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

[HungryLion]

You’re saying the league/officials who analyzed the play are ignoring the first part of the rule. You’re saying they got it wrong. What I’ve provided is their explanation.

Yeah. Im saying they’re ignoring that part.

 

[KJJ]

Yeah. Im saying they’re ignoring that part.

 

[Kevinicus]

No I get what you’re arguing.

What I’m telling you is that you are ignoring the first part of the rule over and over again.

Just because I don’t agree with your argument doesn’t mean I don’t “get it”. I totally understand what you’re saying. I just think it’s wrong.

Ignore him and move on. KJJ has been doing this troll schtick for at least a decade.

 

[HungryLion]

 

[KJJ]

Ignore him and move on. KJJ has been doing this troll schtick for at least a decade.

You’re just another one who I exposed for their lack of football literacy. Eventually you’ll get over it. Lol

 

[nathanlt]

The officials are wrong and you’re right?

Yes... the officials are wrong. The posters who read the rule book know better, I suppose the officials think NFL fans are illiterate, they are brazenly lying, hoping people will take their word for it. You clearly have.

 

[KJJ]

Yes... the officials are wrong. The posters who read the rule book know better, I suppose the officials think NFL fans are illiterate, they are brazenly lying, hoping people will take their word for it. You clearly have.

 

[MapleLeaf]

how can it be called a muffed punt when tolbert was blocked into turpin , that was a terrible call.

Tolbert wasn't blocked, he was face masked into Turpin. The tape doesn't lie.

This needs to be shown at the next major referees meeting. This resulted in a 7 point swing in the fourth quarter around the 8 minute mark.

Its one thing to miss something subtle, but this non-call on a flagrant hands to the face that resulted in a unusual result and a 7 point swing would make any coach/owner/fan upset.

 

[MapleLeaf]

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.

Well if "incidental" is having your hand on the facemask and craning the neck of your opponent so severely that both his feet are off the ground, (see picture in prior post) then I say "let's coach em up" because we have a new wrinkle to our punt coverages.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Again, I don't think Tolbert is considered "passive" if he's actively blocking for Turpin. I still think the rule is dumb.

LOL actively blocking for Turpin with his face mask and neck.

 

[DogFace]

After the game, NFL senior vice president of officiating Walt Anderson said in a pool report that fair-catch interference didn't apply in this instance since Turpin was contacted by a teammate who was actively blocking an opponent.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/chargers-manner-forcing-muffed-punt-135036358.html

Yes. I know that. I don’t give a hell what he said. Im asking you because I can’t ask that idiot if he saw what happened.

Did you see their player make contact with Turpin? (The same guy that shoved Tolbert by the face and neck) Because touching the returner is illegal even if he pushed a player into the returner—that’s the part you made up as being some part of a rule that’s not written down.

 

[DogFace]

Try to think for yourself on this play. It’s clear you hold refs to a very high (some would say unhealthy) regard. That’s influencing your ability to see things clearly and as they are.

Challenging what they say is a healthy way to broaden your perspective and in this case see the reality of the play.

 

[Runwildboys]

You’re saying the league/officials who analyzed the play are ignoring the first part of the rule. You’re saying they got it wrong. What I’ve provided is their explanation.

Did they at any point specifically say the contact of the gunner on Turpin (not Tolbert being blocked into him) was legal? I haven't seen the interviews.

 

[noshame]

Well, the main rule of this is. Stay away from your own punt returner LOL.
If you're trying to block a approaching defensive player, he has the right to get you out of the way in any means possible. if your punt returner happens to be standing behind him. That's on him, sorry, folks.

 

[Toro9]

Happened again in the Jags-Saints game. Something needs to be done about this. It's a dirty play and it's intentional! Guiding a blocker into the return man.

 

[KJJ]

Yes. I know that. I don’t give a hell what he said. Im asking you because I can’t ask that idiot if he saw what happened.

Did you see their player make contact with Turpin? (The same guy that shoved Tolbert by the face and neck) Because touching the returner is illegal even if he pushed a player into the returner—that’s the part you made up as being some part of a rule that’s not written down.

Dude, nothing was made up, everything I posted was provided from the officials who broke down the play. If you want to spend your entire weekend and then some torturing yourself over a call in a game the Cowboys won be my guest.

 

[KJJ]

Try to think for yourself on this play. It’s clear you hold refs to a very high (some would say unhealthy) regard. That’s influencing your ability to see things clearly and as they are.

Challenging what they say is a healthy way to broaden your perspective and in this case see the reality of the play.

I hold the officials who get paid to officiate NFL games in a much higher regard than I do a bunch of casual armchair fans on a message board.

 

[KJJ]

Did they at any point specifically say the contact of the gunner on Turpin (not Tolbert being blocked into him) was legal? I haven't seen the interviews.

They said Tolbert being blocked into Turpin caused him not to be able to field the punt. The officials never specifically said anything about the gunner contacting Turpin. When you watch the video, it’s not conclusive on the angle they showed that he did contact Turpin. However, one of the talking heads on NFL Network said it didn’t matter if the gunner made some contact with Turpin because the initial contact by Tolbert being blocked into him, is what caused him not to be able to field the punt.

 

[Creeper]

After the game, NFL senior vice president of officiating Walt Anderson said in a pool report that fair-catch interference didn't apply in this instance since Turpin was contacted by a teammate who was actively blocking an opponent.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/chargers-manner-forcing-muffed-punt-135036358.html

Technically this is correct, as the article explains. Since Tolbert was attempting to block the Chargers guy, even if he is shoved into the receiver, it is still considered a legal play. I think this actually violates the intent of the rule which is intended to give the receiver an opportunity to catch the punt. However, how does an official determine intent? They have a hard enough time discerning holding, illegal contact and pass interference as it is and those don't require intent.

Still, I think they need some kind of rule fix. Maybe just blow the play dead at the point the contact with the punt returner is made and award the ball to the receiving team at that spot. If interference is involved then add on the 15 yards from there. On this particular play Tolbert is in a no win situation because he cannot see the fair catch called, and he could not see if the ball made contact with Turpin.

 

[Praxit]

..Ill chime in for 3rd time.. lol..

Dallas was robbed, fair in square. ..