Body Bag II

[Elephant]

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.

I am not sure where the disconnect is, to be honest. The rules states the QB is a defenseless player after a turnover. I take that to mean you can't touch him...which I agree is ambiguous. Because Foles was definitely making his way toward the play as if he wanted to be a part of it. Had Baker crushed him from the front as Foles is in play...I gotta think we aren't having this discussion.

 

[Snydershrugged]

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.

I think we can now all agree that according to the whole "The QB is ALWAYS defenseless at a change of possession" rule, that he was defenseless.

I (and others) are asking about what rule against defenseless players did he break? According to the rule as posted, it appeared to me at least, that there were only 2 scenarios where a hot is not allowed on the defenseless player.

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.



which one of those 2 illegal hits did Baker do? (and I ask this in all sincerity because I dont believe I saw him do either)

 

[Snydershrugged]

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.

Yep, exactly my take on both accounts. (Glad I know Im not insane! lol)

 

[Boone]

Yes - that is my question as well SS.

 

[Elephant]

I think we can now all agree that according to the whole "The QB is ALWAYS defenseless at a change of possession" rule, that he was defenseless.

I (and others) are asking about what rule against defenseless players did he break? According to the rule as posted, it appeared to me at least, that there were only 2 scenarios where a hot is not allowed on the defenseless player.

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.



which one of those 2 illegal hits did Baker do? (and I ask this in all sincerity because I dont believe I saw him do either)

By hitting the defenseless player, he broke the rule. It really is that simple. And like I said, it's vague at best. But the fact Baker hit him when he is a defenseless player was the offense.

 

[Snydershrugged]

By hitting the defenseless player, he broke the rule. It really is that simple. And like I said, it's vague at best. But the fact Baker hit him when he is a defenseless player was the offense.

Ok, you are likely going to be frustrated with me but did you read the 2 specifics that the rule is written around as the only way to illegally hit a defenseless player? I didnt see anywhere in the rule that indicated zero contact, hits or otherwise are not allowed, just those 2?

what am I missing?


added just for easier reference, link to rule here...again, may need vetting

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

 

[Elephant]

Ok, you are likely going to be frustrated with me but did you read the 2 specifics that the rule is written around as the only way to illegally hit a defenseless player? I didnt see anywhere in the rule that indicated zero contact, hits or otherwise are not allowed, just those 2?

what am I missing?

I read what you posted...I agree the rule is vague, but the fact that Baker hit the QB after the turnover is all you need to know. That was the foul. You are not allowed to hit the QB....especially from the blindside...after a turnover.

 

[Snydershrugged]

I read what you posted...I agree the rule is vague, but the fact that Baker hit the QB after the turnover is all you need to know. That was the foul. You are not allowed to hit the QB....especially from the blindside...after a turnover.

I have to admit, I cannot see where that is in the rule at all. I saw very specific circumstances where it isnt allowed but not a carte blanch "no hit" rule anywhere in the language around a defined "defenseless player" hit.

That said, I dont want to go back and forth on it either, but I'd sure love to see the rule that you think is there! Just for my sanity! lol

 

[Elephant]

I have to admit, I cannot see where that is in the rule at all. I saw very specific circumstances where it isnt allowed but not a carte blanch "no hit" rule anywhere in the language around a defined "defenseless player" hit.

That said, I dont want to go back and forth on it either, but I'd sure love to see the rule that you think is there! Just for my sanity! lol

SS, I really don't know how anyone sees it the way you do. Here it is again...

The following "hits" on a defenseless player are illegal...

- A quarterback any time after change of possession (i.e, turnover)

Once the QB throws an INT, he is hands off. To blindside him when he is not looking is clearly what the rule change was about. The rule that states, the QB is a defenseless player and cannot be hit. Doesn't say he cannot be blocked...merely that he cannot be hit. Baker hit him...that is the offense. It does not say there is a certain way he cannot be hit...simply that he cannot be hit.

But...you'd think the refs would penalize a 330 pound lineman who drills the QB after the whistle was blown, so there's that.

 

[Snydershrugged]

SS, I really don't know how anyone sees it the way you do. Here it is again...

The following "hits" on a defenseless player are illegal...

- A quarterback any time after change of possession (i.e, turnover)

Once the QB throws an INT, he is hands off. To blindside him when he is not looking is clearly what the rule change was about. The rule that states, the QB is a defenseless player and cannot be hit. Doesn't say he cannot be blocked...merely that he cannot be hit. Baker hit him...that is the offense. It does not say there is a certain way he cannot be hit...simply that he cannot be hit.

