Couple of points on the Ref calls in the game

[knighthonor]

This is the only thing I have a problem with in this thread.

 

It was a clear cheap shot, no one even tried to play during that sequence or attempt to block Cox, watch the replay. Cox then goes and launches into Cousins sending him to the ground with Cox's body weight on top.

 

Not only that, but Kirk Cousins was standing straight up, not even trying to throw or maneuver in the pocket. Clear cheap shot. 

 

I don't get how that isn't called a penalty, during a DEAD BALL... but Baker makes a LEGAL block on Foles and it's called a penalty? That makes absolutely no sense. With that said, I'll be the first to admit that Baker's block was a cheap shot, and was clearly retaliation... but it was a perfectly legal block. How does a flag get thrown and then an ejection? 

 

That's the only part of the game that I'm still puzzled on. The rest of the calls during the game were pretty standard, in my opinion.

This is what I want to know as well

[Hersh]

I'm still confused at the apparent conflicts in the rules but glad to see Baker vindicated. Keep hitting!

 

Well, I was wrong about how the NFL interprets this rule. It's definitely a difference from the NCAA.

 

The way they NFL writes the rule, they talk about unnecessary contact, but then talk separately about prohibited contact. That's where I think you and I agree it doesn't make sense.

[Stadium-Armory]

Well, I was wrong about how the NFL interprets this rule. It's definitely a difference from the NCAA.

 

The way they NFL writes the rule, they talk about unnecessary contact, but then talk separately about prohibited contact. That's where I think you and I agree it doesn't make sense.

 

And we're not the only ones. These guys are having a similar conversation about it, quoting the same rule sets and calling out that same inconsistency we did.  Except they're Eagles fans bemoaning the call being overturned by the NFL. There are a couple interesting videos in that thread, one from the NFL that gives video examples of defenseless players including QBs after a possession change. In summary, lots of confusion and apparent inconsistency. That said, Baker sounded pretty confident in his understanding of the rule(s) and was proved correct so maybe its just us laypeople who are confused.

[DixieFlatline]

And we're not the only ones. These guys are having a similar conversation about it, quoting the same rule sets and calling out that same inconsistency we did.  Except they're Eagles fans bemoaning the call being overturned by the NFL. There are a couple interesting videos in that thread, one from the NFL that gives video examples of defenseless players including QBs after a possession change. In summary, lots of confusion and apparent inconsistency. That said, Baker sounded pretty confident in his understanding of the rule(s) and was proved correct so maybe its just us laypeople who are confused.

Sorry..I haven't read the whole thread so maybe this has been covered, but this was my understanding of the rule after some research Sunday night.

 

1.  A QB is defined as a defenseless player as soon as there is a change of possession.

2.  Then there are rules for what types of hits you can put on a defenseless player....the most important of which is hitting high in the head and neck region.

 

So while Foles was defined as defenseless, the hit Baker gave was legal because it didn't go high.

 

At least that is how I interpret it.

[emor09]

Ahh, love the NFL apologies. 

 

It happened in 2012 when they blew the whistle on a DeAngelo Williams TD run, it happened last year when we were awarded a 1st down against the Giants and then lost it. 

 

Sadly, it doesn't help us at all. 

[SkinsFTW]

Sorry..I haven't read the whole thread so maybe this has been covered, but this was my understanding of the rule after some research Sunday night.

 

1.  A QB is defined as a defenseless player as soon as there is a change of possession.

2.  Then there are rules for what types of hits you can put on a defenseless player....the most important of which is hitting high in the head and neck region.

 

So while Foles was defined as defenseless, the hit Baker gave was legal because it didn't go high.

 

At least that is how I interpret it.

 

 Yeah people were going crazy acting like a defensive player can't be hit. He just can't he knocked out Merriweather style. Baker just thumped him in the chest, right?

 

I'm sure the reason that rule exists is players took those plays as an opportunity to decapitate the QB's like we've seen so many times and thats why guys like Brady usually just stand there and watch.

[bradboyd80]

 Baker just thumped him in the chest, right?

 

Yes.  Clean shot right into the chest.  

 

Very surprised to not see a fine at the minimum though; in the past, this stuff never seemed to go our way. 

