Official Game Thread at Eagles

[Boone]

After the game, Baker stated he didn't even know it was the QB he was hitting - he said he saw someone moving towards the ball carrier and laid him out like he's supposed to do. I'm just telling you what he said.

 

[Miles Monroe]

I have to lay this one on special teams. Our new ST coach is not impressing me with the coverage breakdowns. Kai.... I'd have Hocker on the phone tonight, and at the park in the morning, and any other place kicker floating around the stock room of WalMart. I understand he's nursing a groin thing, but he just doesn't seem to come through when we really need it.

Overall, I'm fairly happy tonight. We didn't get our asses handed to us, and ya know what, right now, we're not a bad team. We're actually better then most of the media, and a lot of fans give credit for.

 

[DixieFlatline]

I'm not sure how it can be adequately measured though. Who's to say that was a definite "blind side" or not (I say this with the opinion that it was a cheap shot, but should have been a "legal" cheap shot IMHO)

How is the rule worded specifically?

This was posted by SNF in the Body Bag thread. Not sure how to cross post quote.

Owners approve new rule changes - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

The following hits on players in a “defenseless posture” are now illegal:

Among others ...
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession (i.e. turnover).

 

[Snydershrugged]

This was posted by SNF in the Body Bag thread. Not sure how to cross post quote.

so a QB has free and totally open access to the ball and the opposing team member who possesses it without any ability to stop him? That makes no sense at all.

 

[Boone]

That article states the prohibition is on someone 'launching themselves' (ie...leaving their feet to deliver a hit) to a 'defenseless' player. That's not what happened - unless I'm misreading that rule....

 

[DixieFlatline]

so a QB has free and totally open access to the ball and the opposing team member who possesses it without any ability to stop him? That makes no sense at all.

I thought that at first too, but I think it's the 'defenseless position' part that makes it different. i.e. you can't blind side him, but you can block him if he's engaged and see you coming. I'm sure there is more official language for it, but that would be my layman's interpretation.

 

[Ax]

You can't blindside ANY player on an int return.

It was a blatant cheapshot.

Baker has to lie about knowing it was Foles. He's trying to not get suspended for game, On top of the big fine he's gonna get.

 

[Snydershrugged]

You can't blindside ANY player on an int return.

It was a blatant cheapshot.

Baker has to lie about knowing it was Foles. He's trying to not get suspended for game, On top of the big fine he's gonna get.

what is the NFL's official written definition in the rules of a "Blindside"?

 

[Ax]

Terminology isn't really important, SS. Think of it as a sucker punch.

It's a cheapshot. and it's illegal.

 

[Chris]

And the Eagles lineman didn't hear a whistle that was 10 feet from him before pancaking Cousins?

 

[Snydershrugged]

I think this is the current rule (should be vetted just in case)

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

Article 9 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:
OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 73(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to
protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or
warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
(3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;
(4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;
(5) A player on the ground at the end of a play;
(6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return;
(7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession, and
(8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and
approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.
(b) 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.
Note: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a
conventional tackle on an opponent.
Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is







so I suppose there is some strange, carte blanche rule that a QB is free to do whatever he wants after a change of possession (I have no idea why that should be the case, but whatever)

my remaining question though is the second part I bolded on what the prohibited named acts on a defenseless payer are.

Did Baker do either of the two mentioned?

 

[Canadian Hog]

I have to lay this one on special teams. Our new ST coach is not impressing me with the coverage breakdowns. Kai.... I'd have Hocker on the phone tonight, and at the park in the morning, and any other place kicker floating around the stock room of WalMart. I understand he's nursing a groin thing, but he just doesn't seem to come through when we really need it.

Overall, I'm fairly happy tonight. We didn't get our asses handed to us, and ya know what, right now, we're not a bad team. We're actually better then most of the media, and a lot of fans give credit for.

Miles,

While I hear what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. I think all three phases of the game had their hand in on the loss and should be held accountable.

Special Teams - bad coverage units, missed field goals, same old, same old. Enough said.

Defence - couldn't get some key third down stops on some of the Eagles' scoring drives, and while the offence was cooking in the first half, they couldn't generate enough pressure and allowed Foles to get into a nice rhythm. While I appreciated the defence's fight in the second half, the reality is that with the limited amount of time the Eagles' offence was on the field during the first half, they should have done better and helped us go into the half with a lead instead of being behind by one.

