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

[DogFace]

If it was obviously a penalty ESPN’s expert official would have pointed it out and said the refs missed it.

Man, that’s a lot of trust you have in some guy that espn gave a title to. It’s healthy to challenge authority in some cases. This is one of those.

What you’re experiencing is denial.

 

[HungryLion]

ESPN’s expert official never said anything about it so in that situation it must not have been a penalty. He was being blocked.

Lol come on man

 

[DogFace]

I haven’t had any discussions about the facemask that occurred. All we talked about was the hands to the face. The facemask was a foul that should’ve been called. You have to look at the video carefully to see that the defender grabbed the facemask and wasn’t just pushing it.

I looked and didn’t find it. @MarcusRock, our ref expert, likely would’ve posted if it was there.

It seems very likely there is no exception to the rule of: “don’t hit the throat or face”.

 

[KJJ]

Man, that’s a lot of trust you have in some guy that espn gave a title to. It’s healthy to challenge authority in some cases. This is one of those.

What you’re experiencing is denial.

The guy they gave the job to was an actual NFL official. What was missed on the play was the facemask. That should have been a penalty.


“It wasn't a foul because Tolbert was actively blocking the Chargers' Taylor. That means Tolbert wasn't passive in that situation. However, as many fans noted, Taylor had grabbed Tolbert's facemask, which should have been a penalty and would have negated the Chargers' fumble recovery.”


https://sportdfw.com/posts/cowboys-...on-for-controversial-muffed-punt-01hcyy3z1r8y

 

[Captain-Crash]

The head official was too concerned with "getting it right" on the fumble. He overlooked the hands to the face. No biggie, it did not affect the outcome of the game.

Or he could not call it a penalty because it was not called on the live play. He can't add a penalty after the play has been run. shrugs

 

[KJJ]

Lol come on man

The facemask was a penalty. There was no interference on the play, as stated by the OP.

“It wasn't a foul because Tolbert was actively blocking the Chargers' Taylor. That means Tolbert wasn't passive in that situation. However, as many fans noted, Taylor had grabbed Tolbert's facemask, which should have been a penalty and would have negated the Chargers' fumble recovery.”

 

[DogFace]

The guy they gave the job to was an actual NFL official. What was missed on the play was the facemask. That should have been a penalty.


“It wasn't a foul because Tolbert was actively blocking the Chargers' Taylor. That means Tolbert wasn't passive in that situation. However, as many fans noted, Taylor had grabbed Tolbert's facemask, which should have been a penalty and would have negated the Chargers' fumble recovery.”


https://sportdfw.com/posts/cowboys-...on-for-controversial-muffed-punt-01hcyy3z1r8y

Again. That doesn’t excuse hands to the face. There is no exception. You can’t do it. Ever.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/

 

[Captain-Crash]

Again. That doesn’t excuse hands to the face. There is no exception. You can’t do it. Ever.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/

it was not called on the live play, the ref can not add a penalty after the play has been run. shrugs

 

[KJJ]

I looked and didn’t find it. @MarcusRock, our ref expert, likely would’ve posted if it was there.

It seems very likely there is no exception to the rule of: “don’t hit the throat or face”.

There’s a video in this thread, showing the defender grabbing Tolberts face mask. That should have been a penalty.

 

[KJJ]

Again. That doesn’t excuse hands to the face. There is no exception. You can’t do it. Ever.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/

Apparently, there’s some exceptions to that rule. The DL and OL use hands to the face engaging at the line of scrimmage. You have to understand how the rule applies to every situation. What you can’t do ever is grab the facemask.

 

[conner01]

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

Tolbert did the right thing. If you don’t know for certain the ball wasn’t touched you get on it

 

[KJJ]

I looked and didn’t find it. @MarcusRock, our ref expert, likely would’ve posted if it was there.

It seems very likely there is no exception to the rule of: “don’t hit the throat or face”.

You’ll see the facemask in this video. You can touch the facemask but you can’t grab it. The grab isn’t real obvious you have to watch closely. Any clinch of the face mask is grabbing.

 

[conner01]

Apparently, there’s some exceptions to that rule. The DL and OL use hands to the face engaging at the line of scrimmage. You have to understand how the rule applies to every situation. What you can’t do ever is grab the facemask.

It’s illegal at the LOS too. It’s just not always called. It’s kinda like linemen down field up until this year was rarely called

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

The Charger touched Turpin too.

 

[nathanlt]

I got you riled up because you can’t handle an opinion that differs from yours. You’re the only one that got riled up and now you’re going on the attack. Lol The call on the muffed punt was controversial. The grabbing of the face mask should have been a penalty. This is how it was explained.

According to Google. “It wasn't a foul because Tolbert was actively blocking the Chargers' Taylor. That means Tolbert wasn't passive in that situation. However, as many fans noted, Taylor had grabbed Tolbert's facemask, which should have been a penalty and would have negated the Chargers' fumble recovery.“

https://sportdfw.com/posts/cowboys-...on-for-controversial-muffed-punt-01hcyy3z1r8y

"It wasn't a foul, but should have been a penalty..." Wow, you are conflicted. But, you want to fight over one part of the play, while conceding that the fumble given to the Chargers was incorrect.

 

[HungryLion]

The facemask was a penalty. There was no interference on the play, as stated by the OP.

“It wasn't a foul because Tolbert was actively blocking the Chargers' Taylor. That means Tolbert wasn't passive in that situation. However, as many fans noted, Taylor had grabbed Tolbert's facemask, which should have been a penalty and would have negated the Chargers' fumble recovery.”

Still ignoring the fact that the kicking team
Player made contact with the returner prior to the ball arriving. Which is also illegal.

 

[CowboysRule]

What is this passive player nonsense? If someone blocks you into the receiver how are you passive? Do you just have to be standing in front of the returner completely oblivious to what's going on around you to be considered passive? Like, if someone runs into you the instinct is to push back to avoid falling over. Are you no longer passive at that point?

 

[KJJ]

"It wasn't a foul, but should have been a penalty..." Wow, you are conflicted. But, you want to fight over one part of the play, while conceding that the fumble given to the Chargers was incorrect.

How am I conflicted? Lol I stated repeatedly there was no foul for interference or hands to the face and that’s been proven by the link I provided. Can you not read or are you in denial? The only foul on the play was the defender grabbing Tolbert’s face mask. That foul was missed and it was never mentioned in the arguments I had. Fans were claiming it was interference, and that hands to the face should’ve been called. Those fans were wrong!

 

[KJJ]

Still ignoring the fact that the kicking team
Player made contact with the returner prior to the ball arriving. Which is also illegal.

It wasn’t the kicking team player that made contact with Turpin first, it was a Tolbert who was blocked into him. You might want to do a Google.

It wasn't a foul because Tolbert was actively blocking the Chargers' Taylor. That means Tolbert wasn't passive in that situation.

 

[HungryLion]

It wasn’t the kicking team player that made contact with Turpin first, it was a Tolbert who was blocked into him. You might want to do a Google.

It wasn't a foul because Tolbert was actively blocking the Chargers' Taylor. That means Tolbert wasn't passive in that situation.

The chargers player still made contact with turpin. The rule simply states a member of the kicking team cannot contact the return man.

It says nothing about “they can contact the return man if a receiving team player touches him first”

So, the fact that Tolbert makes contact with Turpin is moot.