[TheGreek1973]

So yesterday I am at work discussing the game with a friend who also refs high schools games in the area. Die heart Puke fan and his comment was you guys are getting robbed this year by the refs. He pointed out the horrid calls in the Texans and Jaguar games with us loosing the challenges on Roberts and DJ passes. He said he couldn't figure out what the hell the refs were looking at on the field and then the replay. But he also said there were numerous plays where the OL of the Eagles were not just holding, they were mucking our players. He also said when holding calls are not called like this it gives the green light for the OL to continue holding even more aggressively aand that is what happened in the game. If a couple of holding calls were called early he said you guys probably get 5 or 6 sacks in that game.

This has got to stop, we can't be loosing close games because the refs are bias and please don't tell me they are not. Again a bunch of 3rd stringers didn't allow a single sack against a DL that got 10 the game before. What are the odds for that?

[SkinsFTW]

But he also said there were numerous plays where the OL of the Eagles were not just holding, they were mucking our players. He also said when holding calls are not called like this it gives the green light for the OL to continue holding even more aggressively aand that is what happened in the game. If a couple of holding calls were called early he said you guys probably get 5 or 6 sacks in that game.

This has got to stop, we can't be loosing close games because the refs are bias and please don't tell me they are not. Again a bunch of 3rd stringers didn't allow a single sack against a DL that got 10 the game before. What are the odds for that?

 

Thats what i noticed when i rewatched the game on my pc where i can pause it and see whats going on. On just about any play that i stopped right before foles threw the ball, and i did check alot of the big plays, td's and 3rds they converted, just about every single one of them either Kerrigan, Hatcher, or Orakpo had gotten past their guy and the dude was literally hanging off their backs with BOTH ARMS. At least 1 play Kerrigan HAD Foles while the OL guy was hanging  off Kerrigans back the entire time and dragged Kerrigan to the ground as Foles got away and made a big play. Aikman was commenting on that play when they replayed it and acted like that wasn't even something he noticed at all but it was all you could see on the screen.

 

One one of those 2nd qtr TD's down the middle to their rookie receiver Foles gets the ball out quick but pause it and look at Hatcher, he's already past his dude with the OLman hanging off his waist with both arms. It's a joke really. This is all Roger Goodell I guarantee it.

 

I just have to figure that not only is the league just not calling holding anymore but they've told the broadcasting guys to just act like there is no such rule because they don't even seem to notice it either. Thats why its such a joke when somebody on our DL gets called for pushing in the back when they haven't even called a single hold on their OL all game.

 

Somebody needs to teach Polumbus that spin around and dangle off the dudes ass move that the Eagles OL has perfected IMO.

[grego]

Sorry..I haven't read the whole thread so maybe this has been covered, but this was my understanding of the rule after some research Sunday night.

 

1.  A QB is defined as a defenseless player as soon as there is a change of possession.

2.  Then there are rules for what types of hits you can put on a defenseless player....the most important of which is hitting high in the head and neck region.

 

So while Foles was defined as defenseless, the hit Baker gave was legal because it didn't go high.

 

At least that is how I interpret it.

 

 

my best guess is that, although foles is automatically considered defenseless by rule, by his proximity to the play - and moving towards it, putting himself in a position to make a play- made him eligible to be blocked.

[Burgold]

Guys, stop making stuff up.  The only thing said on the field by the refs was that Baker was being penalized for the hit on Foles.  They never explained the reason for his ejection.  Refs screwed the Redskins over and over again in a way that almost seemed malicious. The one-sidedness of the calls and the overlooking of Eagles missteps was terrible.  More, that Freudian moment when the ref tried to oust only Redskins from the game was telling.  The refs had it out for us.  Now, some won't believe that, but they are the same people who swore, who insisted that the hit on Foles was a dirty hit and was always a penalty. 

 

Glad I stuck to my guns on this one especially to all those who kept citing the "rules" at me.

[SkinsFTW]

First play of the 2nd half, 15 yard pass to Maclin, well before the pass Hatcher gets past the center and what does the center do? He falls on top of him and lays there, no flag with the ref staring right at it.

