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

[Zazzaro703]

That hit on Cousins really is lame in hindsight. That should have been a first down and instead we miss a field goal. Bakers hit on Foles gets a 15 yard flag and the eagles score.

[Patrick Evidente]

I hope Baker hits Foles even harder next time.

[Fergasun]

The NFL should show this as a "what is legal to do to a 'defenseless player' video" and be encouraged because Baker could have done a lot more damage than he did.

 

If you go and look at the Sapp hit on Clifton, which is mentioned up-stream and which came to my head.  Sapp violated multiple rules, launching his body at a player, hitting with his helmet, and hitting the head/neck area. 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

That clip perfectly shows that Foles is eyeing the runner and moving at an angle to make the play in case Breeland breaks free.  There is NO WAY you can argue Foles isn't assuming a defensive posture from this gif.

 

I'll argue it with anyone.

 

FWIW, I love Baker. I've been one of the loudest for the last few years fair begging for either Baker or Nield to have a shot at nose and Cofield to be moved to end. But I won't condone what he did Sunday. Which was nothing else but a pre-meditated retaliation for what happened to Kirk for me. And I've read or seen absolutely nothing to make me change that view.

 

Breeland is down some 5 yards away. Foles is clearly given up. Not 'moving toward the ball.' Not in a 'defensive posture.' Not anything other than he's slowed right down and given the play up as the play is now dead. And 92 levels him in a gutless cheapshot move that lead to some real ugly scenes and cost us of Bakers dumbass for the rest of the game.

 

Just because he is being absolved on some 'technicality;, which it is to me, doesn't make him any less guilty.

 

I was utterly disgusted with Chris Sunday. And I still am today in this,

 

Hail

[SkinsFTW]

Posted for discussion purposes...

 

 

 

GHH, your mind is playing tricks on you. Dude got hit at the same time Breeland was going down. It's not even debatable and even the Eagles fans have stopped spewing their BS.

[Zazzaro703]

Reminds me of Sean Taylor when he completely blew up that guy on the Lions during a kickoff. I don't really think Baker did it for retaliation I think it was more towards there was an Eagle right there that didn't see the shot coming so Baker was going to blow up whoever was there. Just happened to be Foles. Baker could have hit him a lot harder it looks like if he wanted to.

[joeknows]

The most obvious example of this exact sane situation was when Sapp ended a GB players career on a hit just like this. McCarthy went bananas, and confronted him after the game.

It wasn't a penalty then, though that hit was malicious.

Baker could have done the same thing to Foles. He didn't. Knocked him down hard. But it wasn't malicious.

If you want to see malicious, look at the Sapp hit.

Warren Sapp did not end Chad Cliftons career. Chad Clifton went on to play two or three more years. He even played in the Super Bowl. I happen to be friends with Chad Clifton's sister. he did however end his season.

[Burgold]

Yeah, and you can see the angle Foles is taking would be an intersecting one.  As for five yards while that sounds like a bunch think about how far away that really is from the play.  If most players can cover forty yards between 4 - 6 seconds.  That means that Foles was one second away from Breeland.  Let's say that Foles is one of the slowest players to ever play NFL football.  That means he's two seconds away and running on a line that will take him into the action.

 

Reassess GHH and look at the video.  Your memory and the reality shown on the video are different.  Baker wasn't excused on a technicality and Foles wasn't taking an obviously defensive, given-up-on-the-play posture.  He was jogging versus sprinting all out, but he was still attempting to get in on the action or trying to create the perception that he was. Can't judge a man's heart after all.

[grego]

it kind of blows my mind, some of the comments i'm reading.

 

all i can think is that people have their minds made up and even upon being shown that what they thought they saw, they still stick to their first impression. 

 

i was talking with a lady i work with the day after the game and when i brought up the baker hit, she went off about how dirty it was (shes a skins fan). she proceeded to weave a tale about how baker approached foles directly from behind, as foles was standing still, then took both arms, raised them in the air, and smacked foles over the head like a professional wrestler. 

 

i'm not kidding. this is what she said she saw, and there was no convincing her otherwise. 

 

just bizarre. 

[steve09ru]

Reminds me of Sean Taylor when he completely blew up that guy on the Lions during a kickoff. I don't really think Baker did it for retaliation I think it was more towards there was an Eagle right there that didn't see the shot coming so Baker was going to blow up whoever was there. Just happened to be Foles. Baker could have hit him a lot harder it looks like if he wanted to.

