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

[Pass2Run]

Because someone was in their earpiece telling them
What to say

Missed in the whole who can do what is the obvious face mask on Tolbert that should have negated the call

I think you're onto something here. No way would Aikman actually believe on his own that that would be a turnover for the Cowboys.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

one of the worst non calls ever. Yeah the announcers didnt even address it. Sorry thanks for the 3 SB's Troy but youre not a very good announcer

The second I see them not speak of it (that awkward 2 second silence) or replay it.....i know the deal been done.
A few of the big time, big check announcers have been well trained by NFL.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

The way I see it is a more aggressive opponent physically rag dolled one of our players. This ended up causing a turn over. Our solution is to then cry to the ref to bail us out. I find to be the hallmark of a team that is not going to go very far. The coaching staff needs to stress to our players that if you are the one planting the opponent on their behinds then good things will happen. If you are getting man handled and pushed and thrown around then bad things are probably going to happen.

Its either a penalty or its not.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

the chargers blocked a cowboys player, happened to go into turpin. that's allowed. that's on your player to get out of the way. if he did it directly with no cowboys player around, then yes, that's a penalty

My argument is that he intentionally USED the cowboys player as an "agent" to cause the interference then also interfered.

 

[DogFace]

Any official definition of what a “passive” player is?

The defender hit Turpin so it doesn’t matter. I’d just like to know if the ref missed two fouls

 

[KJJ]

If Tolbert was blocked into Turpin, it should be a penalty. But the "expert" on TV said it was the other way around. Tolbert blocked the Chargers player into Turpin.

If the Cowboys lost the game because of that play I am sure we would be hearing a lot more from TV analysts and the NFL about the play, and the rule. But since the Cowboys won it will probably be ignored.

That’s not how the rule works. If a player is blocked into the returner, it’s not a penalty. If the Cowboys lost the game because of that play, it wouldn’t be looked at any differently. Naturally Cowboys fans look at it differently claiming we got screwed, because it went against us.

 

[Gorgon]

Terribly reffed game. When you spend half your time throwing flags, the refs ain't doin their job.

 

[glimmerman]

Look at most of the fair catches last night. I kept waiting for flags for interfering with the returner. I thought they had to give them like 3 yards or a certain distance. I saw us do it once and was very surprised there was no flag. We are the most penalized team in the league. Now most of it is sloppy play. But the refs will throw the flag on us easily. I saw a few that should have been thrown on chargers for PI that they called on us.

 

[bsbellomy]

Have you guys never watched an NFL game before? Pushing a blocker into a fair catch returner has always been legal, kinda blows my mind seeing all this angst about something the rest of the league has known for decades. The guy that was blocking was not passive. The Chargers player's contact came after the Cowboys player's contact, which I imagine means he's no longer contacting a "safe" player.

What in the world makes you think he can touch Turpin just because he pushed Tolbert into him?

 

[bsbellomy]

The way I see it is a more aggressive opponent physically rag dolled one of our players. This ended up causing a turn over. Our solution is to then cry to the ref to bail us out. I find to be the hallmark of a team that is not going to go very far. The coaching staff needs to stress to our players that if you are the one planting the opponent on their behinds then good things will happen. If you are getting man handled and pushed and thrown around then bad things are probably going to happen.

No it's not playing by the rules that have been in place since the inception of the league. If you are allowed to contact a player after he signals fair catch there would be turnover on 80% of the fair catches.

 

[Ring6]

they were engaged, so interference to catch won't be called. however, that doesn't excuse the illegal hands to the face (which I believe is non-reviewable, so there you have it)

 

[Cowboysfandarin]

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.

Y’all don’t know the rules. On a punt if a blocker engages you, you’re allowed to engage back, including pushing him into a receiver, who is trying to make a fair catch. The blocker needs to be aware of the situation and step aside. Then the penalty would’ve been on San Diego had he ran into him. The rule states that anytime someone is blocking you, you’re allowed to engage. Blockers on the punt return need to always be aware of their position as it relates to the punt returner to avoid this. It’s a very stupid rule, but that’s the way the rule is at this time. I’m a diehard, cowboy fan and the call on the field was correct. As per the rule.

 

[Creeper]

That’s not how the rule works. If a player is blocked into the returner, it’s not a penalty. If the Cowboys lost the game because of that play, it wouldn’t be looked at any differently. Naturally Cowboys fans look at it differently claiming we got screwed, because it went against us.

The applicable rule:
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.

I assume the word "passive" is used to describe a player who is standing around watching the ball be caught. But if that is the case then it allows a kicking team player to push a receiving team blocker into the receiver who has called for a fair catch, as was the case last night. Tolbert did not block the Chargers player into Turpin, the Chargers player blocked Tolbert into Turpin preventing Turpin from making a fair catch. So the rule, while I understand it, has a loophole created by using the word "passive". I am pretty sure the intent is to include any player being blocked into the receiver. The question for the NFL is, is this a play they want to allow?

It is a difficult play because the receiving team blockers cannot see the receiver signal a fair catch so they have to block as if he did not. But that puts them in a vulnerable position like Tolbert was in last night.

 

[Carson]

Y’all don’t know the rules. On a punt if a blocker engages you, you’re allowed to engage back, including pushing him into a receiver, who is trying to make a fair catch. The blocker needs to be aware of the situation and step aside. Then the penalty would’ve been on San Diego had he ran into him. The rule states that anytime someone is blocking you, you’re allowed to engage. Blockers on the punt return need to always be aware of their position as it relates to the punt returner to avoid this. It’s a very stupid rule, but that’s the way the rule is at this time. I’m a diehard, cowboy fan and the call on the field was correct. As per the rule.

The call only happened because they negated the hands to the face. Which is why Tolbert continued going backwards

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

My argument is that he intentionally USED the cowboys player as an "agent" to cause the interference then also interfered.

Hard to prove even if that was his intention. Cowboys player facing him. Blocking him. Running backward. He pushed him and up to Cowboys player not to fall on his ***

 

[doomsday9084]

Perhaps I am seeing it differently. The charger grabbed Tolbert's head to "engage" him, pushed him into Turpin and then contacted Turpin himself. If that was legal, teams would just grab blockers and drag them into punt receivers every time.

The refs whiffed here. Its not really close.

 

[Longboysfan]

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.

Looked like the offical closest to the play got it righ in real time.

 

[JayFord]

dude mushed turpin in the face like i mush coworkers when they in the way of me going to the bathroom

 

[ak47kaehu]

Perhaps I am seeing it differently. The charger grabbed Tolbert's head to "engage" him, pushed him into Turpin and then contacted Turpin himself. If that was legal, teams would just grab blockers and drag them into punt receivers every time.

The refs whiffed here. Its not really close.

Exactly.....the rams player also made contact with Turpin. If I remember correctly the opposing team can't make contact with the returner on a fair catch right? Is the contact element not reviewable?

 

[droopdog7]

Its either a penalty or its not.

It’s not