Couple of points on the Ref calls in the game

[Stadium-Armory]

Wait a second.  The QB is considered defenseless even in the case where he is running towards the ball carrier attempting to possibly tackle them?

 

I Understand if the QB is just standing there, removing himself from the play, but how does it make any sense that a defender can not block a QB who is trying to tackle the ball carrier?

 

Makes zero sense.

 

The rule does not specifically cover the scenario where a QB is trying to make the tackle after an INT and I assume it is this way on purpose. If it is not, they should consider adding a clause to cover situations where QBs participate in the play going the other way because you're right it seems unfair.

[chipwhich]

The rule does not specifically cover the scenario where a QB is trying to make the tackle after an INT and I assume it is this way on purpose. If it is not, they should consider adding a clause to cover situations where QBs participate in the play going the other way because you're right it seems unfair.

 

Or our players could just understand the rules. 

[emor09]

I can't believe people are arguing whether or not 1 knee = 2 feet. This makes our fan base look bad.

[Eparadox]

This situation is covered by Rule 12, Section 2, Article 13(7) Per NFL rules, a QB is defenseless "in the event of a change of possession during the down, until he assumes a distinctly defensive position".  Once the QB becomes a defender, he is also afforded other special protection, as listed below.  Foles obviously assumed a defensive position, was running toward the ballrunner, was not blindsided, was hit before the whistle was blown, was not hit in the head or neck area, and was not hit with the top/crown of the helment...legal hit

 

A passer who is standing still or fading backward after the ball has left his hand is obviously out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by an opponent through the end of the down or until the passer becomes a blocker, or a runner, or, in the event of a change of possession during the down, until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. However, at any time after the change of possession, it is a foul if (i) an opponent forcibly hits the quarterbacks head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, or (ii) if an opponent lowers his head and makes forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/.hairline. parts of his helmet against any part of the quarterbackfs body. This provision (ii) does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a conventional block."

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I don't care even if it's wasn't in the rules, that's a cheap shot and Baker shouldn't have done it. If he wanted to block Foles from tackling the returner all he had to do was put his arm out or stand his 300+LB body in front of Foles.

But he didn't want to block him he wanted to take a free and easy sucker punch on the QB

[TD Riggo]

You missed the one where the Eagles leveled Cousins on a false start and there was no flag. You missed quite a few holds on Kerrigan as well. 

 

 

The no-calls on Philth on about 80% of all of our defensive plays was close to blatantly crooked officiating. I kept hearing Cooley on the p-by-p talk about how the Skins needed to get pressure on Foles .. to which I thought "HOW CAN THEY?" when they were being blatantly held on more than 3/4's of the plays?!

[bradboyd80]

The Keenan Robinson penalty was the game. That was a 3rd down and it led to a field goal. Guess how many points we lost by? Absolutely brutal. 

That's the one that had me nearly throwing my tv out the window.  An absolutely crucial stop that the refs blew, allowing the Eagles to put some points on the board.  KRob didn't even graze Ertz's uniform until the ball hit his hands.  

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Man, we don't even know what constitutes a legal catch.  No wonder ES is in shambles.

 

The Baker hit was a penalty, and whether he wants to admit it, it was a cheap shot.  That same play has been happening in every level of football forever.  A pick gets thrown, some guy goes and headhunts the QB during the return.  

 

With that being said, I laughed my ass off when he did it.  **** Foles.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Wait a second.  The QB is considered defenseless even in the case where he is running towards the ball carrier attempting to possibly tackle them?

 

I Understand if the QB is just standing there, removing himself from the play, but how does it make any sense that a defender can not block a QB who is trying to tackle the ball carrier?

 

Makes zero sense.

You can block him, you just can't blow him up like that.

 

It actually is a good rule. I don't want DL taking cheap shots at my QB after an INT either.

[Oregon Ducks Fan]

This situation is covered by Rule 12, Section 2, Article 13(7)...

Link? Here is the link to the page with Rule 12 http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_2013_Player_Conduct.pdf

I don't see the Article 13(7) you quoted. Article 13 deals with striking with forearms or elbows.

Both Articles 6 and 7 define unnecessary roughness. Article 7 defines unnecessary roughness against a defenseless player including a quarterback after a change in possession, but the hit on Foles would fall under the broader definition in Article 6 i.e. unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead;

EDIT: here is an article about the origin of the 2005 rule change http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2013952

[Bubble Screen]

You missed the one where the Eagles leveled Cousins on a false start and there was no flag. You missed quite a few holds on Kerrigan as well.

