Body Bag II

[Goaldeje]

Leveled? Please.

Nothing wrong with that play. I've seen worse. By our guys.

The one after the whistle? Seriously? That was absurd, and should have been flagged. One of the reason our guys were so jacked up for the next series, IMO. The refs did a horrendous job of controlling the game this afternoon. That was a particularly egregious example.

 

[Snydershrugged]

Pardon me, sir.

It's the rule. I knew it. If I can't explain it using the rulebook, shoot me.

It's not that hard to understand. I don't know a warm fuzzy way to say it.

Grill the NFL about the rule. I didn't write the damn thing.

But I knew it.

cool, since you are the great rule knower, can you please help the rest of us uninformed non-rule knowers understand the second half of that rule you so awesomely knew?

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

I had asked earlier, but I fear you accidentally overlooked it. Did Baker do either of those two qualifying items in that hit?




(yes sir, snark gets as it gives)

 

[Chris]

Or flattened. That works, too.

 

[Elephant]

I had asked earlier, but I fear you accidentally overlooked it. Did Baker do either of those two qualifying items in that hit?

The rule clearly states that as soon as there is a change of possession, as pansy ass as it is, the QB becomes a defenseless player. There is nothing clear in the rules that says the QB becomes a live player if he involves himself in the play. It only says QB becomes defenseless player at change of possession.

 

[DixieFlatline]

The rule clearly states that as soon as there is a change of possession, as pansy ass as it is, the QB becomes a defenseless player. There is nothing clear in the rules that says the QB becomes a live player if he involves himself in the play. It only says QB becomes defenseless player at change of possession.

Where does it say the QB becomes a defenseless player. I read the article as saying the defenseless rules apply to a QB after a turnover.

 

[Boone]

The rule clearly states that as soon as there is a change of possession, as pansy ass as it is, the QB becomes a defenseless player. There is nothing clear in the rules that says the QB becomes a live player if he involves himself in the play. It only says QB becomes defenseless player at change of possession.

I don't think that's the point. The point is, what is 'illegal' in terms of 'defenseless players'. I don't believe the rule is that they can't be blocked at all is it?

 

[Ax]

cool, since you are the great rule knower, can you please help the rest of us uninformed non-rule knowers understand the second half of that rule you so awesomely knew?

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or
shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless
player by encircling or grasping him; and
(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of
the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

I had asked earlier, but I fear you accidentally overlooked it. Did Baker do either of those two qualifying items in that hit?




(yes sir, snark gets as it gives)

I'm terribly sorry. Believe me when I say that I am typing in a very calm, soft voice. Wearing a sweater.

I don't actually know what the rule book says, or why. I do know that after Warren Sapp performed this same, unfriendly contact, on the center of the Green Bay Packers, who was also not actively trying to block anyone, or making any real effort to make a tackle, and blowing out his knee, it initiated the changing of the rule. I don't exactly when the rule was changed. I cannot give an explanation of the wording.

I wrongly assumed that most knew it. I'm actually shocked, that so few do.

I apologize for my insensitivity.

 

[Elephant]

I don't think that's the point. The point is, what is 'illegal' in terms of 'defenseless players'. I don't believe the rule is that they can't be blocked at all is it?

Blindsiding the QB on a change of possession is obviously illegal.

 

[Boone]

Why is it 'obviously illegal'? I'm not being a smartass - what can you and can't you do to a 'defenseless player' - because I'm not seeing a prohibition on blocking him, but maybe I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Ax]

I don't think that's the point. The point is, what is 'illegal' in terms of 'defenseless players'. I don't believe the rule is that they can't be blocked at all is it?

My guess is, they don't see it as him being blocked.

Like me, they saw it as someone trying to take advantage of the circumstance, (turnover) to kill the QB. It's one of the reasons for the rule.

