Ineligible downfield, or not

[jason]

Regarding 7-5-12...

The first sentence: "Ineligible A players may not advance beyond the expanded neutral zone on a legal forward pass play before a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone is in flight."
The last sentence: "An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he immediately contacts a B lineman andt he contact does not continue beyond the expanded neutral zone."

So if A57 makes contact with a B lineman and drives him <2yds forward of the LOS, then the pass is thrown, that doesn't appear to be an issue.  That is generally accepted as legal.

But what if A57 makes no B line contact, and hits a MLB at <=2yds beyond the LOS?  The first sentence makes this sound legal.  The last sentence makes this sound illegal.

What's the consensus on how it should be interpreted?

[prab]

Can't give you a consensus, but IMO if the contact is within two yards of the LOS and the contact itself is not illegal and A doesn't go more than the 2 yards, I am not flagging it for ineligible downfield.

[ALStripes17]

The last sentence only reiterates the first sentence with a more specific example. If a lineman blocks a LB less than 2 yards from the LOS, which statement has been violated? Hint: neither

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[VALJ]

Don't go looking for fly poop in the pepper. If he's blocking someone in the ENZ, he's not downfield.

[KDJBBBJ]

But what if he is not blocking someone and is still 1 1/2 yards downfield all by himself?  I had always been under the impression, wrongly now I believe, that if he was just wandering in the ENZ without having first contacted and still blocking them, they were ineligible downfield. I have now seen the error in my thinking by taking those as two separate statements and not as one.   Thank you! 

[bama_stripes]

But what if he is not blocking someone and is still 1 1/2 yards downfield all by himself?

His backup is probably starting next week.

[jason]

His backup is probably starting next week.

That's borderline hilarious, but the fact of the matter is, that's the kind of situation that caused this question.  An offensive line shot out to the left, a defensive lineman went right past the other way, the QB luckily(?) rolled out to the side where the OLinemen went, and while the QB searched for a receiver, the OLineman searched for a defender to block.  He found the MLB just a hair under 2 yards downfield on one play.  On another, he found that same MLB about 2.5 yards downfield.

[Ralph Damren]

U.S. JUSTICE SYSTEM : YE MUST BE GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO BE CONVICTED.

NFHS FOUL SYSTEM : YE MUST BE SURE HE FOULED TO BE FLAGGED.

IF YOU THINK HE MIGHT HAVE...HE DIDN'T

 

[ALStripes17]

That's borderline hilarious, but the fact of the matter is, that's the kind of situation that caused this question.  An offensive line shot out to the left, a defensive lineman went right past the other way, the QB luckily(?) rolled out to the side where the OLinemen went, and while the QB searched for a receiver, the OLineman searched for a defender to block.  He found the MLB just a hair under 2 yards downfield on one play.  On another, he found that same MLB about 2.5 yards downfield.

We don't nitpick the 2 or 3 yards as a definitive line. The defense isn't covering him nor do they believe he is able to catch a pass. This ticky-tack detail is let go without question.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Is anyone actually gaining an unearned advantage, or even attempting to gain one?

[Ralph Damren]

Is anyone actually gaining an unearned advantage, or even attempting to gain one?

Good point, Yankee Al, our job is to keep the game fair , safe and running smoothly NOT to see how many flags we can throw. (7-5, 5-4,6-5 & 4-3)

[ncwingman]

Let's say B is in a zone defense and the MLB is assigned with covering crossing routes over the middle. Our bumbling O-lineman misses his assigned block and goes searching for a new target -- the MLB. He goes 5 yards beyond the LOS and starts blocking the MLB who was definitely not pass rushing, and then the QB throws a pass downfield (beyond the neutral zone).

Is this exclusively an illegal downfield, or did it get elevated to an OPI? If it was another eligible receiver acting in a similar manner, it'd clearly be OPI

[WingOfficial]

Don't go looking for fly poop in the pepper.

  Never heard that one! 

[ChicagoZebra]

Let's say B is in a zone defense and the MLB is assigned with covering crossing routes over the middle. Our bumbling O-lineman misses his assigned block and goes searching for a new target -- the MLB. He goes 5 yards beyond the LOS and starts blocking the MLB who was definitely not pass rushing, and then the QB throws a pass downfield (beyond the neutral zone).

Is this exclusively an illegal downfield, or did it get elevated to an OPI? If it was another eligible receiver acting in a similar manner, it'd clearly be OPI

Here is where I say put on our judgement caps. The rule for OPI 7-5-10-a states that the offending player must "interfere with an eligible's opportunity to move toward, catch, or bat the pass". Would the MLB have had a legitimate opportunity to do so that was taken away by the downfield contact from the O lineman? If so, OPI. If not, let's leave it as ineligible downfield.

[Magician]

Is anyone actually gaining an unearned advantage, or even attempting to gain one?

They can absolutely get an advantage. Just like us the defense reads the lineman for run/pass. If they read a lineman coming down field, they know the offense now can't throw a pass beyond the neutral zone so they can adjust their coverage accordingly. The linebacker and move toward the backfield and the DB can let his receiver go downfield.

I'm in the camp of 2-yards regardless of what they are doing is OK. Teams trying to defend the RPO (run pass option) hate this because these linemen drift and it makes it very difficult for their defenders to cover. The NCAA rule is similar, but it allows 3 yards. It had always been a soft 3-yards, and the rules committee passed a change last year making it a hard 1-yard. There was enough push back they rescinded the rule change, but said the 3-yard belt has to be strictly enforced. That has been emphasized this year as well. The RPO offense is the primary reason.

[Ralph Damren]

Good point, Yankee Al, our job is to keep the game fair , safe and running smoothly NOT to see how many flags we can throw. (7-5, 5-4,6-5 & 4-3)

......just in case you were wondering if those numbers were rule references...

NO, THEY WERE THE SCORES OF THE RED SOX 4 GAME SWEEP OF YANKEE AL'S YANKEES LAST WEEKEND

[jason]

They can absolutely get an advantage. Just like us the defense reads the lineman for run/pass. If they read a lineman coming down field, they know the offense now can't throw a pass beyond the neutral zone so they can adjust their coverage accordingly. The linebacker and move toward the backfield and the DB can let his receiver go downfield.

I'm in the camp of 2-yards regardless of what they are doing is OK. Teams trying to defend the RPO (run pass option) hate this because these linemen drift and it makes it very difficult for their defenders to cover. The NCAA rule is similar, but it allows 3 yards. It had always been a soft 3-yards, and the rules committee passed a change last year making it a hard 1-yard. There was enough push back they rescinded the rule change, but said the 3-yard belt has to be strictly enforced. That has been emphasized this year as well. The RPO offense is the primary reason.

This was the argument, almost verbatim, that some had when defending the penalization of what some, would consider ticky-tacky, and what others, like me, would consider a misinterpretation of the rule.  Within 2 yards means no foul in my mind, regardless of whether or not initial contact is made.  After that, I can see how the defense could be at a disadvantage, even if there is minimal movement downfield.