Much dismay and hand-wringing did, and continues to, occur as a result of the 16 penalties levied against our beloved Raiders. I do not dismiss penalties as something endearing or distinctly Raider but do think we need to look at those penalties more closely and (if you're inclined) consider them in the context of when they occurred.
First of all, the Raiders are assuming the identity of, for lack of a better term, Bullies (though I'd prefer Ruthless Agents of Dominance and Humiliation) and as such are going to push the envelope a bit. Sure enough Oakland did just that in Denver.
Desmond Bryant - Unnecessary Roughness X 2
Rolando McClain - Unnecessary Roughness X 2
Matt Shaughnessy - Roughing the Passer
These 5 (of the 16 penalties) I rate as positive achievements to be encouraged and praised (parents should take note of them and instruct their children to emulate them accordingly). These types of penalties are going to happen when a team 'cuts it loose" , assumes the Alpha Dog mode and goes Medieval.
Next, we have the 5 Gray Area penalties, assessed, perhaps, by overzealous officials performing their duties under the effeminate administration of the Pink Commissioner.
Chris Johnson - Illegal Contact
Stanford Routt - Pass Interference
Stanford Rout - Holding
Stefen Wizniewski - Holding (actually a Greco-Roman take-down)
DeMarcus Van Dyke - Holding
The remaining 6 penalties were admittedly distasteful in that mental weakness was their cause -lack of concentration.
Stefen Wizniewski - False Start
Stephon Heyer - False Start X 2
Darren McFadden - False Start
Trevor Scott - Offside
Joe Porter - Offside
And so I ask each and all, do not lump all penalties into the same heap; some are good penalties (clear signs of good health) while others are not.
Thank you, and God Bless Hue!
Are penalties necessarily bad?
Depends on what the penalty is for and its context in the game (932 votes)
Yes, because the rules are never to be broken. (192 votes)
1124 total votes