RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: zebraken on September 21, 2012, 09:53:51 AM

Title: ineligible downfied
Post by: zebraken on September 21, 2012, 09:53:51 AM
under what cicumstances would an ineligble player downfield be guilty of offensive pass interference?
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: srhendon on September 21, 2012, 10:14:08 AM
That would not  happen often but if he is blocking a person in the area of the pass. Basing that on the restrictions start for A on the snap.IF a LB has a chance to intercept and A64 hits him would be an example.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: Curious on September 21, 2012, 10:16:42 AM
Based on the 2012 FED Rules Clarification:if the ineligible player commits what the official deems to be OPI beyond the expanded neutral zone, it's OPI - not Illegal Touching.

(7-5-10a,b; 7.5.13; Table in pg 63 of the 2012 Rule Book)
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: 110 on September 24, 2012, 07:38:14 AM
Note: usually this sort of thing arises when you have a blown screen pass.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: Roscoe on September 25, 2012, 02:27:19 AM
If an ineligible receiver goes downfield and then catches a forward pass beyond the neutral zone, we have OPI.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: NorCalMike on September 25, 2012, 02:44:55 AM
If an ineligible receiver goes downfield and then catches a forward pass beyond the neutral zone, we have OPI.
7-5-13  An ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs or catches a legal forward pass, unless the pass has first been touched by B.

Case 7-5-13 Situation A

This was change several years ago.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: Bob M. on September 25, 2012, 12:12:10 PM
7-5-13  An ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs or catches a legal forward pass, unless the pass has first been touched by B.

Case 7-5-13 Situation A

This was change several years ago.

REPLY: Mike...you're right. This is, and should be flagged as, illegal touching--not OPI. It was changed several years ago. However, the Fed created confusion last year when they issued a case play that once again mistakenly called it OPI. When brought to their attention, the Fed attempted to soft-peddle the error attempting to show how it could be OPI if the ineligible interfered with a defender's play on the ball. But that isn't what the play said. So between their initial error last season, and their "politician's" attempt to not admit a mistake, it's no wonder people are confused.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: Rulesman on September 25, 2012, 02:12:41 PM
...But that isn't what the play said. So between their initial error last season, and their "politician's" attempt to not admit a mistake, it's no wonder people are confused.
We have the same problem this year with the definition of "catch" in the rule book and a play interpretation or two in the Case Book.  cRaZy
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: bama_stripes on September 25, 2012, 04:34:44 PM
If an ineligible receiver goes downfield and then catches a forward pass beyond the neutral zone, we have OPI.

See the 2012 Interpretations on the NFHS web site.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: BIG UMP on September 26, 2012, 11:54:27 AM
Tennessee just put out a NFHS correction that strikes through the OPI portion of this.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: Bob M. on September 26, 2012, 12:25:30 PM
We have the same problem this year with the definition of "catch" in the rule book and a play interpretation or two in the Case Book.  cRaZy

REPLY: There has been an inherent problem with the definition of "catch" for many years. According to the definition, you can't have a catch till player possession is established, but according to the definition of player possession, you can't have player possession of a live ball until the player catches it. Huh?? Which is it? The football version of "chicken and egg."

There's a simple way to fix it, though it has been proposed and rejected:

ART. 1 . . . A catch is the act of establishing player possession control of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession control of the ball.
Title: Re: ineligible downfied
Post by: Rulesman on September 26, 2012, 04:12:54 PM
REPLY: There has been an inherent problem with the definition of "catch" for many years. According to the definition, you can't have a catch till player possession is established, but according to the definition of player possession, you can't have player possession of a live ball until the player catches it. Huh?? Which is it? The football version of "chicken and egg."

There's a simple way to fix it, though it has been proposed and rejected:

ART. 1 . . . A catch is the act of establishing player possession control of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession control of the ball.
I'm also of the opinion if the rule makers will place a comma here and there it will also help to solve some of the ambiguity.