Baker Hit On Foles.....redskins Eagles Game

[flyfisher]

I am curious on everyone's opinion on the hit...I am sure everyone has seen ti by now but if not, here ya go

 

http://www.brobible.com/sports/article/eagles-redskins-brawl/

 

I am an Eagles fan and probably biased, ok well not probably but i think it was a total cheap shot even though it was deemed a legal play by the NFL.  I am not sure how it passed the rules committee as it states:

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

 

When you watch the video you can see the player was on his way down and the play was over when the hit was applied, not to mention there was no way he could have made the tackle given how far away he was from the play.....

 

I know the league has been "wussified" and i agree but that isn't the point here.  I know if that hit was taken by brady or manning it would have been ruled differently for sure....

 

Ultimately though the league and the refs are somewhat to blame as well because you could clearly see it was not a pick but with the ability to challenge plays refs let a lot of things go that they hope to catch later on in a replay.

 

anyways I was having some debates with friends and was wondering everyone else's take....
 

[Choporoz]

I watched the game and was sort of appalled at first.  But after watching the replays, I had no problem with it whatsoever.   Ball was turned over and QB became a defenseman and potential tackler.  Block him out of the play.  I don't understand why there'd be any controversy.

[roadwarrior]

Quality quarterbacks are a rare commodity in the NFL and that is the reason

they are "protected" by special rules. I think the hit should result in suspension

and the maximum fine that can be assessed.

 

 

[Jigfishn10]

I guess I don't understand your question, the link you provided states the following:

 

"In the fourth quarter of the Redskins-Eagles game, after a Nick Foles interception defensive lineman Chris Baker laid him out with a brutal hit. Foles’ Eagles teammates rushed to his defense, Jason Peters in particular slapped Baker’s helmet that led to his ejection. Chris Baker was also ejected for his hit on Foles."

 

Am I missing something.

 

No fly, I didn't watch the Eagles game...LOL

[flyfisher]

I don't think he was ejected for the hit as much as the brawl after the fact because Jason Peters on the Eagles went right after him.....My thing was the league came back later and said it was legal.  

 

10 years ago the hit would have been fine and probably applauded by his teammates but to me it was a total cheap shot much like Hines Ward used to do back in the day....

 

I guess it is possible though that since he was tossed the league let it go to an extent too....

 

And i know many didn't watch the game but if you watched sports center it was on all over the place lol 

[Jigfishn10]

I had a feeling that article was wrong...LOL

[flyfisher]

i honestly don't even know what the actual call was when they made it because the brawl broke out pretty much immediately and the refs were, well, horrible all game.  Correcting themselves about which team a call was against, changing hand signals for the penalties etc....

[buzzed bait]

it almost looks to me like it could be deemed a block in the back.... 

quite clear that it was unncessary amount of force no matter what.

[aavery2]

I don't think he was ejected for the hit as much as the brawl after the fact because Jason Peters on the Eagles went right after him.....My thing was the league came back later and said it was legal.  

 

10 years ago the hit would have been fine and probably applauded by his teammates but to me it was a total cheap shot much like Hines Ward used to do back in the day....

 

I guess it is possible though that since he was tossed the league let it go to an extent too....

 

And i know many didn't watch the game but if you watched sports center it was on all over the place lol 

 

The Eagles as a team under Buddy Ryan were also notorious for these same tactics.  Don't know how old you are so you might not remember Bounty Bowl I and II. 

[Choporoz]

I'm one of the guys who rolls his eyes when men start bemoaning the *** of football.  I am all for looking for ways to make the game safer.  But I can't get outraged about this play.  I also don't find a problem with Foles' teammates getting upset.  It lasted too long - and that's the refs' fault.  But, it never erupted into a real brawl.  Baker didn't take his legs out or pick him up and slam him on the ground or anything else that I'd call an 'unnecessary amount of force' - Foles was blocked.  Legally.