 

[Snydershrugged]

The rule clearly states that as soon as there is a change of possession, as pansy ass as it is, the QB becomes a defenseless player. There is nothing clear in the rules that says the QB becomes a live player if he involves himself in the play. It only says QB becomes defenseless player at change of possession.

right, the question I have though, is that there are specifically outlawed hits using specific parts of body and equipment identified in the rule. I didnt think that Baker committed either (but am admittedly unsure)

 

[Goaldeje]

I think the problem is that it sounds to me like the definition of pornography - the refs know it when they see it, or something like that. Which is absurd. If the other team isn't allowed to block the QB after a turnover, then the QB should not be allowed to try to tackle after a turnover. If the QB is moving towards the play, they are part of the play, and IMO, fair game. If Foles had walked away from the play and Baker done that to him, I wouldn't have a problem with the flag and/or fine.

If the QBs want to be protected, fine. Then they shouldn't be allowed to engage in any potentially dangerous contact.

 

[Elephant]

Why is it 'obviously illegal'? I'm not being a smartass - what can you and can't you do to a 'defenseless player' - because I'm not seeing a prohibition on blocking him, but maybe I'm just not seeing it.

Umm...because the NFL and those referees say it is? You guys are beating this up...as long as this league goes sissy on us, this is going to be illegal every time. Once there is a turnover...the QB becomes defenseless. The NFL changed that rule to protect the QB against hits like that...what it means is you cannot hit a QB from the blindside like that after a pick.

 

[Snydershrugged]

I'm terribly sorry. Believe me when I say that I am typing in a very calm, soft voice. Wearing a sweater.



I apologize for my insensitivity.

I posted what I believe it says in the rulebook with a link though? I'm confused

 

[Boone]

I agree with you Ax that it *looked like* a harsh unnecessary hit (if you want to use the term 'cheapshot', I can see that). My issue is, the refs don't get to decide calls based on 'how it looked'. They made a number of calls today that made no sense (including letting a bad hit on Kirk go 'because the defender didn't hear the whistle (!)). I want to know the details of the rule he broke.

 

[Snydershrugged]

I don't think that's the point. The point is, what is 'illegal' in terms of 'defenseless players'. I don't believe the rule is that they can't be blocked at all is it?

This is how I was reading it as well.

 

[Goaldeje]

My guess is, they don't see it as him being blocked.

Like me, they saw it as someone trying to take advantage of the circumstance, (turnover) to kill the QB. It's one of the reasons for the rule.

And this is my basis for the frustration. You're basing your explanation of the play and subsequent flag on your interpretation of Baker's intent. As the refs did. If I had heard, or was hearing now, any definitive, concrete explanation about something specific that occurred that was flag-worthy, I could get on board. But I'm hearing value judgments, which is a shitty way to ref.

 

[Ax]

Umm...because the NFL and those referees say it is? You guys are beating this up...as long as this league goes sissy on us, this is going to be illegal every time. Once there is a turnover...the QB becomes defenseless. The NFL changed that rule to protect the QB against hits like that...what it means is you cannot hit a QB from the blindside like that after a pick.

Well said.

I think.

 

[Goaldeje]

I agree with you Ax that it *looked like* a harsh unnecessary hit (if you want to use the term 'cheapshot', I can see that). My issue is, the refs don't get to decide calls based on 'how it looked'. They made a number of calls today that made no sense (including letting a bad hit on Kirk go 'because the defender didn't hear the whistle (!)). I want to know the details of the rule he broke.

Bingo!

 

[Boone]

Umm...because the NFL and those referees say it is? You guys are beating this up...as long as this league goes sissy on us, this is going to be illegal every time. Once there is a turnover...the QB becomes defenseless. The NFL changed that rule to protect the QB against hits like that...what it means is you cannot hit a QB from the blindside like that after a pick.

What I'm saying is, the rules I've seen posted/quoted don't define a defenseless player as one you can't 'touch' - just that there are certain prohibitions on contact. Maybe I'm misreading that, but I didn't read the rule as 'they can't be touched'. If that IS the rule, then you all are of course 100% correct.