Agree completely.....that was a malicious hit, and no need for that crap at any level. Funny they went that way, especially in the wake of all the safety-minded rules they've moved towards and what they're trying to convey, then setting a real piss poor precedent with this explanation and ruling.

Same thing will happen two weeks from now to another QB and they will flip flop entirely.

I bet they wouldn't have ruled a hit like this against a Manning, Brady or Brees to be legal. Just a hunch. :D

With all due respect, your suggestion that the penalty reference in NFHS 9-4-3-i-note-3 "illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless player, somehow limits defenseless player fouls to ONLY illegal helmet contacts, DIRECTLY contradicts 2-32-16, and common sense.

2-32-16 is FAR broader admonition suggesting, "A defenseless player is A PLAYER who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration , is especially vulnerable to injury." There is NO applied, or inferred, limintation to such illegal contacts mandating ONLY helmet-to-helmet contacts.

Although 2014 Points of Emphasis mentions the "importance placed on risk minimization and injuries to the head and neck areas" it goes on to advize, "it is imperative to implement rules that place restrictions on hits to players who are not in a position to defend themselves.", which applies to a far greater variety of contacts than those limited to the illegal helmet-to-helmet variety.

I think we do not even talk about the Skins vs. Eagle hit it it was not a QB. I thought the hit was fine and somewhat around the ball. If you do not want to be hit, do not pursue the darn ball.

Peace

In a league that more safety conscious than ever, especially with its quarterbacks, I think it says something when something that was this visual and out in the open was said to be a legal hit.

I think the closest category that this play can be called under is a simple UNR for a late hit.

I don't think the defender violated any of the UNR provisions for for a hit on a player in a defenseless posture (which the QB is considered after a COP). The block wasn't in the head or neck area and the crown of the helmet wasn't used. The only other question is whether the league considers Foles actions toward the end of play of Foles being a distinctly defensive position. When the hit happened Foles was about five yards from the play and moving toward the runner.

That said, I would expect that kind of play to be flagged more often than not.

Could very well be a "defenseless player" foul and should have been flagged.
Helmet contact has nothing to do with a defenseless player, that is targeting.

Watch the replay of the Foles hit again...play was just about over and Foles had given up on the chase and was within a step of standing still pretty much when he was labeled. Fairly similar to the play in question that started the thread, except Foles was maybe 4 or 5 yards closer to the end of the run/return.

As mentioned...if this was Manning or Brady, I have a feeling this gets a different label on it coming out of the NFL's NY office. That really is the true definition of defenseless player the way he was tagged and according to what they discuss here from the NFL rule book, addressed incorrectly.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-hi...JmMQR2dGlkAw--

The only issue I see, is that it appears Foles is around the ball. He is moving towards the ball. There is even a teammate player of Foles, looking at the ball ready to make a play if needed. If Foles does not want to be hit, then stop running in that direction.

Peace

Interesting in that the call in the Washington/Eagles game was apparently graded as a correct call according to Mike Pereira, yet NFL Executive VP of Football Operations Troy Vincent came out saying the play was legal. The league also did not fine the player for the hit (which would be a minimum fine of $16,537).

This is probably why you should only have your Vice President of Officiating making public statements on officiating and in particular specific calls/plays.

This article isn't quoting the correct part of the rule book if a penalty is to be called on this play. For starters, they quote the rule book from 3 years ago. And while that may have been a blindside block, the defender did not hit cause forcible contact to the head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder. He didn't cause forcible contact with the crown/hairline portion of his helmet. He also did not launch. These are the actions prohibited against a player in a defenseless posture.

The rule to quote is is under roughing the passing provisions.

12-2-9

Roughing the Passer. Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply. The Referee has principal responsibility for enforcing these rules. Any physical acts against a player who is in a passing posture (i.e. before, during, or after a pass) which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls. The Referee will be guided by the following principles:

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.

Thankfully here in Canada we have defined defenseless players and protected players by position. This is a foul no matter which position the recipient plays. That it's a QB means that it's a foul for another reason.

At minimum, this is a UR foul. I'm on the train that could easily upgrade this to a Rough Play, which is 25y+DQ.

Agree with AJMC that a defenseless player doesn't need to be hit in helmet or targeted for a foul....though I don't get a full look at this...I wouldn't have a hard time with a IBB foul here either. -1

This PARTICULAR play was clearly a "bang-bang" (could go either way) play, but considering the "principles" Referee's should consider, suggested; The pass was LONG completed, there was a change of possession (interception) and the passer was moving towards the defensive player who intercepted.

Although a passer rightfully deserves additional protection, due to his vulnerability in passing, when he chooses to pursue a play, with an opponent in possession of a live ball, he ASSUMES the same risks, and consequences, ALL pursuing players accept.

My issue is the part you didn't bold.

standing still or fading backward is the opposite of what he was doing.

We do not use the definitions in rule 2 to call fouls. We use the definitions within the foul descriptions, in this case rule 9-4-3. If you believe there should be a foul called in this situation, then 9-4-3b is a good choice. The thing about the new emphasis on targeting, helmet contact, etc. is that we have always had rules to use in these situations. I tell our crew, "You will know the foul when you see it. Safety is most important and we can figure out how we want to announce the foul and enforce it."