I'm not choosing to ignore it but our guidance from above has clearly stated that this type of play is not to be called IP, simply INC pass. Also, IMHO if NFHS really wants this to be IP it's really simple to state that fact in the rules and they have repeatedly declined to do so.
I guess I'm missing something. What do you mean by "guidance from above?" In your state? Or the NFHS? because the only official guidance from the Fed is the rule book and case plays. And they clearly indicate that an accidental step out and return is to be called IP, as well as going OOB unforced and then influencing the play.
Take 9-6-1
ART. 1 . . . Prior to a change of possession, or when there is no change of possession, no player of A or K shall go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent. If a player is blocked out of bounds by an opponent and returns to the field during the down, he shall return at the first opportunity.
"Unless blocked out of bounds by an opponent." Doesn't matter if he goes out on purpose, or by accident, if he goes out unforced by an opponent and returns, it's IP. Crystal clear.
ART. 2 . . . No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and: a. Return to the field; b. Intentionally touch the ball; c. Influence the play; or d. Otherwise participate.
Same thing here. True, the term intentionally can be read as "on purpose with the intent" to do those things, but the case plays do not support that idea, specifically the first two:
9.6.2 SITUATION A: A2 is running a pass pattern in the end zone and touches the end line or beyond and leaps and taps A1’s legal forward pass to A3 in the end zone and lands inbounds following the tap of the ball. RULING: Incomplete pass. A2 is considered out of bounds until any body part is touching inbounds while no body part touches out of bounds. In addition, if A2 went out of bounds voluntarily, he is guilty of illegal participation.
*This situation says nothing about having to judge whether A2 intended to influence the play in this manner, or even whether he knew he was oob or not. All it asks us to judge is whether he was forced out or not.
SAME WAY IN THE SECOND SITUATION
9.6.2 SITUATION B: Linebacker B1 runs out of bounds while the ball is live. As runner A2 advances past B1, B1 reaches inbounds and tackles A2. RULING: Illegal participation as B1 remains out of bounds until any body part is touching inbounds, and no body part is touching out of bounds. (2-29-1)
*Notice that how B1 got out of bounds is not the issue here. It doesn't say he "intentionally" ran out of bounds with the intention of influencing this play. It only says that he did so voluntarily, under his own power. Then, while out of bounds, he influenced the play. That's what makes it IP.
We don't have to read a player's mind to make the call.
I will agree that 9.6.2 Situation C does present a situation when a player deliberately goes out of bounds to take advantage of a rule, and/or to manipulate a play situation to his advantage. That deliberate act should also be penalized as IP under the current rules. But it's not the exclusive situation, either.