First Skins game I went to

Pregame:

 

The hit:

 

Just noticed that Frampton was the one he was back and forth with before game and was the one he layed out (I think, can't tell if it's a 5 or 9 in the 2nd vid.)

 

Can't wait for the special tomorrow!

[Bigmuss1]

This is football, people get hit.....what are we debating about????  This was an NFC East game, it's supposed to be rough and full of somewhat questionable hits.....

 

I dunno, maybe I'm just old.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I mean, I don't love the rules that are in place but they are rules. Someone posted earlier that QBs are considered defenseless on change of possession plays. The intent of that rule was to reduce the number of times a 325 lineman could deck a QB. So, it's cool to say "this is football" and "put them in skirts" but the fact is that one of our guys broke a rule. To me, this is not much different than continuing to complain about Meriweather getting penalized for hits with his helmet, etc. 

 

I'd much prefer to have a winning team with a group of smart players that use the rules to their advantage by limiting penalties than being the fan base with the chip on its shoulder always ****ing about why the NFL enforced a legitimate rule against us. 

[Stadium-Armory]

IMO, dirty means blatantly wrong beyond any reasonable explanation. This play is clearly not dirty. Add that the NFL ruled it a legal hit I don't think there's anything to debate. My only questions were about how the rules are intended to work and how they were enforced on this play and on that I'm still a bit confused. Regardless, its not dirty and the NFL has said so. End of story. 

[gortiz]

this is what sucks ... where is the hammer for the officials? Where is their accountability? How come they can screw up on EPIC proportions and not get some kind public reprimand like the players. 

[grego]

 the fact is that one of our guys broke a rule. 

 

 

i'm not sure what you mean? the nfl says he didnt. the nfl makes and interprets the rules.

[Stadium-Armory]

this is what sucks ... where is the hammer for the officials? Where is their accountability? How come they can screw up on EPIC proportions and not get some kind public reprimand like the players. 

 

In general I feel like the NFL officials do a great job when you consider the speed of the game and level of specific detail involved in knowing how and when to apply certain rules. I can't imagine how they do it as well as they do. It sucks, yes, but so be it there will be human error and we can't review everything all the time. Go win the game on that last drive and we wouldn't be talking about it. 

 

Add: I think the officials *do* have an internal review process where they're graded. Officials with better grades get to officiate the playoffs and super bowl. Those with worse grades don't. So there is some accountability there. 

[Burgold]

I agree, but have to admit it gets my goat when there are ten of those errors in one game and all aimed at one team as happened against the Eagles.  Hell, the ref tried his hardest to only boot Redskins players after the brawl.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

i'm not sure what you mean? the nfl says he didnt. the nfl makes and interprets the rules.

 

Is this not a rule:

 

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture

 (a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

     (7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession

[grego]

Is this not a rule:

 

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture

 (a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

     (7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession

 

 

thats only part of it. a little further down it explains further. 

 

now, imo, its still not clear. i think we all agree on that. 

 

but the point is, the nfl is 'clearing up' that murky addendum (slightly) by saying bakers hit was legal. 

 

theres a reason sapps hit on clifton is illegal (thats clear by almost anyones standards) and bakers isnt. the nfl has said you cant hit too high, you cant hit too low, you cant hit from behind or the side. you cant lauch, etc. these rules are in place to ensure the safety of a violent game, inasmuch as one can do. 

 

what the nfl doesnt want to do is make a qb completely off limits (as that rule youre citing appears to do). they cant be both untouchable and able to make a play on the ball carrier. they dont want to get to the point where they rule that the QB must take himself out of the play on a turnover. 

 

and i'm sure the NFL doesnt want to get any more in the business of measuring the impact of an otherwise textbook block or hit than they already are. 

 

all the NFL has done in recent years is make rules to protect the QB. but theres only so much they can do. once the QB is moving towards the play and gets as close as foles did, the nfl has to allow him to be blocked as if hes any other player.

[ZRagone]

Is this not a rule:

 

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture

 (a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

     (7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession

It is PART of the rule, not all of it. It leaves off this:

 

"(7) 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);"

The poster who originally posted the rule just *happened* to leave off the underlined portion. And what does Article 8(f) say?

