Was the hit on Foles cheap?

[Hornsstampede2.0]

They actually changed the rules 10 years ago to make this a more clear foul.

Some announcers and players are under the misinformed notion that you can hit a quarterback after an interception. You really cannot unless its absolutely necessary to the play.


NFL RULEBOOK
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 quarterback at any time after a change of possession is considered in a defenseless posture."


The only wiggle room comes into play with the word "unnecessary".
If the defender can say with a straight face that blowing up Nick Foles was "necessary" to the play, then he will not be punished.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Since Foles is my fantasy QB damn right it was cheap and illegal!

Really no reason to do that. If it happened to Cousins the Skins would have been up in arms. Way to many injuries in football to have ass hats going out of their way. If it was a key block then fine but Foles wasn't going to male any play.

That bias takes you out of the conversation in terms of being objective, but I feel ya.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

They actually changed the rules 10 years ago to make this a more clear foul.

Some announcers and players are under the misinformed notion that you can hit a quarterback after an interception. You really cannot unless its absolutely necessary to the play.


NFL RULEBOOK
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 quarterback at any time after a change of possession is considered in a defenseless posture."


The only wiggle room comes into play with the word "unnecessary".
If the defender can say with a straight face that blowing up Nick Foles was "necessary" to the play, then he will not be punished.

He said with a straight face that he didn't know it was a QB which I thought was BS...any time there is a change of possession and the QB is moving in the direction of the play, imo he's fair game...if he stays out of the play, any contact with the QB should be illegal.

 

[jonvi]

Baker could have tried to get in the play and chose to take out foles instead. Legal...barely. Cheap as all hell and don't blame the Eagles for fighting over it.

 

[fordman84]

When I saw the replay yesterday I thought the play had just ended when that shot was taken. If that is still true, then it was a cheap shot. If not, then it was a big play and cheap...but legal.

I saw that and thought "someone does that to Romo and I'm pretty sure the opposing QB would lose both his knees on the next snap, even it if is a handoff".

 

[bksballer89]

Foles need to be more alert if the play was still going on

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Baker could have tried to get in the play and chose to take out foles instead. Legal...barely. Cheap as all hell and don't blame the Eagles for fighting over it.

There is a valid argument for it being cheap, but Baker WAS in the play by blocking for a potential return.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Cheap & illegal. There is no need to blow up a QB like that. Hit's like were made illegal after the Saints put a hit like that on Kurt Warner after he threw an INT in the 2009 playoffs. Which ultimately help lead him to his decision to retire.

When a QB is that far away from a play & are generally just light jogging or walking towards the ball carrier, blowing him up is classless dirty move. And the for the idiot to say he didn't know it was Foles, he is an outright liar.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Foles need to be more alert if the play was still going on

There you go...the rule actually protects the QB if they just move away from the direction of the play...jogging towards the play as if he's going to try to make a play on the returner puts you in harms way.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Cheap & illegal. There is no need to blow up a QB like that. Hit's like were made illegal after the Saints put a hit like that on Kurt Warner after he threw an INT in the 2009 playoffs. Which ultimately help lead him to his decision to retire.

When a QB is that far away from a play & are generally just light jogging or walking towards the ball carrier, blowing him up is classless dirty move. And the for the idiot to say he didn't know it was Foles, he is an outright liar.

Blowing him up is classless, but the QB is protected if they DON'T jog towards the play...jogging towards the play actually makes it a legal hit...uncalled for, but legal imo.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Blowing him up is classless, but the QB is protected if they DON'T jog towards the play...jogging towards the play actually makes it a legal hit...uncalled for, but legal imo.

It's natural instinct to light jog towards the action. The issue is that he was nowhere near the play & you don't just blow a QB up just to blow him up. It is not legal to do so if the player is not near the action.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Note P. Manning after his pick. Guy knows how to stay out of trouble. I actually think he pointed the CB towards the correct endzone. Catch ya later bro!

 

[ATL96Steeler]

It's natural instinct to light jog towards the action. The issue is that he was nowhere near the play & you don't just blow a QB up just to blow him up. It is not legal to do so if the player is not near the action.

We're on the same page in terms of the hit being unnecessary, and it is natural to move towards the play, just as it's natural to block a player moving towards the play, that's what you're taught to do on a turnover.

Not legal...you interject too much gray area into it by saying not near the play...if you're moving towards the play, you don't know whats going to happen, the returner could break free and all of a sudden the QB jogging towards the play could be the last man between him and scoring...you don't know.

The rule protects the QB if you don't move towards the play...I don't know if you saw Manning's pick but #31 in the SEA game yesterday, but if you noticed...he didn't run towards the action.

 

[jonvi]

There is a valid argument for it being cheap, but Baker WAS in the play by blocking for a potential return.[/QUOTE]

lol....Sure. Foles was watching the action and had no intention of running through the two Eagles already getting in on the tackle.

If Baker wanted to be in on the play, he would been blocking one of those two lining up for the tackle.

Instead....He lined up the QB and put it too him. It was barely legal because as a spectator...Foles was just a touch too close. Cheap....OMG cheap and Foles is lucky to be alive.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

There is a valid argument for it being cheap, but Baker WAS in the play by blocking for a potential return.[/QUOTE]

lol....Sure. Foles was watching the action and had no intention of running through the two Eagles already getting in on the tackle.

If Baker wanted to be in on the play, he would been blocking one of those two lining up for the tackle.

Instead....He lined up the QB and put it too him. It was barely legal because as a spectator...Foles was just a touch too close. Cheap....OMG cheap and Foles is lucky to be alive.

Don't know if you saw this play, but it goes to show a vet QB that knew he was protected by the rules...DEN @ SEA, Manning threw pick to #31...player racing the other way with the pick...Manning was nowhere in the picture of players trying to tackle the guy,

To be clear...I thought the hit was unnecessary, and classless, but legal. As a QB after a pick, you either go full bore to try and make a tackle, or get out of the way of the play...sort of jobbing in the direction of the play is a no go, but doubtful he'll do that again.

 

[SonnyCID]

No, I dont think its cheap or unfair if its within the rules. Keep your head on a swivel next time, Foles.

 

[jonvi]

Don't know if you saw this play, but it goes to show a vet QB that knew he was protected by the rules...DEN @ SEA, Manning threw pick to #31...player racing the other way with the pick...Manning was nowhere in the picture of players trying to tackle the guy,

To be clear...I thought the hit was unnecessary, and classless, but legal. As a QB after a pick, you either go full bore to try and make a tackle, or get out of the way of the play...sort of jobbing in the direction of the play is a no go, but doubtful he'll do that again.

I didn't see the Dever game but read folks talking about it.

On this one...I agree it was a legal hit....just barely...but just barely counts.

 

[gohusk]

It was cheap but not as bad as it looked. He got it in the chest but his head was turned. Foles learned the hard way to take himself out of plays like that because it isn't worth it.

 

[Superbelt]

Foles was not 'lightly jogging' He was starting to lower his shoulder to take on the returner. The returner was going down before they made contact and he did start easing up, but Baker had already committed to clearing the hole that Foles chose to aggressively fill. Foles was trying to seal off a lane that 26 might have taken, if he would have kept his feet.

If you don't want to play football, get away from the play.

 

[Cobiemonster]

If we're talking about how Nick Foles needs to have his head on a swivel, then why aren't we talking about Chris Baker needing to not commit early to hitting a guy? Why can't the guy that's doing the hitting have the ability to stop when he sees the play is already over? That doesn't give him an excuse to just hit a guy because he had already committed to doing it, you have to be smart enough to know when to stop, you have to be able to react in situations like that and know that it's going to be late