 

2 plays later on 3rd down Kerrigan sacks foles but they call a BS holding on Robinson because he touched a receiver 2-3 yards from the LOS. Next play was the hold on Biggers on an uncatchable pass for 40ish yards. Then we stop them they get 3 pts off a bunch of BS calls.

 

I just have a feeling its not even worth looking more at the 2nd half. The fix was obviously in too bad Cousins couldn't make a single play on that last drive but I'm sure some kind of penalty would've been called lol.

[Thinking Skins]

Guys, stop making stuff up.  The only thing said on the field by the refs was that Baker was being penalized for the hit on Foles.  They never explained the reason for his ejection.  Refs screwed the Redskins over and over again in a way that almost seemed malicious. The one-sidedness of the calls and the overlooking of Eagles missteps was terrible.  More, that Freudian moment when the ref tried to oust only Redskins from the game was telling.  The refs had it out for us.  Now, some won't believe that, but they are the same people who swore, who insisted that the hit on Foles was a dirty hit and was always a penalty. 

 

Glad I stuck to my guns on this one especially to all those who kept citing the "rules" at me.

 

I just joined this thread, and I'm not going to read through the 300+ posts, but I found it interesting on radio the number of people who were citing rules to explain why Baker was wrong. I was surprised to hear Gruden and Baker stick up for the play, then more surprised to hear Vincent come out and say it was legit. Sad that we lost the guy after that play. Want to hear what some of the talking heads have to say now.

[Burgold]

Yeah, you and I were a couple of Don Quioxtes there for a while.

[Old Bay]

Glad I stuck to my guns on this one especially to all those who kept citing the "rules" at me.

 

I ran out of likes in this thread, but wanted to say I'd like your post.

 

I remember when Kearse got hurt and Eagles fans were booing it because they thought he was slowing things down.  I thought it was because he just got his legs taken out when clipped by a Philly lineman....

[grego]

Want to hear what some of the talking heads have to say now.

 

just been browsing the web, looking at all the articles calling the hit "dirty".

 

cant find any apologies, though.

 

weird.

[2v2nv]

I'd rather get a W than an apology. These refs have got to get it right on the field. We're not a good enough team yet to beat the other team AND the refs.

[Hersh]

Guys, stop making stuff up.  The only thing said on the field by the refs was that Baker was being penalized for the hit on Foles.  They never explained the reason for his ejection.  Refs screwed the Redskins over and over again in a way that almost seemed malicious. The one-sidedness of the calls and the overlooking of Eagles missteps was terrible.  More, that Freudian moment when the ref tried to oust only Redskins from the game was telling.  The refs had it out for us.  Now, some won't believe that, but they are the same people who swore, who insisted that the hit on Foles was a dirty hit and was always a penalty. 

 

Glad I stuck to my guns on this one especially to all those who kept citing the "rules" at me.

 

You're right. I don't believe in BS conspiracy theories about officials having it out for the Redskins and I'm surprised to read that from you. Some of y'all should get into officiating for any sport. It's a very different perspective.

[Burgold]

No mea culpa?  I'm surprised too.  I guess you disagree with the NFL.

 

I try not too, but I've seen way too many one-sided games.  Part of me truly believes that professional wrestling has become more honest in its officiating.

[2v2nv]

You're right. I don't believe in BS conspiracy theories about officials having it out for the Redskins and I'm surprised to read that from you. Some of y'all should get into officiating for any sport. It's a very different perspective.

I have to admit that I always thought people who cried refs were absolutely out of their mind but I'm starting to at least understand why someone would do it now. When you look back at the last 2 or 3 years, we get absolutely destroyed by refs in VERY VERY crucial moments. I honestly feel that whether on purpose or not, the refs rarely ever give us the benefit of the doubt.

A perfect example of this is when Cousins illegally gets destroyed by Cox. Yea he might not have known the play was called dead, he might have know, either way he was given the benefit of the doubt. Later that same game, we LEGALLY hit Foles and all hell breaks loose. We lose a starter and get penalties.

Another example of this was when they miss a PI on us. I'm thinking "shew they missed it" then we get flagged 20 seconds after the play is called dead.

