RPO and “ineligible downfield linemen”!

[Kleiny]

Howdy, ladies and gentlemen!

I’m trying to find clarification on linemen (T,G,C,G,T; all ineligible numbers) who are “engaged” in a block that initiated at/near the NZ, but end up a little bit beyond the Expanded Neutral Zone at the time of a forward (downfield) pass.  With more and more high schools trying to incorporate the RPO (Run-Pass-Option) it is something that I’ve been noticing more frequently and want to just “freshen up” before the season kicks off.  When executed properly, the RPO is a beautiful play and nearly impossible to stop at the high school level, but sometimes the QB misses a key read and the play takes a bit longer to develop...and O-linemen are just churning away (not knowing what the QB is doing) ultimately ending up further and further downfield with each passing second!

First: linemen (ineligible receivers) are prohibited from moving beyond the Expanded Neutral Zone prior to a downfield pass, correct?  Correct.  Can someone confirm that this means NO MORE THAN THREE YARDS beyond the neutral zone?  My brain is still hibernating since last season and I’m being tugged in all sorts of directions because of the differences between NFHS, NCAA, and NFL!  Regardless, the Expanded Neutral Zone does not extend beyond the goal line in any of these leagues, but I’d sincerely appreciate someone confirming the rule in NFHS. For the life of me, I just can’t find anything to help give me clarity!

Second: IF my brain isn’t playing tricks on me and the rule is THREE YARDS beyond the NZ (for o-linemen) then how are YOU going to rule on an offensive tackle who is engaged in a block that began at the NZ, but ends up THREE-AND-A-HALF yards beyond the NZ at the time of the forward pass downfield?  Is there anything that specifically covers this scenario?  Or am I just reading too much into it and the rule is the rule regardless of where the blocker engaged the defensive player?  Does it even matter that the O-lineman is “engaged” in a block a yard beyond the ENZ?  Why am I so transfixed on the notion of the O-lineman being “engaged” in a block versus not “engaged”?  Is the OL treated differently if he’s “engaged” while downfield or something?  I don’t recall ever being this uncertain about this rule and I’m unable to find anything specific that will satisfy my annoying uncertainty!!

Third: an ineligible receiver (let’s go with the left offensive guard) explodes downfield at the snap and ends up FIVE YARDS beyond the NZ before he realizes that it’s a passing play!  He then retreats back to the NZ and the quarterback then throws the ball downfield AFTER the left guard has made it back to his side of the NZ.  Ruling?!

I appreciate the assist on this, my friends!  For some reason, I just can’t find much clarity on this particular aspect of the game and it’s driving me nuts!  I feel like I’m thinking proper, but there’s a little contrarian voice over my shoulder sowing seeds of doubt!  Thanks‼️

[BetweenTheLines]

2.28.2 and 7.5.12 should clear things up for you.

[Magician]

NFHS is 2 yards, NCAA is 3 yards, NFL is 1 yard (I believe).

The NFHS confusion is there are two statements in the rule. One says the ineligible player can't go beyond the ENZ before the pass is released. The other statement says they can't go beyond the ENZ if they engage at the LOS. Some argue the second statement overrides the first statement. Some argue the first statement makes the second statement irrelevant. I'm guessing the POE will clarify which interpretation the rules committee wants.

Regardless if the ineligible player goes beyond the 2 yards whether or not they are engaged and a legal forward pass is then thrown beyond the NZ they are guilty of IDP.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Third: an ineligible receiver (let’s go with the left offensive guard) explodes downfield at the snap and ends up FIVE YARDS beyond the NZ before he realizes that it’s a passing play!  He then retreats back to the NZ and the quarterback then throws the ball downfield AFTER the left guard has made it back to his side of the NZ.  Ruling?!

To answer this part of the question, isn't the key flag/no flag decision here based on the actual position of the ineligible player when a legal forward pass actually crosses the NZ?  Does how far downfield he was before the pass actually matter?

[Ump33]

Quote from: Kleiny on Today at 01:21:13 AM
Third: an ineligible receiver (let’s go with the left offensive guard) explodes downfield at the snap and ends up FIVE YARDS beyond the NZ before he realizes that it’s a passing play!  He then retreats back to the NZ and the quarterback then throws the ball downfield AFTER the left guard has made it back to his side of the NZ.  Ruling?!

To answer this part of the question, isn't the key flag/no flag decision here based on the actual position of the ineligible player when a legal forward pass actually crosses the NZ?  Does how far downfield he was before the pass actually matter?

