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

[KJJ]

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.

Not sure how many more times I’m going to have to post this. Tolbert wasn’t a passive player.

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

 

[HungryLion]

Tolbert wasn’t a passive player.

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

That’s a different part of the rule. There’s an OR in between the discussion of the kicking team contacting the receiver OR pushes a passive player into the returner.

The stipulation about contacting the returner makes no mention about any exceptions to that aspect of the rule.

 

[KJJ]

That’s a different part of the rule. There’s an OR in between the discussion of the kicking team contacting the receiver OR pushes a passive player into the returner.

The stipulation about contacting the returner makes no mention about any exceptions to that aspect of the rule.

The problem with you is you’re not getting the rule right as it pertains to that particular play. It’s not black-and-white. There were two or three NFL officials that weighed in on the play yesterday and they said the same thing as ESPN’s official on Monday night, except he didn’t mention the facemask, which was a foul. Each one of these other officials pointed out the facemask, which would’ve given the Cowboys the ball. Fortunately, the missed call didn’t cost us the game or this thread would be 50 pages long and counting.

 

[DogFace]

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!

No. It was interference because the defender clearly ran into Turpin as well. You can, apparently, push a player into the returner, but you can’t run into him. The video you provided shows the defender did make contact with Turpin. That’s illegal.

 

[DogFace]

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.

The rule says the defender can’t touch him. It makes no exceptions. You’re adding that for some reason. It’s not part of the rule. That’s been explained to you. At this point you’re trolling and doing your typical carrying of the water for incompetent calls.

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!

You’re completely pulling that out of your butt.

 

[DogFace]

The problem with you is you’re not getting the rule right as it pertains to that particular play. It’s not black-and-white. There were two or three NFL officials that weighed in on the play yesterday and they said the same thing as ESPN’s official on Monday night, except he didn’t mention the facemask, which was a foul. Each one of these other officials pointed out the facemask, which would’ve given the Cowboys the ball. Fortunately, the missed call didn’t cost us the game or this thread would be 50 pages long and counting.

The defender made contact with Turpin. That’s against the rules and there are zero exceptions because any other player was touched.

The defender can’t make contact with the returner on a fair catch. Ever. This is a fact.

The defender can’t make contact with the receiver. That’s been pointed out to you now 6 times. You seem to say there’s an exception, but you’re making that up.

Your impression of these refs and espn ref “experts” is wrong. They’re prone to mistakes. That’s the reason they even have those “experts” on. And they’re prone to ****ing up too. As we’ve. Seen in this play where there can’t even see very viable things that happened.

 

[Runwildboys]

The defender made contact with Turpin. That’s against the rules and there are zero exceptions because any other player was touched.

The defender can’t make contact with the returner on a fair catch. Ever. This is a fact.

The defender can’t make contact with the receiver. That’s been pointed out to you now 6 times. You seem to say there’s an exception, but you’re making that up.

Your impression of these refs and espn ref “experts” is wrong. They’re prone to mistakes. That’s the reason they even have those “experts” on. And they’re prone to ****ing up too. As we’ve. Seen in this play where there can’t even see very viable things that happened.

While I believe it should be written into the rules that a defender cannot interfere with the receiver even after pushing the blocker into him, there's no specific mention either way, as it stands now, at least in the rules we've seen here.

I can see a case either way, though definitely more toward the case of it being a foul, since there's no exception written in.

Oh, and unless those interviewed officials specifically stated that Tolbert's contact nullifies the Gunner's contact, it doesn't matter if they didn't say anything about the contact. I don't know if being "engaged" in a block is enough to nullify the foul, or if the gunner would need to be blocked into Turpin by Tolbert (which he wasn't), so I can't really say for sure that it was in fact a penalty. But again, I think the rules should specify that the defender cannot contact the receiver unless blocked into him.

 

[HungryLion]

The problem with you is you’re not getting the rule right as it pertains to that particular play. It’s not black-and-white. There were two or three NFL officials that weighed in on the play yesterday and they said the same thing as ESPN’s official on Monday night, except he didn’t mention the facemask, which was a foul. Each one of these other officials pointed out the facemask, which would’ve given the Cowboys the ball. Fortunately, the missed call didn’t cost us the game or this thread would be 50 pages long and counting.

The problem with you is that you’re ignoring the way the rules are written and stating “it’s not black and white” because that helps your argument.

The rule literally is black and white. The rules states the kicking team cannot contact the returner before the ball arrives. Period, point blank, no exceptions.

 

[KJJ]

The problem with you is that you’re ignoring the way the rules are written and stating “it’s not black and white” because that helps your argument.

The rule literally is black and white. The rules states the kicking team cannot contact the returner before the ball arrives. Period, point blank, no exceptions.

