PFT: Chris Baker was ejected for hit that doesn’t violate the rules

[RawBBQSauce]

Chris Baker was ejected for hit that doesn’t violate the rules

Posted by Mike Florio on September 24, 2014, 9:52 AM EDT

 

 

NFL officials rarely eject players for illegal actions occurring before the whistle.  On Sunday, the officials working the Washington-Philadelphia game ejected Washington defensive lineman Chris Baker after he flattened Eagles quarterback Nick Foles following an apparent interception.

 

They apparently shouldn’t have.

 

In the aftermath of Sunday’s game, we reported that Baker won’t be suspended for the infraction.  On Tuesday, NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent told the Washington Post that Baker won’t be fined — and apparently shouldn’t have even been penalized for the hit that sparked a brouhaha, which included the ejection of Eagles tackle Jason Peters.

 

Read more:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/24/chris-baker-was-ejected-for-hit-that-doesnt-violate-the-rules/

 

 

I was yelling at my TV that it was a legal hit.

[Koolblue13]

Such BS. That could have been the difference. He was hitting Foles all day too.

Look out Eli, I bet he's pissed now.

[httrMP]

Thought it was a clean hit. Avoided the head and the knees, got him right in the chest. Refs need to remember that after an interception (or at least what appears to be an interception before replay) the QB is just another player on the field and becomes a potential tackler. Baker was just laying down a solid block on the return.

[Stadium-Armory]

Thought it was a clean hit. Avoided the head and the knees, got him right in the chest. Refs need to remember that after an interception (or at least what appears to be an interception before replay) the QB is just another player on the field and becomes a potential tackler. Baker was just laying down a solid block on the return.

 

Apparently so. However just want to point out that the unnecessary roughness rule set only say:

 

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are....  (7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession..

 

...and then it ends there and doesn't mention anything about caveats like him becoming a defensive tackler. There in lies the issue for me. They need to add the clause to this part of the rule. What you're quoting comes from the roughing the passer rule set which seems to be the more specific of the two (and more logical).

 

But yea, legal hit. Love it.

[Paul Cumberland]

i don't believe he was ejected for the hit....  i believe he was ejected for the fight that ensued afterward.... same reason peters was ejected

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I will say that I'm glad (and not shocked) that it was deemed a clean hit. I still don't think it necessarily means that he shouldn't have been penalized or ejected. But I could be wrong. 

 

I took the entire context to mean that, in a vacuum, the hit itself was fine and didn't violate the rules of being dirty or cheap. Therefore, no further action is required. However, he levied the hit on a QB during a play that is a huge danger zone for QBs. And I thought that type of hit was taken out of the league a couple years ago. To put it bluntly...Baker could have just stood in front of Foles and he wouldn't have been a threat to make the tackle if Breeland was still running. He chose to lay the guy out. 

 

So, it was unnecessary roughness but not a fineable or suspendable hit. 

[grego]

i don't believe he was ejected for the hit....  i believe he was ejected for the fight that ensued afterward.... same reason peters was ejected

 

i'd be surprised if that were the case, seeing as peters went running after baker immediately after the hit. 

from the nfls website-

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000398172/article/eagles-jason-peters-redskins-chris-baker-ejected-after-melee

 

The tussle spilled onto the sideline, and took a while for officials to get under control. Eventually, both teams were directed to go to their respective benches, and Baker and Peters were both ejected. Baker for unnecessary roughness, and Peters for unsportsmanlike conduct. 

[Paul Cumberland]

i'd be surprised if that were the case, seeing as peters went running after baker immediately after the hit. 

i doubt we get clarification as to the exact reason he was ejected at this point and i'm glad he wasn't suspended since we'll need him tomorrow night..  with that said, flags didn't start flying till the fight broke out which therefore, to me, was the reason for ejection..

[MisterPinstripe]

I will say that I'm glad (and not shocked) that it was deemed a clean hit. I still don't think it necessarily means that he shouldn't have been penalized or ejected. But I could be wrong. 

 

I took the entire context to mean that, in a vacuum, the hit itself was fine and didn't violate the rules of being dirty or cheap. Therefore, no further action is required. However, he levied the hit on a QB during a play that is a huge danger zone for QBs. And I thought that type of hit was taken out of the league a couple years ago. To put it bluntly...Baker could have just stood in front of Foles and he wouldn't have been a threat to make the tackle if Breeland was still running. He chose to lay the guy out. 

 

So, it was unnecessary roughness but not a fineable or suspendable hit. 

 

 

By rule it was not unnecessary roughness. Incorrect call by the officials and Baker should not have been ejected. Thats thinking like the cap penalty against the Redskins. Well, it wasnt illegal, and it didnt break any rules, but we thought it was a little rough so we will eject him.

[Brokenstriker]

If you can't hit the QB then at a minimum the QB should have to remove himself from the play ... and I mean totally remove himself ... can't influence it at all and if he does he should be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.  If the QB so much as hints that he is involved in the play ... and Foles was drifting towards the ball before the play was over ... then he's a football player and his arse should be blocked by the opposition.  PERIOD ... and then march off the 15 yards after he's on the ground.

 

If it really is against the rules then they should also put the QB's in standardized and unique ... lets say day-glo pink ... jersey so its obvious that they aren't really football players and can't be touched.

