Illegal Touching or Offensive Pass Interference

[justbill]

Here is the situation.  An ineligible player is down field and catches a pass.  There are no B players any where near him.  In the Rules Book, pg 62 Rule 7-5-13 states that this is illegal touching.  The case book states that this is also offensive pass interference (see below).

2011 NFHS Football Case Book Clarifications

Page 59, *7.5.13 SITUATION A: Ineligible receiver A2 is behind, in or beyond his neutral zone when a forward pass by A1: (a) accidentally strikes him in the back; or (b) is muffed by him; or (c) is caught by him. RULING: In (a), there is no illegal touching, however, if beyond the line of scrimmage, it would be offensive pass interference if the game officials judge that the offensive player interfered with B’s chance to move toward, catch or bat the pass. In (b) and (c), it is illegal touching and if beyond the line of scrimmage, would also be offensive pass interference. The acts in both (b) and (c) are intentional and not accidental as in (a) as it relates to illegal touching. Although ineligible downfield could also be called, the offended team will likely choose the most severe penalty to be applied.

I am having trouble finding the rule that leads to this being Offensive Pass Interference.


Thoughts?

[mbyron]

7-5-10a.

[justbill]

This applies even if there is no B player in the vicinity?

[mbyron]

This applies even if there is no B player in the vicinity?

Well, in theory no. But when is this call likely to be made? Probably when a WR has mistakenly covered a tight end, making him ineligible. When he catches a pass, he's almost certain to be covered, and you could have 3 fouls on him depending on his location: ineligible downfield, illegal touching, and OPI.

I don't think many of us would flag the OPI, but apparently NFHS thinks we should.

[justbill]

This actually came up this past weekend.  We were discussing it in our Association meeting and we were trying to figure out how you explain OPI to the coach in this instance.  We didn't feel we could quote the casebook.

I would guess that the best we can do is that if the ineligible player catches the ball, we are 100% certain that no one else can catch it regardless of where they are on the field, therefore OPI.  If he does not catch it (or even touch it), there is always a possibility, however small or remote, that someone else could, even if they don't appear that they are in position to.

[Curious]

My instinct tells me we should only have Illegal Touching if there is no B player in the area.  This seems to conform better to rule 7-5-10 which requires (for there to be ANY forward pass interference) that: "ANY A or B player interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch, or bat the pass".  The chart on pg 63 also specifies that either A or B's "hindrance" is required for PI. 

Since there is no B player in the area, no OPI (IMO)!

I think Case Book plays 7.5.10A and 7.5.13A are more confusing than helpful.

[mbyron]

From a game management perspective, the expected call is illegal touching. That flag would require no selling.

[bama_stripes]

I believe CB 7.5.13A is completely in error.  It looks to me as if someone pulled a case play from a book that was printed before the rule change several years ago making this Illegal Touching rather than OPI.

[HLinNC]

I think Bama is right and I believe there has already been a thread on one of these boards.  Maybe the defunct Fed board?  That rule change has been around for several years.  Coaches thought OPI was too harsh.

[Mike L]

It's not in error, just misunderstood. What they are telling you is it could be OPI if he does something that you would determine to be OPI regardless of his eligibility. Merely catching/touching a ball is not OPI. He has to do something to restrict the B player.

[bama_stripes]

It's not in error, just misunderstood. What they are telling you is it could be OPI if he does something that you would determine to be OPI regardless of his eligibility. Merely catching/touching a ball is not OPI. He has to do something to restrict the B player.

Yes, that's what they meant to convey.  But read the CB ruling:  Nowhere does it indicate that ineligible A2 makes any contact with an opposing player!  Instead, it clearly states "(I)t is illegal touching and if beyond the line of scrimmage, would also be offensive pass interference."

Is there any question why this is so confusing?

[Curious]

Is there any question why this is so confusing?

Amen!  Glad it's not just me.....

MikeL puts it succinctly!

[Mike L]

Did they screw up the 2011 CB? Because I'm looking at the 2010 and I see no reference to the C act also being OPI.

[bama_stripes]

Did they screw up the 2011 CB? Because I'm looking at the 2010 and I see no reference to the C act also being OPI.

That's what we've been getting at.  Here's the 2011 play in it's entirety:

"*7.5.13 SITUATION A: Ineligible receiver A2 is behind, in or beyond his neutral
zone when a forward pass by A1: (a) accidentally strikes him in the back; or (b)
is muffed by him; or (c) is caught by him. RULING: In (a), there is no illegal
touching, however, if beyond the line of scrimmage, would be offensive pass
interference. In (b) and (c), it is illegal touching and if beyond the line of scrimmage,
would also be offensive pass interference. The acts in both (b) and (c) are
intentional and not accidental as in (a) as it relates to illegal touching. Although
ineligible downfield could also be called, the offended team will likely choose the
most severe penalty to be applied."

[bossman72]

NFHS really F'd this one up!!

Call the rule the way you've always called it for the past few years.  I would just ignore this case book play.

[golfingref]

Reddings talks about this as well, agreeing with the above. If an ineligible intentionally contacts a pass, illegal touching. If unintentional, you have nothing. The OPI foul was dropped a few years ago.

[dch]

As several people have stated -- the 2011 case book 7.5.13 A is incorrect by the current rule.

