Opinions on this play

[Sturno]

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--

[JRutledge]

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

[APG]

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.

Originally Posted by Sturno

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--

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.

[JugglingReferee]

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by APG

Interesting in that the call in the Washington/Eagles game was apparently graded as a correct call according to Mike Pereira, This is probably why you should only have your Vice President of Officiating making public statements on officiating and in particular specific calls/plays.

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

12-2-9

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

My issue is the part you didn't bold.

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