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

[HungryLion]

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.​

Wow. By the letter of the rules that was definitely interference then.

Thanks for pulling the rule for us.

 

[loublue22]

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.​

I would guess that Tolbert attempting to block makes him not passive, it's still insane to me you can be deliberately pushed into the returner and it's not a foul, I see guys standing next to a PR all the time, why wouldn't everyone try to do this on every play?

 

[MS17]

I think Fox Sports tries to provide clarity or explanation on confusing game calls. ABC just doesnt seem to care much.\
That non call tonight on the punt, whatever, was just a blown call. They missed it.

 

[zrinkill]

It does not matter if someone can be blocked into the Returner.

Face masking is always illegal.

 

[Tenkamenin]

So bad it’s funny….

 

[bsbellomy]

I couldn't believe it either, I found this.



No excuse for the Special Teams coach to ever allow such a thing, and Tolbert should have to walk to the airport. It's a rule that should obviously be changed.

Bottom line you still can't make contact with the PR after he calls fair catch

 

[deerhunter11]

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

 

[Brax]

Three things actually happened on that play that should give the ball to the Cowboys.

1) the tackler pushed the Cowboys blocker into the returner
2) the tackler also hit the returner himself with his arm and knee
3) a tackler pushed Tolbert into the ball before he touched it

Any one of those three should cause the ball to remain with Dallas so all 3 should have definitely done it.

Best learn the rules unfortunately you are wrong on all 3

 

[MarcusRock]

I would guess that Tolbert attempting to block makes him not passive, it's still insane to me you can be deliberately pushed into the returner and it's not a foul, I see guys standing next to a PR all the time, why wouldn't everyone try to do this on every play?

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.

 

[Cowboys93]

I’ve seen a lot of bizarre rulings in the NFL but that one really left me dumbfounded. The fact that all the announcers brushed it off made me feel even more confused

 

[CxC1993]

Really weird call.

 

[Scotman]

It was an absolutely horrendous call.

This ref group was junior league all night.

Our refs for 6-man football here in Texas were better than these guys. I'm not joking or exaggerating. I had one time in my 12 years as a superintendent when a ref left me shaking my head in disbelief and astonishment. I had more in one game tonight.

 

[bsbellomy]

I would guess that Tolbert attempting to block makes him not passive, it's still insane to me you can be deliberately pushed into the returner and it's not a foul, I see guys standing next to a PR all the time, why wouldn't everyone try to do this on every play?

It doesn't matter the Chargers guy touched Turpin before the ball got there

 

[bsbellomy]

Best learn the rules unfortunately you are wrong on all 3

Best watch the play again

 

[loublue22]

Watching the play again it's actually the Chargers player that knocks down Turpin even before the ball lands so it makes the call even worse. Incredible that was just glossed over by ESPN.

 

[Scotman]

It does not matter if someone can be blocked into the Returner.

Face masking is always illegal.

But not if you do them together...evidently.

 

[kskboys]

It doesn't matter the Chargers guy touched Turpin before the ball got there

This call should've been easy.

 

[Carson]

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

It wasn’t muffed. Live ball after Tolbert touched it

 

[HungryLion]

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.

It’s also strange because. The league is so heavily concerned about safety (rightfully so)

And that is a VERY dangerous play to have guys getting pushed into a returner who isn’t even looking because they’re trying to catch a punt.

 

[nalam]

It was an absolutely horrendous call.

This ref group was junior league all night.

They are in bookies pockets , keeping the game close for bets