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

[Bob-Lillys-War]

" 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. "

REFS CHEATED US

 

[nalam]

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but plays like that make me wonder if Vegas is at all involved…

You betcha

 

[jazzcat22]

Refs missed a hands to the face while he was blocking the Dallas player into Turpin…or did he just did not want to call it.

 

[Carson]

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.​

You know the NFL is wrong when Marcus sides with us haha

 

[Cowboys5217]

If they had simply made the correct call on the illegal hands to the face then none of the ensuing stuff would have mattered.

 

[Ken]

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.

Yes...I was saying number 2 the whole time...regardless of what happened before.

Just a horrid call.

 

[CATCH17]

It was an absolutely horrendous call.

This ref group was junior league all night.

The ref in the booth agreed with them.

I’m so confused honestly.

 

[rojan]

" 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. "

REFS CHEATED US

Define passive. Tolbert was blocking

 

[DanA]

" 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. "

REFS CHEATED US

There were penalties on the play but that last bit didn't happen

 

[ak47kaehu]

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but plays like that make me wonder if Vegas is at all involved…

The final play/debacle in the 1st half made me think the same too

 

[john van brocklin]

It was an absolutely horrendous call.

This ref group was junior league all night.

I was thinking pee wee league

 

[ak47kaehu]

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 knew I wasn't crazy.....lol

 

[mahoneybill]

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.​

They need a remedial reading class after seeing this

NYbmust have said keep the game close so ignore the rules

 

[Reality]

Yes...I was saying number 2 the whole time...regardless of what happened before.

Just a horrid call.

Yeah, even if you ignore the hands-to-the-face making pushing the blocker into the kicker be interference or you even say that the block-in-the-back on Tolbert pushing him into the ball are not penalties or at least negate the turnover, the tackler actually touching the returner before he caught it is interference which is an obvious penalty.

 

[Creeper]

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.

The rule already states that the kicking team cannot force a receiving team player into the player who signaled a 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."

The refs blew this call and so did the announcers - including the so-called rules expert ex-official. It should have been Cowboys ball 15 yards from the spot of the interference. If McCarthy doesn't complain t the NFL offices this week he is crazy.

The video shows very clearly the Chargers player blocked Tolbert into Turpin, and made contact himself.

 

[loublue22]

The rule already states that the kicking team cannot force a receiving team player into the player who signaled a 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."

The refs blew this call and so did the announcers - including the so-called rules expert ex-official. It should have been Cowboys ball 15 yards from the spot of the interference. If McCarthy doesn't complain t the NFL offices this week he is crazy.

The video shows very clearly the Chargers player blocked Tolbert into Turpin, and made contact himself.

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

 

[Creeper]

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.

How is Tolbert blocking the gunner into Turpin? The gunner blocked Tolbert into Turpin, which is already in the rulebook as interference with a fair catch.

 

[Spawnsniper]

Next year, the Turpin rule

 

[_sturt_]

while also making contact with Turpin as well?

That, to me, is the key point.

It is not a foul if a kicking team player is blocked into the receiver

Somehow this became the focus of the refs (and the TV booth)... and so, yes... that part is right... but it doesn't take away from the fact that the kicking team player contacted the receiver...

It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver

Then, as others have observed, yes, you also have the blatant hands to the face non-call.

Count me a member of this choir.

 

[CowboysLegends2]

It was an absolutely horrendous call.

This ref group was junior league all night.

I don’t think it was an accident. Junior league at best but they were as shady as you can get with how much they impacted this game.