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

[KJJ]

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.

He made contact with Turpin after Tolbert was blocked into him, which caused him to fall. Do a Google and see if you can find a link discussing the play where that should have been called a foul.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

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.​

Yup, I thought it was a foul too, which would negate Tolbert touching it as it should have been a foul. The refs were horrible on Monday. An absolute joke

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Yes, I agree that would be the only way they say it's not a foul that Tolbert wasn't passive and the contact was "incidental." Still just looks wrong.

Not to mention that it was hands to the face, so it's a penalty either way.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I'm not sure if the hands to the face would have negated the turnover. It may have just put them farther back.

It'd have to since the hands to the face resulted in Turpin getting hit. So, it should either have been Dallas ball or a rekick.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

That’s not how the rule works. If a player is blocked into the returner, it’s not a penalty. If the Cowboys lost the game because of that play, it wouldn’t be looked at any differently. Naturally Cowboys fans look at it differently claiming we got screwed, because it went against us.

True, but hands to the face is a penalty, which the Chargers player clearly did, so it should have been Dallas ball or a rekick anyway.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

LOL! Both he and the booth were clearly on a gag order not to mention it. 40 million people saw it on TV and people right there at the game missed it.

Exactly

 

[KJJ]

True, but hands to the face is a penalty, which the Chargers player clearly did, so it should have been Dallas ball or a rekick anyway.

I posted the links, and if you want to do a Google where the experts are talking about the play, none of them said the hands to the face in that situation is a penalty. What was missed on the play was when the defenders hands went to Tolbert face he grabbed his face mask. That’s a penalty!

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

I posted the links, and if you want to do a Google where the experts are talking about the play, none of them said the hands to the face in that situation is a penalty. What was missed on the play was when the defenders hands went to Tolbert face he grabbed his face mask. That’s a penalty!

Yes, which would have resulted in it being Dallas ball. So, either way, it was a foul that the refs completely missed. It's why penalties should be reviewable.

 

[Runwildboys]

Yes, which would have resulted in it being Dallas ball. So, either way, it was a foul that the refs completely missed. It's why penalties should be reviewable.

At least on turnovers.

 

[KJJ]

Yes, which would have resulted in it being Dallas ball. So, either way, it was a foul that the refs completely missed. It's why penalties should be reviewable.

The problem in this thread is that fans continue to argue that the returner was interfered with and there were hands to the face and both should have been called. With the controversy that was created, several officiating experts weighed in, and not a single one of them said it was interference or the hands to the face should’ve been a penalty. However, they all said a penalty should’ve been called on the grabbing of the face mask. It really doesn’t matter what the actual rule is or what the experts say, fans are going to believe what they want to believe. According to some fans, they’re right and the experts are wrong. Lol

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

At least on turnovers.

I agree. On turnovers, all aspects, including fouls, should be in play.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

The problem in this thread is that fans continue to argue that the returner was interfered with and there were hands to the face and both should have been called. With the controversy that was created, several officiating experts weighed in, and not a single one of them said it was interference or the hands to the face should’ve been a penalty. However, they all said a penalty should’ve been called on the grabbing of the face mask. It really doesn’t matter what the actual rule is or what the experts say, fans are going to believe what they want to believe. According to some fans, they’re right and the experts are wrong. Lol

Again, that's why the NFL has a problem when it comes to officiating. When they reviewed the play following the Chargers challenge, the refs should have allowed the play to stand as Dallas ball (it was originally ruled that Tolbert didn't touch it first), or Dallas should have been allowed to counter-challenge that there was a penalty on the play that negates the fumble.

 

[KJJ]

Again, that's why the NFL has a problem when it comes to officiating. When they reviewed the play following the Chargers challenge, the refs should have allowed the play to stand as Dallas ball (it was originally ruled that Tolbert didn't touch it first), or Dallas should have been allowed to counter-challenge that there was a penalty on the play that negates the fumble.

There’s always going to be problems with officiating. It’s never going to be perfect and satisfy everyone. I don’t get all bent out of shape over officiating like some fans. I understand the human element is never going to be perfect and mistakes are going to be made. The NFL is doing everything they can to try and make officiating better, but it will always be flawed. With the amount of pages in this thread, you would’ve thought that call cost the Cowboys the game. Lol

 

[HungryLion]

He made contact with Turpin after Tolbert was blocked into him, which caused him to fall. Do a Google and see if you can find a link discussing the play where that should have been called a foul.

Do a google and show me in the rules where it states the kicking team is allowed to touch the returner after he is contacted by his own player.

 

[KJJ]

Do a google and show me in the rules where it states the kicking team is allowed to touch the returner after he is contacted by his own player.

It doesn’t need to be in the rules if a returners own player is blocked into him. Once that happens, it doesn’t matter if the opposing player touches them. If that was a foul at least one of the expert officials who’ve analyzed the play would’ve said it was a foul. Not a single official said that was a foul. If you want to believe it was, then go ahead and believe what you want. We’re just wasting time arguing it. The Cowboys won the game, let it go!

 

[Praxit]

..anyway you put it. We got screwed on that play.

It was huge momentum swing. Chargers scored on that REF gaff.

Really feels, someone upstairs made the call to keep game close.

Hope im wrong though.

 

[HungryLion]

It doesn’t need to be in the rules if a returners own player is blocked into him. Once that happens, it doesn’t matter if the opposing player touches them. If that was a foul at least one of the expert officials who’ve analyzed the play would’ve said it was a foul. Not a single official said that was a foul. If you want to believe it was, then go ahead and believe what you want. We’re just wasting time arguing it. The Cowboys won the game, let it go!

That’s not how rules work. You’re literally stating “it doesn’t matter once his own player touches him” despite the fact that the rules make zero such stipulation. That’s just wrong. And just because the braindead official on the broadcast didn’t mention it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a foul either. That ref also didn’t mention the clear facemask yet we all saw it with our own eyes.

 

[KJJ]

That’s not how rules work. You’re literally stating “it doesn’t matter once his own player touches him” despite the fact that the rules make zero such stipulation. That’s just wrong. And just because the braindead official on the broadcast didn’t mention it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a foul either. That ref also didn’t mention the clear facemask yet we all saw it with our own eyes.

Go post the rule that applies to the situation we’re arguing about. By the way several NFL officials weighed in yesterday on the controversy and every one of them said the only foul that occurred was the grabbing of Tolbert’s facemask.

 

[Adreme]

The contact with Turpin was on Turpin for both players hitting him. His own player making contact with him, when engaged with a block, is not Fair Catch Interference, and for the Charger it is also not FCI because he was engaged in a block so any contact is not a penalty. This is a rule that is known and certainly should be known by returners. It is why you typically do not want to fair catch a ball in that situation and instead let it bounce. Also if you are pushed into the ball and touch it first that still counts as a touch and the Chargers could then recover it. It is a case of be aware of where you are on the field.

The only miss on that play was the hands to the face which was certainly a miss but considering how many penalties they did call, I am not going to get bent out of shape for the fact that they missed one. At the end of the day all that play should have been is a downed Cowboys ball.

 

[HungryLion]

Go post the rule that applies to the situation we’re arguing about. By the way several NFL officials weighed in yesterday on the controversy and every one of them said the only foul that occurred was the grabbing of Tolbert’s facemask.

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.


Show me where it says contacting the receiver is legal if his own teammate touches him first.