NFL says hit on Foles after the pick was legal

is hitting the ground, so not late either.

Nobody wants to see the QB get hurt but if he is going to follow the play after his own interception he is fair game.

Foles didn't learn this lesson last season b/c he only threw 2 picks. So I say welcome to the NFL pal...

Actually Trotter laid out Feagles I think. It was McDougle who almost killed Eli, IIRC.

it was a legal hit and I was getting killed on here. He blocks a player below the head, not leading with the head and it isn't a clip.

I believe he was ejected for fighting with Peters - which he really had no choice about once Peters went after him.

(for Foles and all involved from an ejection standpoint) is the ball wasn't picked. It hit the ground so it turned out it was just an incompletion.

and I haven't changed my mind. First of all, Foles is jogging toward the play, and thus has established himself as a potential tackler. Second, it was a clean his in terms of the defender getting his helmet in front of Foles and then hitting him square in the chest. Third, I don't think it was late at all. the runner is going down as the initial contact with Foles is made. No whistle blew, as the runner was not yet down. Any way you slice it, the hit was clean.

In comment 11880037 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

Actually Trotter laid out Feagles I think. It was McDougle who almost killed Eli, IIRC.

Yea, the McDougle hit. I also thought that was the end of Eli's career when I saw it.

In comment 11880047 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

(for Foles and all involved from an ejection standpoint) is the ball wasn't picked. It hit the ground so it turned out it was just an incompletion.

As a Giant fan, that's the best thing about it.

I changed my mind after initially thinking it was legal is Aikman on the broadcast said they made a new rule a couple years ago, that you couldn't hit a QB after a pick.

Aikman was wrong, FMiC and others were right. I believed Aikman, so I was wrong too and I have learned my lesson.

Are correct..

...he risks getting blocked or knocked out of the play. That being said, anyone who watches their QB get hit like that is going to look for a flag...or vengeance.

Any pass rusher is going to want to put his hands on the opposing QB, and while this wasn't an illegal play, it is bush league IMO.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv7DTI-kTzA - ( New Window )

however, with all the added protection given to the QBs these days, you could also make a case that the runner was already being tackled and the QB wasn't impacting the play.

But furthermore, it was a boom boom play.

So what do you want from me?

If the hit was considered to occur after the play was over, that would be an obvious foul. Let's assume that the whistle had not blown and we are dealing with a defenseless player (as the NFL says).

The rule book lists a number of instances where a player is considered defenseless. One of them (#7) is:

"A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession)"

So Foles is a defenseless player.

The rule book makes the following general statement:

"It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture".

This would seem to give the referees wide latitude in considering something "unnecessary". But the rules go into more specifics about protections for defenseless players, which is what the league apparently looked at.

There are three protections for defenseless players:

"(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player's head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet or facemask is lower than the passer's neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him;
or
(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; or
(3) Illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to
contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet (including the
top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent's body."

This is followed by a the following notes:

"Note1: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or block on an opponent.

Note 2: A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an illegal act. This includes
illegal contact that may occur during the process of attempting to dislodge the ball from an opponent. A standard of strict liability applies for any contact against a defenseless opponent, even if the opponent is an airborne player who is returning to the ground or whose body position is otherwise in motion, and irrespective of any acts by the defenseless opponent, such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact."

Now it appears that (1) (2) and (3) didn't apply to the Foles hit. But note that the (#7) designation above also says to look at article 8(f). Going there we find the following. Whether it applies to Foles comes down to the words "distinctly defensive position". This article 8(f) stuff appears under the "Roughing the Passer" rules

"(f) A passer who is standing still or fading backward after the ball has left his hand is obviously out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by an opponent through the end of the down or until the passer becomes a blocker, or a runner, or, in the event of a change of possession during the down, until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. However, at any time after the change of possession, it is a foul if (i) an opponent forcibly hits the quarterback's head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, or (ii) if an opponent lowers his head and makes forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/hairline parts of his helmet against any part of the quarterback's body. This provision (ii) does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a conventional block."

Wow...look at whet the refs are up against. Look at all those rules and exceptions.

the difference between that hit.......

and when a guy chasing a punt returner is tuned up with a vicious hit from an angle he can't see.

In a more gentle NFL, I think this is a penalty......

Where a blocker peels back and hits a guy who is not looking has become a penalty or even the defenseless WR penalties, but this is legal. I think all should be legal, but the way try call these things seems wildly inconsistent

Ballcarrier is clearly going down before Baker unloads on him.

let that be a lesson to Foles...throw a pick, go after the ball carrier, but with your head on a swivel!!!!