2006 was the year of the change.  The comments on the 2006 rules revisions states "This change removes the offensive pass interference penalty for an ineligible player who touches a legal forward pass.  An ineligible player who bats, muffs or catches a pass behind, in or beyond the neutral zone now has committed illegal touching.  The penalty for this infraction is a 5-yard penalty and loss of down."   

[Wingman]

Does anyone frequenting this board have a "hot" line contact into the NFHS to get that case book correction corrected again??

By the time I could go through all the channels here in my state, we'll be in to basketball season and no one will give a hoot.

In a county meeting this past week, this exact play game up when the facilitator asked about odd plays that had occurred in the previous games.. The unbelievable ruling from the crew that had this case book play was that they hit the offense up for OPI.

Some of tried in vain to show where they were wrong but .  .. in one ear and out the other has they hung their hat on the case book play since it was marked as new for 2011.

I pulled out the 2005 and 2006 book and can clearly see where is was in 05 and no longer was OPI on 06.  Obviously, nothing has changed since then, so why the heck did the case book change with absolutely no rule change to back it up.

Please..  if someone can... try to get that correction corrected.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The Federation has published a "clarification" for this case play on the NFHS Hub at:
https://nfhs-football.arbitersports.com/Groups/105409/Library/files/2011%20NFHS%20Football%20Case%20Book%20Clarification.pdf

Here it is (with revisions shown in red and strikethrough)

Page 59, *7.5.13 SITUATION A: Ineligible receiver A2 is behind, in or beyond his neutral zone when a forward pass by A1: (a) accidentally strikes him in the back; or (b) is muffed by him; or (c) is caught by him. RULING: In (a), there is no illegal touching, however, if beyond the line of scrimmage, it would be offensive pass interference if the game officials judge that the offensive player interfered with B’s chance to move toward, catch or bat the pass. In (b) and (c), it is illegal touching and if beyond the line of scrimmage, would also be offensive pass interference. The acts in both (b) and (c) are intentional and not accidental as in (a) as it relates to illegal touching. Although ineligible downfield could also be called, the offended team will likely choose the most severe penalty to be applied.


Sounds like "damage control" to me. And they don't say that if the offensive player doesn't interfere, it's still illegal touching.

[AlUpstateNY]

Dealing with inarticulate attempts at explanation is nothing new to rule reviews, but this revision does seem to clarify and underscore what is a change from 2006.  In 2006 the rule was revised to change touching a forward pass by an inelligible, beyond the line, to illegal touching.

This revision simply provides for underscoring that an inelligible, beyond the line, who directly inteferes with an opponent's ,"chance to move toward, catch or bat the pass" would still be guilty of the harsher penalty of OPI.  It further establishes that this is a judgment call, entirely and solely made by the covering official. 

[bama_stripes]

REPLY: The Federation has published a "clarification" for this case play on the NFHS Hub at:
https://nfhs-football.arbitersports.com/Groups/105409/Library/files/2011%20NFHS%20Football%20Case%20Book%20Clarification.pdf

Here it is (with revisions shown in red and strikethrough)

Page 59, *7.5.13 SITUATION A: Ineligible receiver A2 is behind, in or beyond his neutral zone when a forward pass by A1: (a) accidentally strikes him in the back; or (b) is muffed by him; or (c) is caught by him. RULING: In (a), there is no illegal touching, however, if beyond the line of scrimmage, it would be offensive pass interference if the game officials judge that the offensive player interfered with B’s chance to move toward, catch or bat the pass. In (b) and (c), it is illegal touching and if beyond the line of scrimmage, would also be offensive pass interference. The acts in both (b) and (c) are intentional and not accidental as in (a) as it relates to illegal touching. Although ineligible downfield could also be called, the offended team will likely choose the most severe penalty to be applied.


Sounds like "damage control" to me. And they don't say that if the offensive player doesn't interfere, it's still illegal touching.

They still didn't get it right, since they failed to add the disclaimer to rulings (b) and (c).  The way it reads aftet this "clarification" is that if ineligible A2 muffs or catches a forward pass beyond the NZ, it IS OPI.

[Wingman]

Agreed, but the changed case play from 2010 was perfectly good.  OPI rules for Team-A (7-5-10) covered *any* team-A player and that includes ineligible team-A players.
Then they come out with a case play change that as we all can see says the mere act of illegal touching is OPI.. there is no rule support for that at all. As pointed out, that was removed in 2006. I certainly agree that there "could" be OPI, but not solely because of the illegal touch.

There are two or three other very similar illegal touching down-field case plays that OPI is not part of the ruling. It's obvious to me someone got to the NFHS and convinced them this case play is OPI.

They were wrong and I go with the philosophy that when a case book play is in-conflict with the rules, that the rules take precedent.. therefore NOT and automatic OPI situation.
NFHS needs to fix this correction now..

Dealing with inarticulate attempts at explanation is nothing new to rule reviews, but this revision does seem to clarify and underscore what is a change from 2006.  In 2006 the rule was revised to change touching a forward pass by an inelligible, beyond the line, to illegal touching.

This revision simply provides for underscoring that an inelligible, beyond the line, who directly inteferes with an opponent's ,"chance to move toward, catch or bat the pass" would still be guilty of the harsher penalty of OPI.  It further establishes that this is a judgment call, entirely and solely made by the covering official.

[indiotom]

I believe the rule has been changed so that this is always Illegal touching.

[mbyron]

I believe the rule has been changed so that this is always Illegal touching.

Have you read the entire thread? The case book changed this year and added OPI. There is no recent rule change.