There wasn't anything wrong with that play. Didn't think it was late enough to warrant a flag.

[Bubble Screen]

Yeah, and that pass interference that gave them a free fifty yards was really bad. As for the Baker penalty, the ref said that it was for a hit on the QB. Seems almost every time the D stopped the Eagles they got a free first down.

Prettty crappy. Some legit calls... some really, really, really bad. The one on Keenan Robinson was absolute BS and not even close to PI. There was another one that was also just not even close. Very bad reffing.

Mind you, you can't spell ref without the letter "f" for reason.

The penalty on Baker was for the hit on Foles, yes. It's amazing that so many fans don't keep up with the rules. You're no longer allowed to hit a QB like that where there is a change of possession. Either Joe or Troy mentioned as much after the play.

That was a dirty play. And if the roles were reversed, our fans would have been livid, too.

[Bubble Screen]

I can't believe people are arguing whether or not 1 knee = 2 feet. This makes our fan base look bad.

Yup. That's idiotic.

[bradboyd80]

There wasn't anything wrong with that play. Didn't think it was late enough to warrant a flag.

The whistle had been blown, everyone stopped playing, and even Cousins was just standing there.  Yet the defender was allowed to drive him into the ground.  I would think that should have been an easy flag. 

[s0crates]

There isn't any rule that says 1 knee = 2 feet. That's making _hit up.

 

umm . . .

 

(EDIT: Just saw this has been addressed above).

 

 

[TSO]

Honestly, you know what bothered me most about the refs? Forget about the calls against us and what seemed like no calls against the Eagles and constantly giving them the benefit of the doubt but not us during the game.  

 

That doesn't bother me because maybe I'm just biased and I'm seeing it wrong... 

 

What really bothered me was how, after that whole skirmish, the head ref ejected Trent Williams AND Baker. To me, that was extremely telling. How could he come up there and just eject two Redskin players after all that? You mean, he didn't say, "wait a second, guys, you mean only Redskin players are getting ejected here after all that? Something isn't right. Are you sure?"

 

Nope, he just opens his mic and ejects two Skins players. Without batting his eye.

 

Yes, they corrected it. But, really? I don't know... I just feel like they NEVER give us the benefit of the doubt and are just LOOKING for us to fail. It's weird.   

[MartinC]

The Keenan Robinson penalty was the game. That was a 3rd down and it led to a field goal. Guess how many points we lost by? Absolutely brutal. 

 

Nah - it was one of the key moments in the game but only one. The KO return for the TD, the FG we missed, not making at least 1 first down on our last drive starting from their 40 to get in position to try to at least tie it up. Probably a few other plays as well.

 

Same in most games that are somewhat close there are always 5 or 6 plays that it all comes down - its never about one singe play though. 

[kost203]

It is a flag in every other game. And for those who said the defender didn't hear the whistle... if excuses like that were allowed there would never be a late hit in the NFL ever!

 

The Robinson PI was the worst of the calls though.  Overthrown ball and the linebacker barely touches the receiver as he's trying to make the catch.  Just absolutely disgusting.

hello. first time posting here guys...

 

my thoughts.. i agree with you on the hit on couins.. its a dead ball you cant just clock someone ... my mouth hit the ground.. and on the pass int... well the moment a defender doesnt turn his head around its gonna be called... should "" have just let it go.. but these refs were calling everything..

for eagle fans to complain about the foles hit yet fail to recognize and justify the cousins hit with any excuse is absured. it was a cheap shot on cousins... the oline pulled up you heard the whistle. you hit a defensless qb... now what if "" cousins had gotten injured?? it  could have easily happened..??? what then?

[kost203]

agreed. 

 

i'm more pissed looking at the message boards overwhelmingly calling baker a dirty player and talking about how foles was "20 yards from the play"

 

neither of which are remotely true. foles was 5 yards from the play (possibly less)

 

heres what the nfl needs to do- once an INT is thrown, the QB needs to lay down or run in the opposite direction of the play. he CANNOT attempt to tackle the defender.

 

you cannot tell the defense they need to leave a player alone to tackle your player. 

 

ludicrous.

 

 

the highlighted block letters are probably the smarted post ive read here in ages bud.  great 100%. i hope this gets implimeted asap by the nfl. every qb should either fall on the ground or run away i the opp. direction wow! thats brilliant!!!! by doing that there would be no gray area.

