Why was the second interception not illegal contact?

[gimmesix]

Rewatching the second half tonight and I'm at the point where Prescott throws his second interception. On the play, Tolbert was headed to where Dak threw it, but the DB came over and made contact with Tolbert's shoulder, which slowed him and impeded his ability to go up and try to make a play on the ball. That allowed the DB to make the interception.

Since the contact affected the play, should that have not been illegal contact since it happened way downfield? It wasn't like Tolbert was handfighting with the DB and they just let them play it out, the DB made the contact and it helped him make the interception.

This is neither a thread about Dak nor about the refs cheating us. I just wanted to get some thoughts about what happened there.

 

[Shane612]

Refs miss calls.
It’s part of the game.
You can probably find missed calls for both side in every game.

 

[leeblair]

Rewatching the second half tonight and I'm at the point where Prescott throws his second interception. On the play, Tolbert was headed to where Dak threw it, but the DB came over and made contact with Tolbert's shoulder, which slowed him and impeded his ability to go up and try to make a play on the ball. That allowed the DB to make the interception.

Since the contact affected the play, should that have not been illegal contact since it happened way downfield? It wasn't like Tolbert was handfighting with the DB and they just let them play it out, the DB made the contact and it helped him make the interception.

This is neither a thread about Dak nor about the refs cheating us. I just wanted to get some thoughts about what happened there.

I didn't see the play but contact is allowed if they are both going for the ball.

 

[erod]

If the DB is going for the ball, it's not a penalty.

 

[MarcusRock]

I just watched this and it was minimal jockeying for position. The pass was thrown more perfectly to Porter than Tolbert and Tolbert ran into Porter's path to the ball. It's the same action a WR does to DBs to muscle for room that's not an outright pushoff. Good no-call, IMO.

 

[gimmesix]

I didn't see the play but contact is allowed if they are both going for the ball.

I don't think he was going for the ball yet. He was playing the receiver, made contact and then went for the ball. The contact slowed Tolbert up and prevented him from jumping as the ball sailed past him.

 

[gimmesix]

I just watched this and it was minimal jockeying for position. The pass was thrown more perfectly to Porter than Tolbert and Tolbert ran into Porter's path to the ball. It's the same action a WR does to DBs to muscle for room that's not an outright pushoff. Good no-call, IMO.

Tolbert did no jockeying. Porter came up and hit him and it clearly impeded Tolbert's path to the ball.

ARTICLE 3. ILLEGAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE

Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender cannot initiate contact with a receiver who is attempting to evade him. A defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

If the DB is going for the ball, it's not a penalty.

unless it's our DB....

 

[MarcusRock]

Tolbert did no jockeying. Porter came up and hit him and it clearly impeded Tolbert's path to the ball.

ARTICLE 3. ILLEGAL CONTACT BEYOND FIVE-YARD ZONE

Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender cannot initiate contact with a receiver who is attempting to evade him. A defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver.

Right. It was Porter that did the jockeying because the ball was practically thrown to him. And that rule you post says the QB is in the pocket with the ball. Their contact happened while the ball was in the air. To boot, Porter WAS protecting himself from impending contact because Tolbert ran into Porter's path to the ball.

 

[gimmesix]

Right. It was Porter that did the jockeying because the ball was practically thrown to him. And that rule you post says the QB is in the pocket with the ball. Their contact happened while the ball was in the air.

Which would have made it pass interference instead of illegal contact.

 

[MarcusRock]

Which would have made it pass interference instead of illegal contact.

Except:

ARTICLE 3. PERMISSIBLE ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR. Acts that are permissible by a player​

include, but are not limited to:​

(a) Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is​

looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference;​

.​

.​

(e) Contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball;​

Would you say Porter had gained position on Tolbert given where that pass was thrown?

 

[gimmesix]

Except:

ARTICLE 3. PERMISSIBLE ACTS BY BOTH TEAMS WHILE THE BALL IS IN THE AIR. Acts that are permissible by a player​

include, but are not limited to:​

(a) Incidental contact by an opponent’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is​

looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference;​

.​

​

(e) Contact by a player who has gained position on an opponent in an attempt to catch the ball;​

Would you say Porter had gained position on Tolbert given where that pass was thrown?

Not at that point. He gained position by bumping him, which slowed him down and did not allow him to go up for the ball. He made contact before Tolbert tried to jump for the ball, so the ball was not past him at that time. There was no incidental contact. Porter came up/over and hit Tolbert and it affected his path to the ball. It wasn't like they accidentally bumped into each other.

 

[MarcusRock]

Not at that point. He gained position by bumping him, which slowed him down and did not allow him to go up for the ball. He made contact before Tolbert tried to jump for the ball, so the ball was not past him at that time. There was no incidental contact. Porter came up/over and hit Tolbert and it affected his path to the ball. It wasn't like they accidentally bumped into each other.

Yeah, don't think so. Porter was deeper than Tolbert all the way and as he ran towards the ball, Tolbert crossed towards his path so Porter warded him off with his hand. Is he supposed to let Tolbert run into him and ruin the interception that was thrown better to him than Tolbert? He had total position and used his hand to maintain it. If he pulled on Tolbert then okay, but he put his hand up to keep him out of his path. With position you are allowed to do that per the rules I posted.

 

[MarcusRock]

Here's the play. Watch as Tolbert's path takes him right into Porter, who is deeper and has position. Rather than Porter allowing Tolbert to bump him off his route, he has his forearm ready watching Tolbert creep over and simply keeps Tolbert away so he can continue to the ball. He doesn't "come over and hit" Tolbert. Tolbert was running into him while they were both playing the ball and Porter prevented a collision and made the INT.

 

[Kevinicus]

Here's the play. Watch as Tolbert's path takes him right into Porter, who is deeper and has position. Rather than Porter allowing Tolbert to bump him off his route, he has his forearm ready watching Tolbert creep over and simply keeps Tolbert away so he can continue to the ball. He doesn't "come over and hit" Tolbert. Tolbert was running into him while they were both playing the ball and Porter prevented a collision and made the INT.

Porter clearly goes into Tolbert here, not the other way around.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Mike actually said in a PC this week that Tolbert has to fight harder for that ball.

 

[thunderpimp91]

If that’s a penalty then football is over. Thats two guys tracking the ball in the air and make the slightest of contact. If that ever gets called then the game turns into just slinging the football down field every play because you’re guaranteed a flag.

 

[Creeper]

I would need to look at the play again, but in general if the defender is going for the ball they allow contact. However, and I have seen this a number of times not get called, if the defender impedes the receiver from making a play for the ball that should be pass interference. For example, if the defender uses his hands to keep the receiver from leaping for the ball, it should be pass interference or if the defender uses his hands on the receiver to aid his own leap for the ball, that should also be pass interference. If I recall the play, Porter bumped Tolbert but he was looking at the ball so that would not be PI. I believe it is still illegal to go through the receiver to make a play on the ball.

I think Tolbert did act like he thought it was PI, but I think Porter was playing the ball.

 

[Risen Star]

I think there's a rule that if your QB is the most overpaid fraud in the league then it's not illegal contact.

 

[kskboys]

Here's the play. Watch as Tolbert's path takes him right into Porter, who is deeper and has position. Rather than Porter allowing Tolbert to bump him off his route, he has his forearm ready watching Tolbert creep over and simply keeps Tolbert away so he can continue to the ball. He doesn't "come over and hit" Tolbert. Tolbert was running into him while they were both playing the ball and Porter prevented a collision and made the INT.

Yup. Clearly both were going for the ball. Good non-call.