Why was the second interception not illegal contact?

[HungryLion]

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

He didn’t see the play but he’ll argue the Int was Prescott’s fault when it suits his agenda.

 

[HungryLion]

I would prefer the refs let them play and only call egregious stuff. So I had no problem with them not calling PI here.

The ball was overthrown which was the main issue.

 

[kskboys]

I would prefer the refs let them play and only call egregious stuff. So I had no problem with them not calling PI here.

The ball was overthrown which was the main issue.

Not to mention thrown into double coverage. Not to mention thrown over the receiver's shoulder w/ a S over the top.

This is what we're talking about when pointing out that Dak has trouble w/ post snap reads. No way he should've missed the S over the top.

 

[erod]

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

That's not a penalty in any way.

 

[erod]

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.

This is a clear play on a thrown ball. No penalty.

 

[Cowboys5217]

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

The historical record does not reflect this at all. GB and Pittsburgh are ref darlings while Detroit and Dallas are given excessive flags every year.

You can look it up for yourself on various reference sites. Just do a search from 2000 to 2023 on the number of seasons Dallas and Detroit were flagged 100 times or more, and how many seasons they were flagged 80 times or less. Now do the same for GB and Pittsburgh.

If it were simply a matter of error then these numbers would be much closer than what they are over a more than large enough sample size of 24 seasons.

 

[Awakened]

100% that's interference. The defender cannot knock the receiver back when the ball is in the air. I've seen players called for offensive pass interference on less obvious fouls.

 

[Awakened]

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.

Didn't "come over and hit" him?? Does 24's path go straight to the ball? No. His shove against Tolbert's shoulder knocked Tolbert off of his path and moves 24 off his path and right into position to catch the ball. That's interference.

 

[kskboys]

100% that's interference. The defender cannot knock the receiver back when the ball is in the air. I've seen players called for offensive pass interference on less obvious fouls.

Yes he can, if they are both going for the ball.

 

[Awakened]

Yes he can, if they are both going for the ball.

No he can't. "Incidental contact" when both are going for the ball is okay. That contact is not incidental; it's intentional.

 

[HungryLion]

Not to mention thrown into double coverage. Not to mention thrown over the receiver's shoulder w/ a S over the top.

This is what we're talking about when pointing out that Dak has trouble w/ post snap reads. No way he should've missed the S over the top.

Yes. That ball should not have been thrown unless it was a “gotta have it” situation. Which it wasn’t.

 

[thunderpimp91]

100% that's interference. The defender cannot knock the receiver back when the ball is in the air. I've seen players called for offensive pass interference on less obvious fouls.

If you've seen players called for less then it was a terrible decision by the ref to throw the flag. If that is PI you might as well just take the defenders off the field.

 

[leeblair]

He didn’t see the play but he’ll argue the Int was Prescott’s fault when it suits his agenda.

The rule is the rule.
I don't have an agenda in quoting a rule, but you sure seem to have one in defending Prescott.
Fans like you hurt the game.

 

[Kevinicus]

That's not a penalty in any way.

I wouldn't call it a penalty either.

 

[HungryLion]

The rule is the rule.
I don't have an agenda in quoting a rule, but you sure seem to have one in defending Prescott.
Fans like you hurt the game.

No, just pointing out your decades long record of garbage posting.

 

[MarcusRock]

Didn't "come over and hit" him?? Does 24's path go straight to the ball? No. His shove against Tolbert's shoulder knocked Tolbert off of his path and moves 24 off his path and right into position to catch the ball. That's interference.

Both are looking for the ball. Porter saw it the whole way down the field. For all we know, Porter could have been planning to high point the ball and when Tolbert ran into his path, he warded him off and didn't need to jump. Going "straight to the ball" assumes he was planning to catch the ball in his gut the whole time. You don't know that. Porter has as much right to the ball as Tolbert and had "gained position" over Tolbert being deeper on the overthrown ball so contact is allowed per the rule I posted.

 

[leeblair]

No, just pointing out your decades long record of garbage posting.

Yet my "garbage" has always been true.
Maybe you just don't like the truth.

 

[gimmesix]

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.

If you watch the whole play, that was not Porter's path in coverage. He came off his path and ran into Tolbert. However, he does have his head up watching the ball and was clearly tracking it, so I can see why they didn't call it. Porter did not have position. He came over and initiated the contacted, and his contact impeded the receiver from being able to make a play on the ball. You can clearly see Tolbert get jolted off his path by the contact and not be able to jump for the ball. Porter could have tracked that ball without interfering with Tolbert from the angle he was taking to the play. Instead, he tracked it into Tolbert, which kept Tolbert from being able to contest him for the pass.

You use things like "has his forearm ready" and "simply keep Tolbert away" to try to justify your point of view, but he hits him with his forearm and it affects the receiver's path. That's not incidental.

 

[MarcusRock]

If you watch the whole play, that was not Porter's path in coverage. He came off his path and ran into Tolbert. However, he does have his head up watching the ball and was clearly tracking it, so I can see why they didn't call it. Porter did not have position. He came over and initiated the contacted, and his contact impeded the receiver from being able to make a play on the ball. You can clearly see Tolbert get jolted off his path by the contact and not be able to jump for the ball. Porter could have tracked that ball without interfering with Tolbert from the angle he was taking to the play. Instead, he tracked it into Tolbert, which kept Tolbert from being able to contest him for the pass.

You use things like "has his forearm ready" and "simply keep Tolbert away" to try to justify your point of view, but he hits him with his forearm and it affects the receiver's path. That's not incidental.

His path was towards the ball because his eyes were in the backfield the whole time. The pass was deep, Porter was in the superior position, both were looking at the ball, their paths crossed and Porter warded it off. His contact is allowed per the rules I posted. And I don't think I ever said it was incidental. I posted that rule and highlighted that if there's a question, officials are instructed to NOT call a foul. All of that weights towards no call and that's what happened. Correctly so, IMO.

 

[kskboys]

No he can't. "Incidental contact" when both are going for the ball is okay. That contact is not incidental; it's intentional.

That is strictly from the eyes of a Cowboys fan.