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

[Runwildboys]

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.

I think the part about knocking the blocker into the receiver is fine. After all, the gunner should have a right try to get to the ball if it's muffed. But if the gunner makes contact with the receiver, even after knocking the blocker into the receiver, it should be a penalty, providing the ball hasn't arrived yet.

 

[aikemirv]

I think the part about knocking the blocker into the receiver is fine. After all, the gunner should have a right try to get to the ball if it's muffed. But if the gunner makes contact with the receiver, even after knocking the blocker into the receiver, it should be a penalty, providing the ball hasn't arrived yet.

Correct and that is what the rule states:

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.

 

[Runwildboys]

Correct and that is what the rule states:

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.

This doesn't specify anything either way about contact after knocking the blocker into the receiver. In a court of law, that would mean it's still a penalty. In the NFL, it's whatever the league decides to call it after the fact.

But they need to specify it in the rulebook.

 

[Creeper]

I think the part about knocking the blocker into the receiver is fine. After all, the gunner should have a right try to get to the ball if it's muffed. But if the gunner makes contact with the receiver, even after knocking the blocker into the receiver, it should be a penalty, providing the ball hasn't arrived yet.

I really do not believe the NFL wants the kicking team bulldozing a blocker into the receiver. But as the rule is written they can put two guys on one blocker and literally block him into the receiver hoping to get a muffed punt. Perhaps some enterprising team would like to do this at least until the NFL changes the rule.

 

[RonnieT24]

The bolded part of your post is a second part to the rule. I am talking about the first part of the rule that clearly states a kicking team player cannot make contact with a returner. It says it in clear, plain English.

Yeah nowhere in the rule does it say "the kicking team is free to mug the returner if one of his own blockers makes first contact. " The gunner made contact with Turpin WHILE he was yanking on Tolbert's facemask to get him to run into Turpin. Any "league official" explanation that doesn't begin with "there should have been a flag for facemask at minimum" may be safely ignored.

 

[aikemirv]

I really do not believe the NFL wants the kicking team bulldozing a blocker into the receiver. But as the rule is written they can put two guys on one blocker and literally block him into the receiver hoping to get a muffed punt. Perhaps some enterprising team would like to do this at least until the NFL changes the rule.

This doesn't specify anything either way about contact after knocking the blocker into the receiver. In a court of law, that would mean it's still a penalty. In the NFL, it's whatever the league decides to call it after the fact.

But they need to specify it in the rulebook.

For a league that loves the technicalities of their rules,(aka football move and crap like that) they sure are staying away from exact interpretation of this one. It is a penalty by rule so any ref saying it is not is ignoring their rules straight up.

 

[RonnieT24]

For a league that loves the technicalities of their rules,(aka football move and crap like that) they sure are staying away from exact interpretation of this one. It is a penalty by rule so any ref saying it is not is ignoring their rules straight up.

I fully expect at some point in the near future the extent to which these games are "fixed" is going to come to light. Not that I believe the outcomes are always predetermined like WWE but I firmly believe is some scripting going on behind the scenes. The Tuck Rule game.. The Dez Catch.. The Rams DB mugging that Saints receiver to keep the Bountygate team out of the Super Bowl. How about the game a couple of weeks ago where the team, I think it was the Rams, kicked a FG at the end of the game to cover the spread even though they needed to be trying to score a TD to win. There are shenanigans going on. Just because anybody who has tried to blow the whistle on it has ended up wearing cement shoes into the ocean doesn't mean it's not going on. We just have not gotten confirmation of it yet.

 

[nightrain]

A very similar scenario played out last night in the Jags/Saints game. No interference.

 

[Runwildboys]

I really do not believe the NFL wants the kicking team bulldozing a blocker into the receiver. But as the rule is written they can put two guys on one blocker and literally block him into the receiver hoping to get a muffed punt. Perhaps some enterprising team would like to do this at least until the NFL changes the rule.

As long as the blockers don't stand close to the receiver, they'll be fine.

 

[RonnieT24]

As long as the blockers don't stand close to the receiver, they'll be fine.

Blockers have to try and stay in front of the guys coming down to hit the returner. They don't have the luxury of being able to just get out of the way and hope he fair catches it. You keep blocking until you hear the code word.

 

[Creeper]

Blockers have to try and stay in front of the guys coming down to hit the returner. They don't have the luxury of being able to just get out of the way and hope he fair catches it. You keep blocking until you hear the code word.

Agreed, and blockers who are facing the kicking team don't always know where the receiver it standing.

 

[Runwildboys]

Blockers have to try and stay in front of the guys coming down to hit the returner. They don't have the luxury of being able to just get out of the way and hope he fair catches it. You keep blocking until you hear the code word.

Who said anything about getting out of the way? Just try to stay at least 5 yards ahead...Oh, and block better than the gunner, that would help.

 

[RonnieT24]

Who said anything about getting out of the way? Just try to stay at least 5 yards ahead...Oh, and block better than the gunner, that would help.

Tolbert probably was blocking just fine until the guy grabbed his facemask and started twisting his head.. That sorta thing tends to lessen one's effectiveness. Besides if you pancake a fool these days they will throw up their hands and some idiot ref will throw a flag. These guys really have to walk a tightrope these days I swear.

 

[HungryLion]

A very similar scenario played out last night in the Jags/Saints game. No interference.

A big difference is that the saints player on the kicking team did not contact the returner at any point.

Whereas with the cowboys play. The kicking team player made contact with the returner damn near simultaneously with the cowboys player.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Tolbert probably was blocking just fine until the guy grabbed his facemask and started twisting his head.. That sorta thing tends to lessen one's effectiveness. Besides if you pancake a fool these days they will throw up their hands and some idiot ref will throw a flag. These guys really have to walk a tightrope these days I swear.

For those who have never played this game or haven't played this game in years try this out in your back yard. You don't need a helmet or face mask to simulate the situation.

Stand opposite to a family member, even a smaller one, and in the first simulation block them one on one while they are contacting only your chest or shoulders.

For the second simulation let them put their hands on your face, but get extension on your head so your neck is craned backwards. The severity of the angle you can allow should be on the multiple pics posted on this website and the internet of how far Tolbert's head was snapped back.

Now see if you can block or hold them from pushing you backwards or literally steering you left and right in your backyard. With their hands right on your face.

All this discussion of blocking into the returner is pointless becasue the hands to the face represents a significant physical advantage that caused the muffed punt and the ensuring loss of posession and the 7 point swing.

Everything else is a red herring in my mind, and focus on the wrong thing. A serious penalty that is typically called regularily in the league, and was called on one of our players earlier in the game so we know the refs are capable of calling it.