[Larry]

I don't care even if it's wasn't in the rules, that's a cheap shot and Baker shouldn't have done it. If he wanted to block Foles from tackling the returner all he had to do was put his arm out or stand his 300+LB body in front of Foles.

But he didn't want to block him he wanted to take a free and easy sucker punch on the QB

Wholeheartedly agree. It was a cheap shot.

(And I didn't see him "moving to tackle our player". I saw him standing there saying "I ****ed up" to himself.).

Now, I thought it was a LEGAL cheap shot. One that I've been outraged, when it happened to Our Guy, dozens of times. But it appears that the rule was changed, intentionally, to protect the QB. And I really can't object to that.

[Burgold]

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is..... A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession);

 

Okay, if this is the rule... I can see why it could be called a penalty.  However, I would argue that the words underlined are the wrong ones. In this case, I still think it was legal. The important word is UNNECESSARY.  If the QB is engaging in the play and trying to tackle the returner than blocking him is a necessary act.  It is a fair act.  Now, if it had been blindside, if Baker would have launched himself, if there was a blow to the knee or head, I would agree with you, but Baker got in front of the shoulders as Foles was running towards the play.  This gives Baker (or should) permission to treat him like any would be tackler.

 

Now, all of you are right.  If my QB had been hit like that (and he has) I would have been mad, but I also would have acknowleged it as a football play.  It was a hard, clean hit (it was also a "legal" cheap shot).

[GoSkins0721]

It is illegal.

 

And you'd be penalized again, Baker. Under Rule 12 in Section 2 of the NFL rulebook, "a quarterback at any time after a change of possession" is considered to be in a "defenseless posture."

 

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2014/09/redskins_chris_baker_on_nick_foles_hit_if_i_could_do_it_again_i_would.html

 

The rule was changed several years ago.

 

The game was not perfectly reffed, but they never are.

 

We didn't lose this game because of the refs.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for posting the actual rule.

 

Stupid rule, in my opinion. It doesn't account for a QB actually making a move to try & stop an opposing player with the ball. As others have stated, the QB should be required to run in the opposite direction of the play, or, to the nearest sideline to step out of bounds & be done with the play. When a QB is moving towards the opposing player with the ball, as Foles was clearly doing, he should be fair game to be blocked just like any other player. 

 

Since the asshat PHL owner is good buddies with Commissioner Gordon, I'm guessing a huge fine for Baker plus 2 game suspension.

The hit on Foles was in retaliation for the cheap shot that the Eagles took on Cousins during the delay of game where the play was blown dead. I thought that was obvious. Yet the announcers never said it.

 

You mean Aikman & Buck never came to the defense of the Redskins? Shocking!

[RandyHolt]

I think its a bit short sighted to expect players to check numbers before they block them.

 

If Baker cannot be allowed to lay a clean hit on a 6'6" player, that player simply needs to be in a different color jersey.

 

Foles running around looks about as big as a TE.

[grego]

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is..... A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession);

 

Okay, if this is the rule... I can see why it could be called a penalty.  However, I would argue that the words underlined are the wrong ones. In this case, I still think it was legal. The important word is UNNECESSARY.  If the QB is engaging in the play and trying to tackle the returner than blocking him is a necessary act.  It is a fair act.  Now, if it had been blindside, if Baker would have launched himself, if there was a blow to the knee or head, I would agree with you, but Baker got in front of the shoulders as Foles was running towards the play.  This gives Baker (or should) permission to treat him like any would be tackler.

 

Now, all of you are right.  If my QB had been hit like that (and he has) I would have been mad, but I also would have acknowleged it as a football play.  It was a hard, clean hit (it was also a "legal" cheap shot).

 

 

agreed. 

 

it was nice to hear b mitch, trevor matich and, this morning, sheehan on 980 (all of whom having no reservations when it comes to criticizing the team when they do something wrong) all saying the same thing. 

 

foles was running towards breeland, 5 yards from him. if hes off limits, hes cant be near the play trying to (in position to) make a tackle. 

 

gotta change the rule. 

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

I was actually glad Philly got the penalty on the play where DJax hit the guy in the face after the play.  For some reason both the announcer and refs decided that the incredibly late hit where the safety came in and dove at Jacksons' shoulder WELL after he was down, was not a problem.  Which is exactly what prompted him to retaliate in the first place.