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

[kskboys]

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

Weird language, no doubt, but I'd say he was since he was simply trying to hold his ground.

 

[HungryLion]

The ref in the booth agreed with them.

I’m so confused honestly.

He’s a corporate shill. Don’t be confused by that.

 

[CowboysLegends2]

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

There have been plenty of reasons to raise this question over the years but I believe if someone can watch that play and not see something corrupt then they are either naive or unfamiliar with the game.

 

[HungryLion]

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

Who is “passive” on a football field? All 22 players should be doing something

 

[kskboys]

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

Has no one really noticed that over the last several years, games have gotten closer? The big blowouts that happened often way back then very seldom happen anymore. Refs call the game to make it close, keep people watching.

I swear, if we'd have been 7 down instead of 7 up, they'd have called the penalty correctly.

 

[kskboys]

Who is “passive” on a football field? All 22 players should be doing something

Correct, so why the language? What exactly do they consider a passive player?

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Aikman and Buck nonchalantly dismissed that the Charger player bulldozed Tolbert directly into Turpin who called fair catch, while also making contact with Turpin as well? I couldn't have been the only one puzzled by this? If this is legal why not just attempt to drive receiving blockers into the punt receiver on every punt? This changed the entire momentum of the game and almost cost us.

Tolbert was shoved onto Turpin!!!! How is tha not interference, mateys?

 

[CowboysLegends2]

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.

The fact that it was glossed over told me everything I needed to know about the legitimacy of these officials. There was motive behind this one that can’t be shrugged off as a simple missed call. They looked at it long enough to get it right. They just didn’t.

 

[MarcusRock]

Correct, so why the language? What exactly do they consider a passive player?

A player who's not blocking.

RULE 9 SCRIMMAGE KICK
SECTION 2 TOUCHING A SCRIMMAGE KICK
ARTICLE 4. BLOCKED INTO KICK. There is no distinction between a player touching a ball or being touched by it, but a player
is not considered to have touched the ball if he is blocked into it by an opponent, provided he is in a passive position and not
blocking. A player who is engaged with and blocking his opponent when he contacts the ball is deemed to have touched the ball.

 

[Starstruck22]

It was an absolutely horrendous call.

This ref group was junior league all night.

Nitpicked dallas and not LAC. Just another example of blatant bias.

 

[HungryLion]

A player who's not blocking.

RULE 9 SCRIMMAGE KICK
SECTION 2 TOUCHING A SCRIMMAGE KICK
ARTICLE 4. BLOCKED INTO KICK. There is no distinction between a player touching a ball or being touched by it, but a player
is not considered to have touched the ball if he is blocked into it by an opponent, provided he is in a passive position and not
blocking. A player who is engaged with and blocking his opponent when he contacts the ball is deemed to have touched the ball.

I wonder if that includes players who are passively getting a hand shoved directly into their face.

 

[Maverick84]

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 texted your mom for that info didn't you

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

LYIN CHEATIN REFS , HORRIBLE CALL .

 

[Creeper]

Who is “passive” on a football field? All 22 players should be doing something

Tome a passive player is anyone not receiving the football. Tolbert was clearly shoved into Turpin. The gunner even shoves him by his face mask, also a penalty. If that play is allowed you will see it every punt.

 

[KJJ]

Aikman and Buck nonchalantly dismissed that the Charger player bulldozed Tolbert directly into Turpin who called fair catch, while also making contact with Turpin as well? I couldn't have been the only one puzzled by this? If this is legal why not just attempt to drive receiving blockers into the punt receiver on every punt? This changed the entire momentum of the game and almost cost us.

There was no interference because the defender never ran into Turpin. One of the Cowboys players was blocked into Turpin.

 

[lostar2009]

Tbh I put this on Turpin. He should've just let the ball bounce.

 

[raggedy]

There was no interference because the defender never ran into Turpin. One of the Cowboys players was blocked into Turpin.

look again. sure looked like both the Charger and the Cowboy contacted Turpin.

 

[HungryLion]

One last thing.

The chargers player does in fact touch Turpin. The rule says it’s interference if a member of the kicking team contacts a returner.

There is nowhere in the rule that says a member of the kicking team can contact a returner IF the returner is touched by a teammate first.


Therefore, it should be interference based on that fact alone. He touched him. Interference.

 

[mmohican29]

There was no interference because the defender never ran into Turpin. One of the Cowboys players was blocked into Turpin.

Fake news. The Defender in fact made contact with Turpin while engaged with Tolbert.... while simultaneously clamped to his face mask. I swear you live in an alternate reality.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Found this on a Charger Forum

"Ja’Sir Taylor is in his second year in the league, and for the second straight year he has made the same momentum-altering play for the Chargers.

When a punt returner calls a fair catch, they are supposed to be given a “free” opportunity to catch the punt without disruption from a defender. However, a clever wrinkle for special teams gunners to remember is there’s no rule against your own teammate disrupting your fair catch."
https://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/20...staley-cowboys-chargers-deane-leonard-broncos

If this is a "loophole" then why aren't more teams doing this? Need to get Bones on this ASAP!