Case Book 7.5.12 SITUATION A:
At the snap, interior lineman A1 moves about 3 yards downfield and finding no one to block, retreats behind the neutral zone and blocks for A2 who eventually throws a forward pass which crosses the neutral zone.
RULING: A1 is an ineligible illegally downfield. The prohibition against ineligibles downfield for A starts at the snap, and the fact A1 was no longer downfield when the pass was thrown has no bearing on the ruling.

[BetweenTheLines]

A question for the Magician. Where in the rules, and by that I assume you mean rulebook is there verbage on being engaged?

[Ralph Damren]

Remember, guys, that a planned screen pass that deflects off a receiver's hands and crosses the LOS, untouched by B, is considered a forward downfield pass.

[BetweenTheLines]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Lhj1aYpv5S9jbnQU6

Hope this link works. A classic example of the incomplete screen. Watch the block from the wideout. Blindside?

[BIG UMP]

A question for the Magician. Where in the rules, and by that I assume you mean rulebook is there verbage on being engaged?

Last sentence of 7-5-12

ART. 12 . . . lneligible 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. lf B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this
restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he
immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the
expanded neutral zone.

[Magician]

Last sentence of 7-5-12

ART. 12 . . . lneligible 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. lf B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this
restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he
immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the
expanded neutral zone.

Correct. And the first statement is the one I was referencing. Based on that statement there is no requirement for them to be engaged to go into the expanded neutral zone. If that's the case the last statement isn't necessary. The first statement already says they can be there with no reference to engagement. This is how we have always interpreted it, but I'm sure others say they have to engaged first based on the last statement. I'm hoping this POE clarifies what the rules committee wants. I'm hoping the engagement won't be required because that is consistent with NCAA rules (other than distance).

[KWH]

2.28.2 and 7.5.12 should clear things up for you.

A quick lesson in NFHS Football writing edicate for future use...

This is a common mistake and certainly not intended to offend.

When writing a reference to Rule number;  The Rule, Section, and Article are separated by a "Dash" as in 2-28-2
Accordingly, when writing a reference to a Case Book Situation, The Rule, Section, and Article are separated by a "Decimal" as in 2.28.2 

Source: 2018 Case Book, Page 2, under "CASE BOOK FORMAT"

[BetweenTheLines]

No offense, how would I be able to correct any mistakes unless pointed out. Thanks!

[Kleiny]

Thank you, my friends!  I wish the rules for “basic football 101” were more uniform throughout the three main leagues (NFHS, NCAA, and NFL) because most of the “questions” or hesitations I have regarding rules stems from the fact that so many (of the rules) are NOT uniform!

Also, does anyone else find it odd that there isn’t a rule specifically written in the (rule) book that simply says something like: THE ENZ EXTENDS TO TWO YARDS BEYOND THE BALL FOR FORWARD PASS PLAYS.

It kinda feels like we have to infer that it’s TWO YARDS rather than simply being told that it’s two yards. 

Anyways...thanks again for all of the comments!

Cheers!

[NVFOA_Ump]

Also, does anyone else find it odd that there isn’t a rule specifically written in the (rule) book that simply says something like: THE ENZ EXTENDS TO TWO YARDS BEYOND THE BALL FOR FORWARD PASS PLAYS.

It kinda feels like we have to infer that it’s TWO YARDS rather than simply being told that it’s two yards. 

Isn't this what you're looking for?

RULE 2 - SECTION 28 NEUTRAL ZONE

ART. 1 . . . The neutral zone is the space between the two free-kick lines during a free-kick down and between the two scrimmage lines during a scrimmage down. For a free-kick down, the neutral zone is 10 yards wide and for a scrimmage down it is as wide as the length of the football. It is established when the ball is marked ready for play.

ART. 2 . . . The neutral zone may be expanded following the snap up to a maximum of 2 yards behind the defensive line of scrimmage, in the field of play, during any scrimmage down.

[AlUpstateNY]

Thank you, my friends!  I wish the rules for “basic football 101” were more uniform throughout the three main leagues (NFHS, NCAA, and NFL) because most of the “questions” or hesitations I have regarding rules stems from the fact that so many (of the rules) are NOT uniform!

Football is a highly competitive game, involving serious physical contact, between participants possessing considerably progressive talents, capabilities and maturity. Development of often subtle differences in basic rule concepts, at different levels, tailored to address these significant talent and maturity differences as well as additional level specific objectives that have evolved over time have resulted in "level specific" modifications.