I showed you what the rule was in that particular situation. Several officials weighed in on it and said the only foul was the facemask. You’re one of those casual armchair fans who doesn’t care how the rule pertains to that particular play or what the experts say because you think you know better. You could have 10 NFL officials tell you the only foul on that play was the facemask and you’ll just shake your head and laugh thinking they’re all lame brains. Lol I’m not wasting any more time with you on this.

 

[KJJ]

The defender made contact with Turpin. That’s against the rules and there are zero exceptions because any other player was touched.

The defender can’t make contact with the returner on a fair catch. Ever. This is a fact.

The defender can’t make contact with the receiver. That’s been pointed out to you now 6 times. You seem to say there’s an exception, but you’re making that up.

Your impression of these refs and espn ref “experts” is wrong. They’re prone to mistakes. That’s the reason they even have those “experts” on. And they’re prone to ****ing up too. As we’ve. Seen in this play where there can’t even see very viable things that happened.

You’re just like the other casual armchair fan I was arguing with who doesn’t care what the experts say because you think you know better. The facts are several NFL officials analyzed the play on Tuesday and they all agreed the only foul was the facemask. Not wasting any more time with it.

 

[KJJ]

The rule says the defender can’t touch him. It makes no exceptions. You’re adding that for some reason. It’s not part of the rule. That’s been explained to you. At this point you’re trolling and doing your typical carrying of the water for incompetent calls.

You’re completely pulling that out of your butt.

The only one pulling things out of their butt is you. Lol I’ve posted links with officials who analyzed the play. There was an official on NFL Network who also explained the play and the rule and they all agreed the only foul was the facemask. You don’t understand how the rule works as it pertains to that play. If you want to act like one of those fans who thinks they know more than those who get paid to officiate games, good luck being taken seriously here.

 

[blueblood70]

And if it had been touched and Tolbert did nothing, we'd be crucifying's him for that. That entire play is on the officials, not Tolbert. If the league doesn't address this, you're going to see two gunners picking one guy to run through the returner.

 

[KJJ]

No. It was interference because the defender clearly ran into Turpin as well. You can, apparently, push a player into the returner, but you can’t run into him. The video you provided shows the defender did make contact with Turpin. That’s illegal.

Let it go! This is the rule again read it and weep.

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.

 

[HungryLion]

I showed you what the rule was in that particular situation. Several officials weighed in on it and said the only foul was the facemask. You’re one of those casual armchair fans who doesn’t care how the rule pertains to that particular play or what the experts say because you think you know better. You could have 10 NFL officials tell you the only foul on that play was the facemask and you’ll just shake your head and laugh thinking they’re all lame brains. Lol I’m not wasting any more time with you on this.

You didn’t show me anything. You just made up nonsense about there being an exception to the rule when in fact there is no exception.

Now, since your argument is wrong and lame you’re resorting to ad hominem personal attack.

Weak

 

[KJJ]

You didn’t show me anything. You just made up nonsense about there being an exception to the rule when in fact there is no exception.

Now, since your argument is wrong and lame you’re resorting to ad hominem personal attack.

Weak

This isn’t made up nonsense. The links I posted weren’t made up nonsense and I haven’t personally attacked anyone. I’m the one being attacked. Any time the official rule is posted as a pertains to a particular play fans start tossing insults.


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.

 

[MyFairLady]

How about you be the bigger stronger man. Stop getting pushed around. Push the other guy around. I guarantee you things will start to break your way.

 

[RonnieT24]

How about you be the bigger stronger man. Stop getting pushed around. Push the other guy around. I guarantee you things will start to break your way.

Pretty much everybody stops being the "bigger stronger man" when someone has hold of their facemask and thus control of the neck and head. Your body tends to wanna go wherever your head goes.

 

[aikemirv]

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/#section-2-fair-catch

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.

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.

There is no one here who can tell me that the Charger did not contact or that the Charger did not obstruct his path to the ball. What the Charger was doing to the non-passive player has no bearing on whether the Charger is allowed to touch him or interfere with the opportunity to catch the ball!

 

[DogFace]

Let it go! This is the rule again read it and weep.

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.

You seem to be not understanding again. No one is arguing that. Here’s the arguemwnt:

The defender made contact with Turpin on a fair catch.

The officials and whoever you saw analyzing it missed it. It’s very clear to see and no one is debating that. Except you. And you’re making up that there is some exception that isn’t in the rules to justify people you hold in high regard missing something so fundamental to the rule.

Read the rule above this post. ^^

 

[KJJ]

You seem to be not understanding again. No one is arguing that. The defender made contact with Turpin. That’s not allowed.

The officials and whoever you saw analyzing it missed it. It’s very clear to see and no one is debating that. Except you. And you’re making up that there is some exception that isn’t in the rules.

The officials didn’t miss it. You’re missing it. Tolbert who was blocked into Turpin caused him not to be able to field the punt and go down. You clearly don’t understand the rule as it pertains to that play.