     I don't think we need to do more to protect QB's at this time.  But, if they do, then put a red shirt on them - don't let them cross the line of scrimmage, don't let them block or make tackles or initiate any sort of contact with opposing players.  Until you put a flag-football belt on them, QB's are going to be hit and I'm OK with that. 

[BrianinMD]

I don't think you can justify letting a player, QB or whoever else, get  into a play as a potential tackler or blocker and then restrict who can hit him. If a QB does not want to be hit like every other player then do not get into the middle of the play. If he was on the other side of the field I could see it being illegal, but not when he was in the middle of the play.

 

As for a judging at game speed that a player is  "on his way down anyway" that is not going to happen and shouldn't. You play until the whistle, having some players think he is "on the way down" and others still playing because they don't see it the same way will lead to more injuries.

[Felix77]

[flyfisher]

My thing is the rules state that once a pick is thrown the QB is considered defenseless and even at game speed you could see the play was over at that point.  

 

And yes, i remember all those games but my thing is the rules changed and QB play according to those rules.  Back in the day if you threw a pick you were the first guy nailed no matter where you were on the field and QB was ready for it, the rules changed to prevent it from happening and players changed their style of play.  I equate it to the hack a shaw rule where you can't intentionally foul a guy away from the play just to get a bad free throw shooter at the line instead of the ball handler.

[aavery2]

I think if the QB wants protection under the rules, then he needs to remove himself from the play, trailing the play like he did makes him a tackler in my opinion and open to legal blocks.

[VolFan]

I think it was a cheap shot like the "block" Warren Sapp put on Chad Clifton several years ago. Was it legal? Maybe, but that doesn't make it a good play. Some of these guys just feel a need to express their manhood like that. I find it disrespectful to the game and the other players. It's not "wussification", it's trying to keep the game safe so these entertainers aren't crippled vegetables after their careers.

[Bluebasser86]

The play was over by the time the block was made as well, D backs knee hits the ground and immediately after the hit is made. There is no way that huge D lineman couldn't have blocked Foles without laying him out like that. It was really similar to laying out a helpless receiver on a crossing pattern over the middle. It's a violent game and I know injuries are going to happen, but the league owes it to the players to protect them from shots like that. To me it shouldn't make a difference if he hit a 3rd string fullback nobody had ever heard of, but I know they try to protect the QBs even more than anyone else. I didn't have any dog in the fight here, just my opinions on it.  

[Hyrule Bass]

My thing is the rules state that once a pick is thrown the QB is considered defenseless and even at game speed you could see the play was over at that point.  

 

And yes, i remember all those games but my thing is the rules changed and QB play according to those rules.  Back in the day if you threw a pick you were the first guy nailed no matter where you were on the field and QB was ready for it, the rules changed to prevent it from happening and players changed their style of play.  I equate it to the hack a shaw rule where you can't intentionally foul a guy away from the play just to get a bad free throw shooter at the line instead of the ball handler.

 

you dont have the full rule. if the QB removes himself from the play he is defenseless, foles chose to pursue the play. the hit was clean and legal according to the rules. it wasnt helmet to helmet, a blow to the head or neck, or a shot at the knees or a block in the back as someone suggested. good, clean and hard hit. look below for a link and better explanation...

 

 

 

I think if the QB wants protection under the rules, then he needs to remove himself from the play, trailing the play like he did makes him a tackler in my opinion and open to legal blocks.

 

thats part of how the rule works...look below for the link and explanation of the rule and leagues meaning of defenseless

 

 

 

The play was over by the time the block was made as well, D backs knee hits the ground and immediately after the hit is made. There is no way that huge D lineman couldn't have blocked Foles without laying him out like that.

 

here is the thing, as you attest, the hit is immediately after the DB is taken down. its impossible for baker to pull up on the hit at that point. youre not stopping 300+ pounds of force rumbling at you in an instant. based on physics, it just aint happening.

 

----------------------

 

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

 

here is how the rule works. and according to the article baker was ejected for the hit, but the hit shouldnt have lead to him being ejected or even flagged.