In comment 11880082 Bino5 said:

Quote:

Where a blocker peels back and hits a guy who is not looking has become a penalty or even the defenseless WR penalties, but this is legal. I think all should be legal, but the way try call these things seems wildly inconsistent

Beno - my exact point, right above your post!!!!

and on the way down. the ball carrier was on the way down, which is not a guarantee of being down.

being defenseless. Foles was clearly trying to secure a tackle on the return.

was from 2011 (Vince Young game at Met Life).

I don't remember a penalty either, nor do I remember anyone jumping in to brawl..just some pushing and shoving.

but because of the timing but you guys are probably right. This is the first time I have seen it and the slow motion skewed it for me. However, Foles appears to just be trotting and even though his knee is not down he is on his way down and it looks like most everybody else realizes the play is over. It may be considered legal but it is still a cheap shot. I'm a defensive guy and I always preach to my kids to get the QB on the interception. I just think the intentions of the one hitting Foles was to just hurt him and not to block him from making a play. I know. I know. You are taught at a young age to be aware of that and Foles should have. However, if that was Eli I am sure a lot of you guys would change your opinion of the hit.

Also, didn't Sapp get fined or suspended for something similar to that. I think if the QB or anybody not near the play gets hit like that they throw the flag. At least they used to.

but because of the timing but you guys are probably right. This is the first time I have seen it and the slow motion skewed it for me. However, Foles appears to just be trotting and even though his knee is not down he is on his way down and it looks like most everybody else realizes the play is over. It may be considered legal but it is still a cheap shot. I'm a defensive guy and I always preach to my kids to get the QB on the interception. I just think the intentions of the one hitting Foles was to just hurt him and not to block him from making a play. I know. I know. You are taught at a young age to be aware of that and Foles should have. However, if that was Eli I am sure a lot of you guys would change your opinion of the hit.

Also, didn't Sapp get fined or suspended for something similar to that. I think if the QB or anybody not near the play gets hit like that they throw the flag. At least they used to.

hit an OL and injured his ACL, right? Someone on GB?

Like Troy Vincent says in the link I think you can debate if it's unsportsmanlike conduct, that's ambiguous enough, but by letter of the rule, the hit in and of itself is legal.

is the way

In comment 11880116 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

hit an OL and injured his ACL, right? Someone on GB? Like Troy Vincent says in the link I think you can debate if it's unsportsmanlike conduct, that's ambiguous enough, but by letter of the rule, the hit in and of itself is legal.

Chad Clifton, IIRC. I thought it was a hip injury, though.

In comment 11880033 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

I think it was Trotter who laid Eli out his rookie year, right? I legitimately thought Eli died.

I think it was his first game and very first play.

was WELL away from where the ball was, and Sapp actually lauched himself somewhat instead of just going into the chest.............

But again, how do you judge how close the defender needs to be??

In comment 11880123 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

In comment 11880116 pjcas18 said: Quote: hit an OL and injured his ACL, right? Someone on GB? Like Troy Vincent says in the link I think you can debate if it's unsportsmanlike conduct, that's ambiguous enough, but by letter of the rule, the hit in and of itself is legal. Chad Clifton, IIRC. I thought it was a hip injury, though.

Yeah I googled it. It was Chad Clifton and Sapp launched himself at Clifton and hit him with the crown of his helmet. It was a pelvic injury. Clifton couldn't walk for 5 weeks.


Sapp hits Clifton - ( New Window )

the definition of a "defenseless player" has morphed into "Ooh, that guy was hit hard when he wasn't suspecting it"!

There was a penalty on the MNF game where a WR was clocked at the goalline after a catch and it was determined he was defenseless, even though the hit jarred the ball loose and he was diving for the line.

The hit on Eli was Jerome McDougal. He almost split Eli in half.

hit on Jimmy Graham a few years back was illegal.

Graham catches the ball and sees him coming (not defenseless), ducks into the hit, and even so, shoulder-to-body appears to to be the first impact before any helmet collision...

Is it because KP left his feet/launched?
Graham Cracker - ( New Window )

Seems to me the hit is legal.

That said, if you throw a pick as a QB, you should be expecting that the defense is going to try and absolutely DESTROY you if you are anywhere NEAR the interceptor.

Baker must have been giggling like a schoolgirl when he saw Foles jogging after that guy... LOL

It was Eli's first game.
I don't know why I misremembered it as a pick return, mudbear moment.

If it were a mudbear moment you would've remembered a tennis match.

when a receiver is in the air after beating a DB, the only way you can defend him would be to either hope he drops it, strip it out, or provide a hit that doesn't "jar" him.

FMIC's point about the MNF hit proves this. The guy split between two defenders and after making the catch, the second defender's only play was to hit the receiver, hoping to jar it loose. It was a hard hit, and the receiver still held on, but the defender was penalized.

