Ineligible lineman downfield pt2

[skt101]

NFHS...is it a foul for ineligible lineman downfield if Lineman A is engaged in blocking lineman B and goes past the extended neutral zone while still engaged in the block?

[HLinNC]

Better to ask NFHS questions on the NFHS board.

If a forward pass crosses the NZ then yes.  Otherwise, you have OPI.  That is why we have the ENZ.

See 7-5-11b.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Better to ask NFHS questions on the NFHS board.

If a forward pass crosses the NZ then yes.  Otherwise, you have OPI.  That is why we have the ENZ.

See 7-5-11b.

Also, don't forget 7-5-11-c:  It is not forward-pass interference if:  Contact by B is obviously away from the direction of the pass. So it's a safe call to simply have Ineligible Downfield unless the pass crosses the NZ and is in the immediate area of the lineman blocking downfield.

[HLinNC]

Contact by B is obviously away from the direction of the pass.

But we aren't talking about B.  We're talking about an offensive lineman which would be A so your rule cite isn't even applicable.

[CalhounLJ]

Contact by B is obviously away from the direction of the pass.

But we aren't talking about B.  We're talking about an offensive lineman which would be A so your rule cite isn't even applicable.

Not necessarily. I understand that technically A blocking downfield is OPI, but there's a different in the letter and spirit of the rule. If Big Tackle Bubba is blocking Big Tackle Bobby on the opposite side from where the pass is thrown, and pushes him a little too far downfield, and that didn't affect the pass to the intended receiver or the defenders coverages of the routes run by the receivers, I think ID is the correct call, as opposed to OPI.

On the other hand, if Big tackle Bubba goes down and blocks a linebacker in pass coverage, then yeah, OPI is the right call.

[HLinNC]

Geez o pete.  NV cited the rule about CONTACT BY B when the original post posed the question about an ineligible lineman blocking downfield beyond the ENZ.  That answer has nothing to do wit the original question.

Just pretend this is an exam question.

Little wonder this board is slowly ebbing.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Not necessarily. I understand that technically A blocking downfield is OPI, but there's a different in the letter and spirit of the rule. If Big Tackle Bubba is blocking Big Tackle Bobby on the opposite side from where the pass is thrown, and pushes him a little too far downfield, and that didn't affect the pass to the intended receiver or the defenders coverages of the routes run by the receivers, I think ID is the correct call, as opposed to OPI.

On the other hand, if Big tackle Bubba goes down and blocks a linebacker in pass coverage, then yeah, OPI is the right call.

I would agree here.  If the A lineman blocking "downfield" has no impact on the play when the pass is in a totally different area I've got ID and nothing more.  If he takes out the defender on a mistimed screen or other similar play in the area of the pass I'm good with OPI.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Geez o pete.  NV cited the rule about CONTACT BY B when the original post posed the question about an ineligible lineman blocking downfield beyond the ENZ.  That answer has nothing to do wit the original question.

Just pretend this is an exam question.

Little wonder this board is slowly ebbing.

The point of my post was to simply indicate that a pass in an area unrelated to the blocking IMHO is best called ID and not OPI.  Let's not PRETEND it's an exam question and let's focus on what we should be calling in the real world.  If I call an OPI with the left tackle blocking the lineman in front of him when he's 3-4 yards downfield and the pass is 25 yards downfield to the opposite side I'm getting some very negative feedback from my assignor.  If it's really OPI then fine but I've got ID 95% of the time.

[CalhounLJ]

Geez o pete.  NV cited the rule about CONTACT BY B when the original post posed the question about an ineligible lineman blocking downfield beyond the ENZ.  That answer has nothing to do wit the original question.

Just pretend this is an exam question.

Little wonder this board is slowly ebbing.

Oh I agree. His answer had nothing to do with the OP. But the principle is the same. Just as we would rightfully ignore the letter of DPI to maintain the spirit of the rule on the defense, the same is or should be true on the offense. Just because the textbook test question would call for a flag for OPI for an offensive player to be blocking downfield on a pass that crosses the neutral zone doesn't mean we should always throw a flag for OPI when an offensive player is blocking downfield on a pass. Knowledge of the game and a football sense that supercedes the rules are essential in officiating.

I also agree this site is ebbing, but not for the reasons you think...

[Fatso]

NFHS...is it a foul for ineligible lineman downfield if Lineman A is engaged in blocking lineman B and goes past the extended neutral zone while still engaged in the block?

Short answer - Yes it's a foul.   Big Boy can't drive scrawny kid 10 yards downfield during passing play even if engaged the whole time (assuming pass crosses the line of scrimmage).  The discussions of OPI vs IDP in this thread are valid and should be considered.  But the answer to your question is yes it's still a foul.

[Ralph Damren]

I fear that we sometimes dig too deep into the pepper shaker searching for the fly poop. We've all heard coaches yell : "JUST LET THE KIDS PLAY  !". I tend to somewhat agree as it seems that the smoothest games are the games with the fewest penalities.

THE FOULING PHILOSOPHY THAT I FOLLOW.....

(1) IF THE ILLEGAL ACT GIVES A TEAM AN ADVANTAGE,,,,,,,,,,,,,CALL IT   

(2) IF THE ILLEGAL ACT INVOLVES SAFETY...............................CALL IT   

(3) IF THE ILLEGAL ACT COULD BE SEEN BY THE NEAR-SIGHTED GRANDMA IN THE LAST ROW OF THE BLEACHERS........CALL IT   

That concludes my hump day rant.....