 

 

“Baker didn’t do anything wrong with that hit,” Vincent said.  “When you look at the rule, he didn’t do anything illegal.  People can say it’s a cheap shot and you can talk about whether it might fall under unsportsmanlike conduct.  But when you know the rule and you look at the play, he didn’t hit him in the head.  He didn’t hit him in the neck.  We looked at it.  I looked at it very closely.  He’s not going to be fined for that.”

 

Vincent is right.  While a quarterback following a change of possession is regarded as “defenseless,” that designation means only that he can’t be hit in the head or neck area or with a helmet.  Baker blasted Foles while Foles was moving toward the play, but Baker didn’t hit Foles in the head or neck or with Baker’s helmet.  (If Foles weren’t pursuing the ball carrier, Bakers couldn’t have hit Foles legally.)

 

so basically, defenseless only means you cant hit a player in the head or neck area or lead with your helmet(or also you cant hit a guy away from the play not in pursuit, but that parts irrelevant here because foles was in pursuit). doesnt mean you cant hit them at all...

[flyfisher]

I understand the rules and the ruling that was made is that it was legal.  

 

The play was over and Foles was hardly pursuing the play as he wasn't more than walking towards the play and the ball carrier was already contacted and on the way down when baker took his two steps before the hit.  And i know you mentioned you can't stop that momentum and i agree but at the same time it is pretty easy to pull up and not take another step and lower your shoulder into a guy too and lessen the impact on a dead play. Really that is a moot point because it was deemed legal.  That still doesn't change the fact that it was a complete cheap shot.

 

Showed me how strong Foles was though to take a cheap shot like that and get up and still win even though it is against one of the poorest run franchises in all professional sports.

[aavery2]

The play is not over because the runner is down, the play is over when the whistle blows.  Even in little league football they teach you to keep playing until the whistle blows.    This said I think the hit could have been avoided or at least minimized, it did seem like there was a bit of nasty intent.  

 

I think Foles put him self at risk and paid the price for it.

[flyfisher]

yeah everyone knows to play till the whistle but you never see hits like that on other players at the end of a play.  He wasn't sprinting towards the ball and even said i thought the play was over when i got blasted.

 

the dropping of the shoulder showed me all the intent that was there....he wanted a shot on the QB even though legal, still a pretty cheap shot and we all know if it was brady or manning baker would be suspended and fined lol

[aavery2]

yeah everyone knows to play till the whistle but you never see hits like that on other players at the end of a play.  He wasn't sprinting towards the ball and even said i thought the play was over when i got blasted.

 

the dropping of the shoulder showed me all the intent that was there....he wanted a shot on the QB even though legal, still a pretty cheap shot and we all know if it was brady or manning baker would be suspended and fined lol

I can't disagree about Manning and Brady, but most sports implement the rules a little differently for the elite athletes.  Does not make it right, and it is frustrating at times, but as long as the human element is involved in officiating sports these things will always be present.  Just glad that Foles is OK and didn't suffer any serious injury.

[F14A-B]

Does anyone seriously think that NFL players fighting each other will lead to injuries? Not likely.. That's the game, always has been.. Let them fight.. It's better than boxing!

[flyfisher]

I can't disagree about Manning and Brady, but most sports implement the rules a little differently for the elite athletes.  Does not make it right, and it is frustrating at times, but as long as the human element is involved in officiating sports these things will always be present.  Just glad that Foles is OK and didn't suffer any serious injury.

You bring up a good point though, i bet if Foles was injured the league would have ruled differently as well.  Foles was sore after that game even if he didn't take that hit though, he was getting blasted all game.  I guess that happens when you have no back up O-linemen left lol

[VolFan]

It's funny that you rarely see cheap hits like that on o-linemen, but you see it with some regularity on qbs and kickers. Some guys just feel a need to pick on the unsuspecting weaklings. Take from that what you will. I'm sure there's a psychosocial issue there or something.

[flyfisher]

Which is exactly what Peters said when asked about the incident....