 

Such nonsense ... its pitiful.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

By rule it was not unnecessary roughness. Incorrect call by the officials and Baker should not have been ejected. Thats thinking like the cap penalty against the Redskins. Well, it wasnt illegal, and it didnt break any rules, but we thought it was a little rough so we will eject him.

 

If that's the case then it's too bad for him but at least he was exonerated to an extent. In the end, the entire transaction should have benefited us as Peters was thrown out too. Then again, he would have been tossed even if they decided that Baker did nothing illegal. 

[Brokenstriker]

if you're going to play you should be willing to pay the price of admission ... this nonsense is worse than watching Roger Clemens mercilessly throwing at batters in the American League knowing full well he would never be standing in the batters box to take his medicine

[drowland]

By rule it was not unnecessary roughness. Incorrect call by the officials and Baker should not have been ejected. Thats thinking like the cap penalty against the Redskins. Well, it wasnt illegal, and it didnt break any rules, but we thought it was a little rough so we will eject him.

 

The refs were trying to restore order after both benches cleared.  Things were chippy all game.  I think that's why they ejected players from both teams, to send a message.  If it had just been Baker and Peters tangled up and not the benches getting envolved neither probably would of been ejected. 

[grego]

i doubt we get clarification as to the exact reason he was ejected at this point and i'm glad he wasn't suspended since we'll need him tomorrow night..  with that said, flags didn't start flying till the fight broke out which therefore, to me, was the reason for ejection..

 

check the link i posted. seems like it was for the hit. 

 

btw- anyone seen any philly message boards? they are losing their minds over this ruling. you'd think they lost the game. its hilarious.

[DC9]

If anyone was still wondering whether or not Florio and his bunch watch the games... then this will confirm for you that they don't.

 

Couple that with not using "Redskins" and they are pretty much unreadable.

[DiscoBob]

I think the refs blew it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they thought it was a blindside hit.  The more egregious calls were the phantom pass interference call and the "blow up" Cousins on a false start call.  Those were terrible...

 

Also the "watch the replay and then throw the flag" call was pretty laughable although it was a clear infraction.

[SkinsFTW]

No mention of Fletcher Cox ignoring the whistle while everybody else stood there and taking out Cousins.

 

Instead of first and goal at the 5 we end up at 3rd and 12 at the 15 and then miss a fg.

 

I'd have guessed we'd get 7 there then the other 7 makes it 41-37 with us running out the clock instead of trying to make a play in the end.

[knighthonor]

I told you all, the NFL need to apply consistant standards or what QB/Kickers do when they are trying play defense.

 

Because when they get hit while trying to play defense, everybody scream foul.

 

They need to make rules that the QB/Kicker cannot reenter the play to play defense if its a turn over.

[RawBBQSauce]

They need to make rules that the QB/Kicker cannot reenter the play to play defense if its a turn over.

 

And eliminate the chance of the QB or Kicker making a TD-saving tackle? This would never happen.

[warskins65]

I wonder what the call would have been if the big fight had not occured. Everyones blood was up and the officials need to get a handle on the situation quickly. If I remember correctly, the original call was 2 unsportsman like coducts against the Skins, and later one  against both teams. I think the officials where just trying to put the fire out.

 

At least we have Baker for Thursday night fotball.

[dsciambi]

I will say that I'm glad (and not shocked) that it was deemed a clean hit. I still don't think it necessarily means that he shouldn't have been penalized or ejected. But I could be wrong. 

 

I took the entire context to mean that, in a vacuum, the hit itself was fine and didn't violate the rules of being dirty or cheap. Therefore, no further action is required. However, he levied the hit on a QB during a play that is a huge danger zone for QBs. And I thought that type of hit was taken out of the league a couple years ago. To put it bluntly...Baker could have just stood in front of Foles and he wouldn't have been a threat to make the tackle if Breeland was still running. He chose to lay the guy out. 

 

So, it was unnecessary roughness but not a fineable or suspendable hit. 

 

I hope I'm just misreading this and it's not how you really feel. If so, maybe it's why I don't enjoy the NFL as much as I used to, because I believe this is the viewpoint of the NFL. The QB is still an NFL player. If you don't want to get laid out by a big defensive tackle, maybe you shouldn't be on the field.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Legal hit?  Probably not.  Funny and awesome hit?  Definitely.

[knighthonor]

And eliminate the chance of the QB or Kicker making a TD-saving tackle? This would never happen.

Then they need to stop B****ing when that player gets hit by a person trying to defend their players, because they choose to enter the play like any other player.

[Burgold]

Legal hit?  Probably not.  Funny and awesome hit?  Definitely.

Legal hit?  Absolutely.  Unnecessary hit... Probably.

 

And those siting the rule always leave out the part that says the QB must be in a clearly defensive position. That is, if he is standing still, walking away from the play, etc. he is to be left alone. If he is running, jogging towards the play than he is to be treated as any other would be tackler on a return.

[TimmySmith]

No mention of Fletcher Cox ignoring the whistle while everybody else stood there and taking out Cousins.

 

Instead of first and goal at the 5 we end up at 3rd and 12 at the 15 and then miss a fg.

 

I'd have guessed we'd get 7 there then the other 7 makes it 41-37 with us running out the clock instead of trying to make a play in the end.

Yeah, this pretty much got white washed by the refs, along with that late hit on Jackson that caused him to lash out.  There is nothing in the rules that I know of that allows a player to feign deafness.