This hit is illegal? Foster v Ocho

[pr_capone]

I may be wrong but it looks like Foster lit him up square in the chest well after Ocho had caught the ball.

I understand protecting a WR with this defenseless receiver rule but this looks clean. Does the NFL expect defenders to concede the catch? If so, prepare for the NFL equivalent of a soccer flop, basketball's jumping into the defender to draw a foul, and baseball's acting as if hit by pitch.

/not my own video

[Kraus]

Looked clean to me. He was trying to separate the ball from the receiver. No malicious intent behind it.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Kraus

Looked clean to me. He was trying to separate the ball from the receiver. No malicious intent behind it.

Doesn't make it not illegal.

[Bewbies]

Elbow to the face. Yes, that's illegal.

[Al Bundy]

Clean hit. No doubt about it.

[nstygma]

"receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless."

he fits this description so the call is correct

[-King-]

Originally Posted by nstygma

"receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless."

he fits this description so the call is correct

**** that. He had touched the ball. Is the defender really supposed to wait until the receiver sets his feet on the ground before he can hit him?

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by -King-

**** that. He had touched the ball. Is the defender really supposed to wait until the receiver sets his feet on the ground before he can hit him?

As far as I understand it, yes. With the rule changes. Welcome to the complete pussification of the NFL.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by lcarus

As far as I understand it, yes. With the rule changes. Welcome to the complete pussification of the NFL.

Except no. He's supposed to tackle him without hitting him in the head, or using his own as a weapon.

[Backwards Masking]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Except no. He's supposed to tackle him without hitting him in the head, or using his own as a weapon.

Go watch ballet, tap dancing or synchronized swimming. This is FOOTBALL.

[Backwards Masking]

Originally Posted by nstygma

"receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless."

he fits this description so the call is correct

fuck that. this is FOOTBALL. What the hell are the DB's supposed to do, watch and wait and then hope the runner doesn't take off the other direction after the catch. Horrible. Its rule like this that allow the league to promote the teams it wants in close games.

he caught the ball, he's fair game. that's how the rule SHOULD read. for the record I've been against this BS "defenseless receiver" crap from the get go. i've seen beloved Chiefs screwed over by it multiple times over the years.

Fo the record Nstygma i'm arguing with the rule, not with you. however this is a no call when small market team's receiver gets jacked up by an East Coast powerhouse in the playoffs every time.

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking

fuck that. this is FOOTBALL. What the hell are the DB's supposed to do, watch and wait and then hope the runner doesn't take off the other direction after the catch. Horrible. Its rule like this that allow the league to promote the teams it wants in close games.

he caught the ball, he's fair game. that's how the rule SHOULD read. for the record I've been against this BS "defenseless receiver" crap from the get go. i've seen beloved Chiefs screwed over by it multiple times over the years.

Fo the record Nstygma i'm arguing with the rule, not with you. however this is a no call when small market team's receiver gets jacked up by an East Coast powerhouse in the playoffs every time.

you're right, i don't think we would have gotten a similar call. but it appeared also that ocho didn't even have control of the ball, and was still in full extension to make the catch. i remember the days when hits like this would make a receiver think twice about putting himself in that position in the first place for fear of getting popped like that. not so much anymore i suppose.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by nstygma

you're right, i don't think we would have gotten a similar call. but it appeared also that ocho didn't even have control of the ball, and was still in full extension to make the catch. i remember the days when hits like this would make a receiver think twice about putting himself in that position in the first place for fear of getting popped like that. not so much anymore i suppose.

Thats kind of the point of hitting him

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by -King-

Thats kind of the point of hitting him

OK. The point is it was an illegal hit. You can disapprove of that, but it's a fact. He clearly falls under the definition of a "defenseless receiver". What more do you need?

[Bump]

whether it was a clean hit or not, any hard hit is going to be fined nowadays