 

(f) A passer who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has left his hand is obviously out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the defense through the end of the play or until the passer becomes a blocker, or until he becomes a runner upon taking a lateral from a teammate or picking up a loose ball, or, in the event of a change of possession on the play, until the passer 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 quarterback’s 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 quarterback’s body. This provision does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a conventional block.

Once Foles begins to move towards the path of the ball carrier the contact is no longer "unnecessary" and he is now assuming a "distinctly defensive position" by making his way TOWARDS the ball carrier's path. If that wasn't taken into consideration that rule would essentially allow a quarterback free reign to tackle a defensive person after a turnover completely untouched.

The only way it'd be a penalty AFTER Foles has began moving towards the play would be if it qualified under (i) or (ii). Foles wasn't hit in the head or neck area and Baker didn't use his helmet to give the hit, so it's not a penalty.

Had Foles stopped moving entirely, or if he had began to jog away from the play and towards his bench, THEN he would've still been defenseless. But because he assumed a distinctly defensive position by moving towards the intended path of the ball carrier he's fair game as long as you remain within caveat (i) and (ii)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I see. I stand corrected and see what you guys mean. 

 

I guess my larger point is that I'd still prefer that our guys err on the side of caution, especially given the climate of the league. In this case, the huge hit wasn't needed (to separate a WR from the ball, prevent someone from crossing the goal line, etc.). Baker potentially would have needed to successfully block Foles if Breeland had kept running, but he didn't have to lay him out. 

 

I guess it sucks for these guys, but they almost need to be smarter than to put themselves in a position to leave it up to a ref's judgement. It's like if I go walking at midnight in SE DC. Is it technically my fault if I get jumped or mugged? No. Should I be smarter than to put myself in that position if I don't need to? Yes. 

[No_Pressure]

In one of my high school JV games I was essentially out of a play on a punt and was running (not as fast as a sprint, not as slow as a jog) in the direction of the pile of people making a tackle. Out of nowhere their left tackle hits me in the side running full speed like a freight train. He sprinted from an angle slightly behind me, in fact in the NFL it would probably be considered illegal. I went flying of course, I was totally unprepared. Imagine someone walking down the street sipping his morning coffee and looking at his watch when suddenly a lineman running full speed and oddly silently comes up and decks him in the side.

 

I learned a lesson that I hadn't learned even though I'd been playing football in the beltway league for years before that:

 

When the ball is still live and you're on the field, don't ever assume you're not about to get destroyed. If you're on the field, be in on the play, otherwise get off the field. I don't think quarterbacks should be able to both make a tackle on an interception and be afforded protection against legal blocks.

[repo_4]

It was a good hit. There is a lot of talk about Foles not being in the play and him not being a part of the tackle... For arguments sake let's say Baker doesn't touch Foles but let's him go. Breeland gets a hand down and regains his balance and continues to run and Foles is in position and makes the tackle. Are we having this conversation about whether or not Baker should have blocked him?

[justice98]

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.

 

Then the refs should be downgraded for not knowing the rule.

[grego]

I see. I stand corrected and see what you guys mean. 

 

I guess my larger point is that I'd still prefer that our guys err on the side of caution, especially given the climate of the league. In this case, the huge hit wasn't needed (to separate a WR from the ball, prevent someone from crossing the goal line, etc.). Baker potentially would have needed to successfully block Foles if Breeland had kept running, but he didn't have to lay him out. 

 

I guess it sucks for these guys, but they almost need to be smarter than to put themselves in a position to leave it up to a ref's judgement. It's like if I go walking at midnight in SE DC. Is it technically my fault if I get jumped or mugged? No. Should I be smarter than to put myself in that position if I don't need to? Yes. 

 

 

i get what youre saying and i kind of agree with it. i like hits, but i dont like 'dirty' or dangerous ones. i dont want to see anyone get hurt. so, this isnt coming from an apeman mentality, but heres something to take into account- what if breeland were to fumble, and the ball bounces directly toward foles after baker decides to put his hand on foles chest and stand there rather than lay him out (legally)?

 

baker did his job, and he did it within the rules. it was a hard hit, but hard hits still happen in football. 

 

ive seen deangelo hall not tackle a guy aggressively on the sideline a few years ago, and the guy ended up breaking a tackle and went for about 20 more yards (if not a td, as i recall). 

 

you can play less aggressively, but it could burn you.