The hit had to have been in response to the hit on Cousins on a delay of game which did not result in a penalty when the Eagles did it. A penalty not being called on for the hit on the delay of game turned a 3rd and 7 into a 3rd and 12 instead of first and goal from the 4 yard line and won the game for the Eagles because of the subsequent missed fieldgoal by the Redskins.

if you touch or give the receiver a dirty look downfield, you get 15 yards, if you say mean words, you get 15 yards but if you plaster a player from behind after the play is essentially over, it's okay.

Flying elbow was not a football move.

In comment 11880020 USAF NYG Fan said:

Quote:

I think this was the 2010 Sunday Night game

Sorry

a yellow pinny on the QB and make it illegal to touch him.
That's where this is headed.

Dirty and uncalled for - check

The opposing (Purdue?) QB ran an option play, kept the ball going off tackle. He gained about 5 yards and then dropped to his knees and was sliding forward when the ND safety hit him very hard.

I thought, at the time, the play was clean but the ref called a foul called "targeting" and disqualified the ND safety.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the logic, as explained by the broadcasters was that, it was a penalty because they felt the safety would not have made as hard a hit if it was not the QB running.

I would apply the same logic to the Foles play from Sunday.

Make sense?

In comment 11880371 natefit said:

Quote:

Dirty and uncalled for - check

Yes. My feeling at the time was that the block was intened to hurt Foles as opposed to keeping him from making a tackle of the play.

OTOH, if Foles had made the tackle I can imagine his coach would have ripped him a new one Monday morning.

In comment 11880073 ray in arlington said:

Quote:

If the hit was considered to occur after the play was over, that would be an obvious foul. Let's assume that the whistle had not blown and we are dealing with a defenseless player (as the NFL says). The rule book lists a number of instances where a player is considered defenseless. One of them (#7) is: "A quarterback at any time after a change of possession (Also see Article 8(f) for additional restrictions against a quarterback after a change of possession)" So Foles is a defenseless player. The rule book makes the following general statement: "It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture". This would seem to give the referees wide latitude in considering something "unnecessary". But the rules go into more specifics about protections for defenseless players, which is what the league apparently looked at. There are three protections for defenseless players: "(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player's head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet or facemask is lower than the passer's neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or (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; or (3) Illegally launching into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (i) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (ii) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent's body." This is followed by a the following notes: "Note1: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle or block on an opponent. Note 2: A player who initiates contact against a defenseless opponent is responsible for avoiding an illegal act. This includes illegal contact that may occur during the process of attempting to dislodge the ball from an opponent. A standard of strict liability applies for any contact against a defenseless opponent, even if the opponent is an airborne player who is returning to the ground or whose body position is otherwise in motion, and irrespective of any acts by the defenseless opponent, such as ducking his head or curling up his body in anticipation of contact." Now it appears that (1) (2) and (3) didn't apply to the Foles hit. But note that the (#7) designation above also says to look at article 8(f). Going there we find the following. Whether it applies to Foles comes down to the words "distinctly defensive position". This article 8(f) stuff appears under the "Roughing the Passer" rules "(f) A passer who is standing still or fading backward after the ball has left his hand is obviously out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by an opponent through the end of the down or until the passer becomes a blocker, or a runner, or, in the event of a change of possession during the down, until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. However, at any time after the change of possession, it is a foul if (i) an opponent forcibly hits the quarterback's head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, or (ii) if an opponent lowers his head and makes forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/hairline parts of his helmet against any part of the quarterback's body. This provision (ii) does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or the helmet in the course of a conventional block." Wow...look at whet the refs are up against. Look at all those rules and exceptions.

Very true, but the refs know a cheap shot when they see it and the above empowers them to do something about it.

it would be Troy Vincent.

reaction after the hit, he acts very nonchalant while lookinf for a flag IMO. He knew he got away with a cheap shot legal or otherwise.

In comment 11880379 ed90631 said:

Quote:

The opposing (Purdue?) QB ran an option play, kept the ball going off tackle. He gained about 5 yards and then dropped to his knees and was sliding forward when the ND safety hit him very hard. I thought, at the time, the play was clean but the ref called a foul called "targeting" and disqualified the ND safety. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the logic, as explained by the broadcasters was that, it was a penalty because they felt the safety would not have made as hard a hit if it was not the QB running. I would apply the same logic to the Foles play from Sunday. Make sense?

How can anyone be sure? Football is football. If it we're an undersized WR or RB and you have them in your sights and are prepared to unload - you will.

Anything other than that is confirmation bias, and totally skews this game away from what makes it brutal, and consequently... Great to watch.