But...you'd think the refs would penalize a 330 pound lineman who drills the QB after the whistle was blown, so there's that.

What is the purpose of those 2 stipulation s I posted from the rule then?

 

[CounterTrey]

I think what is missed here is the instructions the refs are given by the league. It's how they are asked to enforce the rule that makes it confusing. What I understand is if the player (not just the QB, the player, the guy Sapp injured was a lineman IIRC) is not actively engaged in the play (blocking in the actual vicinity of the play) then they are considered defenseless. So if a guy is just jogging toward the play but not actively trying to insert himself -like Foles- then it's a foul. I was as disgusted as Ax. this is an old rule. Not slamming you guys Boone, but the players should know this without question now. I wouldn't call it a cheap shot, just a monumentally stupid play as we had stopped them even if the INT was incomplete. Then you throw in the loss of his play on the line and the stupid fighting...DUMB! Inexcusable for a veteran Pro player.

 

[Ax]

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the worst, I'd say the hit on Kirk, was a 3 or 4.

Baker on Foles was a heavy 10.

Apples and oranges.

For all the uproar over the little hit on Kirk, I think it's safe to say if Kirk would have gotten cheap-shotted like Foles was,some would be calling for the death penalty.

 

[Elephant]

What is the purpose of those 2 stipulation s I posted from the rule then?

There is no purpose in this situation. That's where there seems to be the disconnect. The hit is what is illegal since the player is defenseless after the turnover. Any hit...not the stipulations you're quoting.

 

[SNF]

I think what it boils down to, is that referees and many fans over-reacted, from an emotional standpoint, based on the appearance of it being a vicious hit, by a huge man on a little man. If you can look beyond that emotional element, you should rationally be able to see that Baker did nothing wrong.

One clarification here. Nick Foles, while no where near as big as Baker, is not a little man by any means. He's 6' 6", 245. He flopped like a rag doll there, but he ain't little.

 

[Snydershrugged]

There is no purpose in this situation. That's where there seems to be the disconnect. The hit is what is illegal since the player is defenseless after the turnover. Any hit...not the stipulations you're quoting.

So all hits are illegal on a defenseless player, despite that the rule stating only two specific ways a hit may be illegal? That doesn't make any sense at all. No where did the rule say that. I am just seeking somewhere in the rules that backs up what you are saying. Haven't yet.

 

[DixieFlatline]

Ok, you are likely going to be frustrated with me but did you read the 2 specifics that the rule is written around as the only way to illegally hit a defenseless player? I didnt see anywhere in the rule that indicated zero contact, hits or otherwise are not allowed, just those 2?

what am I missing?


added just for easier reference, link to rule here...again, may need vetting

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

Upon reading it again, I'm now again pissed at the rule if I'm interpreting correctly. Article 9 in that link states:

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

When read like that it seems to indicate a QB could go in for the tackle but still not be blocked without it being called a penalty. I'm guessing we might hear more about this from some talking heads. Hopefully, we get a concrete explanation.

 

[Snydershrugged]

There is no purpose in this situation. That's where there seems to be the disconnect. The hit is what is illegal since the player is defenseless after the turnover. Any hit...not the stipulations you're quoting.

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is: Why is this in the rule if it isnt the boundary around "defenseless hits"?

(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.
Note: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in t

 

[SNF]

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the worst, I'd say the hit on Kirk, was a 3 or 4.

Baker on Foles was a heavy 10.

Apples and oranges.

For all the uproar over the little hit on Kirk, I think it's safe to say if Kirk would have gotten cheap-shotted like Foles was,some would be calling for the death penalty.

Yep, apples and oranges. The hit on Cousins was long after the refs blew the play dead, yet not even a hint at a penalty call, and the hit on Foles was as he was headed to the ball carrier as the ball carrier was going to the ground, fifteen yard penalty and ejection from the game.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Well, there is this thought from an eagles defensive player. This is why they will never go far in the playoffs under chippy.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/cary-williams-not-happy-chip-233415301.html

 

[Elephant]

So all hits are illegal on a defenseless player, despite that the rule stating only two specific ways a hit may be illegal? That doesn't make any sense at all. No where did the rule say that. I am just seeking somewhere in the rules that backs up what you are saying. Haven't yet.

The referees in charge of the game, league officials and myself along with many othersd understand it. Not sure why you don't...but you obviously don't.

QB throws INT...he cannot be hit.

The horse is dead enough. I don't really need to beat it any longer.