Offense - A great game overall. However, my one beef is that in the most important drive of the game with an opportunity to win the game, we crumbled.

Making plays when it counts is often what separates the haves from the have nots. We faded across all three phases at various times in critical spots and moments in today's game.

 

[Snydershrugged]

Terminology isn't really important, SS. Think of it as a sucker punch.

It's a cheapshot. and it's illegal.

I think it remains to be seen if it should have been illegal (see my last post), but I wouldnt argue at all at the "cheapshot" nature of it.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Terminology isn't really important, SS. Think of it as a sucker punch.

It's a cheapshot. and it's illegal.

Terminology is most definitely important. And SS is right.
You can't have referees enforcing vague rules that have no definition.
That opens the door to bias, subjectiveness, and inconsistent rulings on the field.
"Cheapshot" is not an "NFL rule term", so using that term in an argument is irrelevant.

 

[Ax]

Whatever dude.

It was a clear penalty. I knew it, and you didn't.

Na-nanny-boo-boo.

 

[Miles Monroe]

Miles,

While I hear what you are saying, I respectfully disagree. I think all three phases of the game had their hand in on the loss and should be held accountable.

Special Teams - bad coverage units, missed field goals, same old, same old. Enough said.

Defence - couldn't get some key third down stops on some of the Eagles' scoring drives, and while the offence was cooking in the first half, they couldn't generate enough pressure and allowed Foles to get into a nice rhythm. While I appreciated the defence's fight in the second half, the reality is that with the limited amount of time the Eagles' offence was on the field during the first half, they should have done better and helped us go into the half with a lead instead of being behind by one.

Offense - A great game overall. However, my one beef is that in the most important drive of the game with an opportunity to win the game, we crumbled.

Making plays when it counts is often what separates the haves from the have nots. We faded across all three phases at various times in critical spots and moments in today's game.

I can't disagree that we could have played better in all three phases CH. I expect improvement across the boards week by week, which is what it's all about with a new head coach. But both the O and D played well enough to win today. Neither spotted Philly 7 points, or fail to score 3... teams did. Had we scored that 3, you can't say what would have been the outcome of this game, but it would be different. Who knows what Philly would have done had they gotten the ball at their 20 on the kick return after the score instead of dam near midfield without the score.

No, I'm stickin to me guns here. Teams failures today had the greatest influence on this loss. Even with all the problems we had today, we were still fighting for a win at the end, and I think that says a lot about the team. Are we ready to contend for a title..... ? I have to say no on that one, but we are capable of making some noise right now. Weather we like it or not, Philly is a pretty good team, and one of the tougher teams we'll face this season. Fix teams, and could win a bunch of games. They have already had an bad impact on two of three games.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Sean Taylor blindsided a Detroit player on a punt return for James Thrash. No penalty. Can someone explain the difference? You can't.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

This rule about cheapshots to the QB during INT returns was put in because defensive players used to go hunting for the QB after a turnover. They would pummel them and take all the blindside hits they could. You can block the QB on a return, but you can't just go lay them out like Baker did. It was the right call from the zebras.

The rules notwithstanding, I was fine with the hit after the refs allowed Cousins to get hit and laid on after the whistle had blown to kill the play. I equate it to baseball. When someone beans your guy, you bean his. If it's going to cost you an ejection (I don't think anyone thought it would be an ejection, but the fight changed that), then you have a reliever or a lesser pitcher do the dirty work. I think Baker is a big part of this D, but losing him isn't as bad as Kerrigan, Orakpo, Hatcher, etc. So him doing the deed was fine with me.

 

[Miles Monroe]

Something else.... The hit by Baker. It's an old school move, and weather people want to admit it or not, back in the day, we loved to see a QB dumb enough to get near the play, and have the lumber laid to him. I know I'm not the only Skins fan that saw Foles on the turf in pain more then once, and thought, good deal, we knocked him out of the game, now lets chase Sanchez around.

 

[Om]

One other thing to consider ... don't be surprised at all if Amerson is suspended for the NYG game. In the scrum after Baker took out Foles, the cameras clearly caught Amerson jumping up and throwing a punch at someone. With him probably suspended, and DHall down, and Hatcher limited, we're going to need to score points.