How was that not interference on Turpin (running into punt receiver)?

[Runwildboys]

Then we should do the same for every punt, right!

I can't say for certain, but on most fair catches, I don't think there's a guy right in front of the receiver, blocking. I think they're usually about 10 yards upfield.

 

[Jake]

Looks like a foul by the rules to me. Pertinent text in red.

RULE 10 OPPORTUNITY TO CATCH A KICK, FAIR CATCH​

SECTION 1 OPPORTUNITY TO CATCH A KICK​

ARTICLE 1. INTERFERENCE. During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of​

the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne kick, or from obstructing​

or hindering his path to the airborne kick, regardless of whether any signal was given.​

​

Item 1. Contact with Receiver. It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player​

of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to the receiver touching the ball. It is not a foul if a kicking team​

player is blocked into the receiver or the contact is the result of a foul.​

​

Item 2. Right of Way. A receiver who is moving toward a kicked ball that is in flight has the right of way. If opponents obstruct his​

path to the ball, or cause a passive player of either team to obstruct his path, it is interference, even if there is no contact, or if he​

catches the ball in spite of the interference, and regardless of whether any signal was given.​

"...before or simultaneous to the receiver touching the ball." Turpin never touched the ball, so that line does not apply.

But I think the hands to the face was fairly obvious.

 

[BobSacamano]

What most vexed me was Jalen being manhandled like a Jalen.

 

[Runwildboys]

"...before or simultaneous to the receiver touching the ball." Turpin never touched the ball, so that line does not apply.

But I think the hands to the face was fairly obvious.

Shame this picture doesn't show where that official is looking, because it's very hard to believe he didn't see this.

 

[Typhus]

Aikman and Buck nonchalantly dismissed that the Charger player bulldozed Tolbert directly into Turpin who called fair catch, while also making contact with Turpin as well? I couldn't have been the only one puzzled by this? If this is legal why not just attempt to drive receiving blockers into the punt receiver on every punt? This changed the entire momentum of the game and almost cost us.

Might have already been explained so my apologies if so.
Turp never touched the ball and so it's a live ball, Tolbert had no idea what had just transpired and assumed there had been contact made by Turp upon reception and was reacting accordingly to recover what he believed to be a loose ball last touched by Turp.
Once Tolbert made contact it was team that recovers gets possession.
It was absolutely the correct call.

 

[Typhus]

No reason to blame Tolbert on that, it was confusing for everyone.

Thats how you are supposed to react in that situation, Tolbert
did not have time to review the all 22.
Was a freak incidence that occurred unfortunately at our expense, that is all.
Tolbert played the ball like he was trained to do.

 

[lostar2009]

Why? He should be able to catch the ball without any problem there.

He should've let the ball bounce. Too much traffic in front of him with other team mates. There is code to let them know a ball bounce.

 

[KJJ]

Hands to the face is only a penalty if it “is forceable or sustained”. I’m sure some think any contact is a foul but it is not.
Illegal use of hands probably should’ve been called there but the outcry about the gunner making a smart play and pushing Tolbert into Turpin is dumb.

Take a look at where the ref was standing in the video. He was behind the returner so he’s not going to see the hands to the face.

Whatever the case, neither Joe Buck, Troy Aikman or ESPN’s expert official made mention of the hands to the face, so it must not have been a foul in that situation.

 

[KJJ]

Lol

Neither Joe Buck, Troy, Aikman, or ESPN’s expert official made mention of the hands to the face. It doesn’t appear to be a foul in every situation. Everyone got a good view of it, and nothing was said about it during the replay.

 

[RonnieT24]

Might have already been explained so my apologies if so.
Turp never touched the ball and so it's a live ball, Tolbert had no idea what had just transpired and assumed there had been contact made by Turp upon reception and was reacting accordingly to recover what he believed to be a loose ball last touched by Turp.
Once Tolbert made contact it was team that recovers gets possession.
It was absolutely the correct call.

It's not live until the receiving team touches it. As long as that does not happen all the kicking team can do is down it. Agree that if you ignore the hands to the face, the pushing a player into the receiver and the making contact with the receiver in the process of trying to make a fair catch.. yeah completely the correct call.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Whatever the case, neither Joe Buck, Troy Aikman or ESPN’s expert official made mention of the hands to the face, so it must not have been a foul in that situation.

I thought it was odd there wasn't any mention of it. NONE!

 

[KJJ]

I thought it was odd there wasn't any mention of it. NONE!

Probably because it wasn’t a foul in that situation. I honestly don’t know but that would be the only reason it wouldn’t have been pointed out.

 

[Wezsh0T]

Wow. By the letter of the rules that was definitely interference then.

Thanks for pulling the rule for us.

I think the issue is that the rule says "passive player". I think a player actively blocking is not considered a "passive player". The rule should be changed to include that a player cannot be blocked into the person trying to catch the ball.

 

[HungryLion]

I think the issue is that the rule says "passive player". I think a player actively blocking is not considered a "passive player". The rule should be changed to include that a player cannot be blocked into the person trying to catch the ball.

The rule says the kicking team cannot contact the return man prior to the ball arriving. The chargers player touches turpin.

 

[Cowboysfandarin]

Perhaps I am seeing it differently. The charger grabbed Tolbert's head to "engage" him, pushed him into Turpin and then contacted Turpin himself. If that was legal, teams would just grab blockers and drag them into punt receivers every time.

The refs whiffed here. Its not really close.

What you just described is exactly what they can do. And in fact, one way to get the rule changed would be for teams to start actually doing what you just described. The league would realize how dangerous and stupid rule is. The fact of the matter is, He was engaged in a block, and his own player was pushed into him. 100% legal.

 

[Creeper]

The expert official from ESPN never mentioned illegal hands to the face. If it was obvious he would’ve said something.

Of course, everyone was focused on the muffed punt, but the video clearly shows the hand in the face of Tolbert as he was shoved into Turpin.

 

[Creeper]

Exactly.....the rams player also made contact with Turpin. If I remember correctly the opposing team can't make contact with the returner on a fair catch right? Is the contact element not reviewable?

The claim is the Chargers player was blocked into Turpin. I don't think the rule is intended to allow a member of the kicking team to shove anyone into the receiver. I believe they wanted to make an allowance for blocks that may inadvertently cause a collision with the receiver. It is no different that running into the kicker. But I do think what happened Monday night was intentional and I also think the rule should be clarified to penalize that kind of play.

 

[KJJ]

Of course, everyone was focused on the muffed punt, but the video clearly shows the hand in the face of Tolbert as he was shoved into Turpin.

The video clearly shows the hands to the face but in that situation it may not be a foul. ESPN’s official never mentioned it, nor did Joe Buck or Troy Aikman.

 

[DogFace]

The hands to the face was obvious, but they never mentioned it being a penalty. Maybe in that situation it’s not.

It’s obviously a penalty to put hands to the face. In any on field situation. The studio ref knew it was very obviously a penalty and it’s a mystery, I guess, why he wouldn’t point it out.

 

[Kwyn]

It’s also part of the rule that if the blocker is still actively engaging in the block, he can driven into the player making the fair catch.

They got the rule correctly.

The part they missed was the hands to the face