Refs actually open their eyes and call equally nitty gritty calls on both teams, the Vikings will be very good.
Whether that team emerges relies a lot in part to the coaching staff calling a good game… which i don’t know will ever happen. If the Vikings get a lead they need to be like the Patriots and run the score up… not play Chilly Prevent (wk4, wk6)
The Vikings need to execute better, but still Giving Away a victory to the Steelers who paid the Refs (jk), while not having Winefield or Berrian is impressive. Imagine the Steelers without Polamalu or Ward… oh wait we didn’t see Ward but once, when he got hit hard by Paymah and never really caught a pass after.
by solafide on Oct 26, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
stealers
haha its so funny how everyone thinks BF and the Vikings are done cuz of 1 loss. Correct me if im wrong, but id rather go into Gb with 1 loss and hungry for some rodgers. We are going to dismantle whatever it is they have for a defense, and again, or D-line will dominate. Ps. they didnt call hardly any of the holding penalites against the “stealers”.
smoke em' if you got em'
by Torch24 on Oct 26, 2009 1:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