When I'm in zskins tinychat, people in there are screaming hold and block in the back on our opponents. Rewind it and look. Sure enough they are right 90% of the time. Then we barely do any of this stuff and a hundred flags are thrown and all the refs huddle up to figure out what they are going to hit us with.

I'm honestly getting so sick of the NFL because my team gets royally screwed a lot. They always do their best to fight back but can never do it. I can PROMISE that I'll never spend any money on nfl products until I can sit and watch a game without getting furious from these calls.

I'm not screaming conspiracy yet but I am getting flipping tired of the bs that has been going on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again we can barely win when we're playing our normal opponents, much less the refs. We're simply just not good enough.

[MartinC]

Guys, stop making stuff up.  The only thing said on the field by the refs was that Baker was being penalized for the hit on Foles.  They never explained the reason for his ejection.  Refs screwed the Redskins over and over again in a way that almost seemed malicious. The one-sidedness of the calls and the overlooking of Eagles missteps was terrible.  More, that Freudian moment when the ref tried to oust only Redskins from the game was telling.  The refs had it out for us.  Now, some won't believe that, but they are the same people who swore, who insisted that the hit on Foles was a dirty hit and was always a penalty. 

 

Glad I stuck to my guns on this one especially to all those who kept citing the "rules" at me.

 

Yep you were vindicated on this one - but the NFL need to look closely at how the rules around this are written because its far from clear the way the rules are written right now.

[asoccerplayer99]

This is the nonsense that causes me to lose interest in the NFL. I told the local Skins bar owner the same thing- watching teams move the ball down the field in exactly 5 and 15 yard increments is going to cost him my business. I have better things to do and spend money on than watch flag football, especially when the refs pick and choose who they want to be tough on. If I hear "point of emphasis" one more time as justification for some idiotic penalty against us, but not against some NFL darling team, I'm out.

[grego]

You're right. I don't believe in BS conspiracy theories about officials having it out for the Redskins and I'm surprised to read that from you. Some of y'all should get into officiating for any sport. It's a very different perspective.

 

 

what, specifically, was your basis for thinking it was a penalty again?

[Hersh]

what, specifically, was your basis for thinking it was a penalty again?

 

The beginning of the rule about unecessary roughness starts with the phrase unnecessary contact on a defenseless player. It lists defenseless player situations then lists prohibited contact. Based on what the NFL said yesterday the rule should state from the beginning that unnecessary roughness is prohibited contact on a defenseless player. I don't know if they leave it purposely vague with the terms unnecessary contact vs prohibited contact, but they can definitely mean two very different things.

 

So, from the officials perspective, you see a player being tackled and simultaneously you see a QB get crushed. The QB was near the play, was slowing down and wasn't about to make a tackle nor was in a tackling position. To me, I would see it with the term unnecessary contact on a defenseless player.

 

Anyway, I enjoy discussing it and I don't mind being wrong about it. I just don't believe at all in officiating conspiracy theories in football cause the live action speed is so much faster than it might appear on TV vs being on the field. 

[grego]

The beginning of the rule about unecessary roughness starts with the phrase unnecessary contact on a defenseless player. It lists defenseless player situations then lists prohibited contact. Based on what the NFL said yesterday the rule should state from the beginning that unnecessary roughness is prohibited contact on a defenseless player. I don't know if they leave it purposely vague with the terms unnecessary contact vs prohibited contact, but they can definitely mean two very different things.

 

So, from the officials perspective, you see a player being tackled and simultaneously you see a QB get crushed. The QB was near the play, was slowing down and wasn't about to make a tackle nor was in a tackling position. To me, I would see it with the term unnecessary contact on a defenseless player.

 

 

 

 

i gotcha. 

 

i guess it comes down to a judgement call on whether foles was close enough to be considered involved in the play. 

 

had foles not been so close to the play (i dont know what too far would be) and running/jogging towards it, and had the contact been a few moments later, i'd have said it was unneccesary. 

 

i think alot of people jumped quickly to call it dirty cuz its a particularly large player throwing a block very well on a player who wasnt aware it was coming. it 'looks' like a hit the NFL would like to outlaw, at least when it comes to QBs, but was technically legal when foles is judged to be making himself involved in the play. kind of a perfect storm.