Good Deal

Les Bowen and the Daily News offer great insight and clarification about the lack of a fine and even whether Baker should have been penalized for his hit on Nick Foles.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sports/eagles/Chip-will-ask-NFL-to-clarify-why-Baker-hit-was-legal.html

It seems as if the arrogant Troy Vincent, who said that people who "know" the rule, understood his ruling (or lack thereof), doesn't actually know the rule and, for some inexplicable reason, chose a microscopic interpretation.

All of this highlights the fact that the NFL rulebook is not publicly available and begs the question why it isn't.

Huh? Baker hit "legal"

The Post reporters need to do a better job of clarifying the issue. Baker is not being fined for his hit on Nick Foles after the INT (subsequently overturned on a challenge), but as I read the Post article it appears as if Baker shouldn't have even been penalized.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/wp/2014/09/23/baker-wont-be-suspended-nfl-rules-his-hit-on-foles-was-legal/

It's a whole other issue of how stupid the rule loophole is about hitting QBs after INTs. The genesis of the rule/penalty was the Hugh Douglas playoff hit that knocked Jim Miller out of the game in the divisional game vs. the Bears. But that was a hit on his shoulder not his head or neck. I can't believe the NFL still allows defenders to cream QBs after INTs so long as they don't hit them in the head or neck.

You could make the case that the penalty should have been unnecessary roughness since the ball carrier was in the process of being tackled and Foles was away from the play.

Crazy, stupid.