Considering that American Football rules apply to (NFHS) iNTERSCHOLASTIC participants ranging from (approximately age 8/10 through 17/19), (NCAA) COLLEGIATE participants with higher physical talents and maturity (age 17/19 through Mid-20s) and (NFL) PROFESSIONAL athletes (age 20s through 50s) with exceptional physical talents, adult maturity & needs, it seems reasonable the rules governing each level would adjust to meet the different requirements and capabilities necessary and practical for each level.

Because of the significant (capability, skill, maturity) differences WITHIN each level, additional modifications are deemed necessary to better relate to level specific participants ( Youth Football using NFHS rules, Division Level modifications within NCAA, Individual league modifications at the Professional/Semi Pro levels applying NFL rules).

American Football Rules is a perfect example of, "One size will NEVER/EVER fit all".

[blandis]

For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.

[NVFOA_Ump]

For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.

So when snapper A-50 who is head up at the snap attempts to block "blitzing" linebacker B-51 who is on the LOS at the snap takes a couple of steps upfield with B-51 who delays and then backs out into coverage, you're going to have a flag for IDP if there is no contact?  Isn't this another case where simple common sense and judgment come into play?  And if A-50 is in fact back in the NZ as the forward pass crosses the LOS who is making that call?

[Magician]

For the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule to apply to an offensive lineman he must engage the defender he is blocking at the snap and not be beyond the 2-yard Expanded Neutral Zone when the pass is thrown across the LOS. If he disengages after that initial block then there's no foul. If he goes downfield looking to engage someone he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield if the pass crosses the LOS. If he goes downfield and then retreats back behind the LOS, technically he is an Ineligible Receiver Downfield. Use your common sense. Don't confuse the Free Blocking Zone Rule with the Neutral Zone Expanded Rule and know how it applies to Scrimmage Kicks in regards to K-First Touching.

I disagree. The rule states:

ART. 12 . . . lneligible 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. lf B touches the pass in or behind the neutral zone, this restriction is terminated. An ineligible is not illegally downfield if, at the snap, he immediately contacts a B lineman and the contact does not continue beyond the expanded neutral zone.

The first sentence alone does not require there to be contact. The last sentence is unnecessary because it doesn't require contact based on the first sentence. I was hoping the rules committee was going to clarify this either by getting rid of the first sentence or the last sentence. Most interpretations I've heard around the country subscribe to the first sentence.

[GA Umpire]

I disagree. The rule states:

The first sentence alone does not require there to be contact. The last sentence is unnecessary because it doesn't require contact based on the first sentence. I was hoping the rules committee was going to clarify this either by getting rid of the first sentence or the last sentence. Most interpretations I've heard around the country subscribe to the first sentence.

Our state has instructed us to not penalize unless the ineligible is past the expanded neutral zone.  (2 yards)

[Magician]

Our state has instructed us to not penalize unless the ineligible is past the expanded neutral zone.  (2 yards)

I think that's the more common interpretation but some obviously focus more on the 3rd sentence and ignore the first. As long as everyone (officials and coaches and players) are all on the same page it doesn't matter, but if any of those groups in the same region/association don't see it the same way you'll have issues.

[bossman72]

Wasn't there supposed to be a clarification / POE on this issue this year?  What happened to that?

[AlUpstateNY]

In a general sense, it's FAR LESS problematic to judge how the play conforms to and fits the rule, rather than try and adjust the ruleso that it fits the play.

[Magician]

Wasn't there supposed to be a clarification / POE on this issue this year?  What happened to that?

That's what the press release said but I didn't see anything in the actual rule or editorial changes or POE. I was hoping they would come down on one side or another. I wonder if they didn't come down on the side of requiring contact and there was push back on that from coaches so they didn't include it.

[Ralph Damren]

That's what the press release said but I didn't see anything in the actual rule or editorial changes or POE. I was hoping they would come down on one side or another. I wonder if they didn't come down on the side of requiring contact and there was push back on that from coaches so they didn't include it.

I'll look into it's absence. I tell our guys to think of the spirit of the rule, which is : could the ineligible receiver be mistaken as eligible by the defense ? IMHO, an ineligible driving a D-lineman off the LOS could not. An ineligible wandering a couple of yards beyond the LOS without attempting to block anyone, could. Flag ,em.

[Magician]

I'll look into it's absence. I tell our guys to think of the spirit of the rule, which is : could the ineligible receiver be mistaken as eligible by the defense ? IMHO, an ineligible driving a D-lineman off the LOS could not. An ineligible wandering a couple of yards beyond the LOS without attempting to block anyone, could. Flag ,em.

That is one of the two interpretations out there, but I believe it's a minority interpretation across the county. If the committee wants the interpretation to match yours they need to get rid of the first sentence in the rule and add it as a POE or a case play to clarify.