illegal touching/OPI

[Sjref]

Covered end A2 goes down feild and catches/touches a legal forward pass.

Illegal touching or OPI

[mbyron]

This play has been much discussed lately due to the editorial change of a case play. Most officials will call illegal touching, but NFHS seems to want OPI, whether or not B could have caught the pass.

[Atlanta Blue]

This play has been much discussed lately due to the editorial change of a case play. Most officials will call illegal touching, but NFHS seems to want OPI, whether or not B could have caught the pass.

I disagree.  The NFHS made it clear in their follow up it is only OPI if the catching of the ball deprives B from doing so.  Otherwise, it's Illegal Touching.

[FBUmp]

Clear as mud.

*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.

[mbyron]

I disagree.  The NFHS made it clear in their follow up it is only OPI if the catching of the ball deprives B from doing so.  Otherwise, it's Illegal Touching.

The "clarification" posted by FBUmp adds "if the game officials judge that the offensive player interfered with B’s chance to move toward, catch or bat the pass" only to sub-case (a) from this case, where the ineligible accidentally touches the pass. The omission of this clause from (b) and (c), a muffed and caught pass respectively, suggests that the foul is to be ruled OPI regardless of whether B might catch the pass.

I expect that your interpretation is the more reasonable one and quite likely the one NFHS intended when it issued this clarification. That does not, however, seem to be the suggestion in the "clarified" case. Perhaps their next stab at it will put them closer to the mark.

[bama_stripes]

The information I got (which is not "official" by any means) is to call only Illegal Touching unless the ineligible receiver does something that would be construed as OPI if he were actually eligible.

[Atlanta Blue]

Go back to the RULE (7-5-13):

ART. 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.
PENALTY: Illegal touching (Art. 13) – (S16) – 5 yards plus loss of down.

Compare that to the rule for OPI (7-5-10):
ART. 10 . . . It is forward-pass interference if:
a. Any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponent’s opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass.
b. Any player hinders an opponent’s vision without making an attempt to catch, intercept or bat the ball, even though no contact was made.
PENALTY: Pass interference (Art. 10) – (S33) – 15 yards and automatic first down if by B, 15 yards plus loss of down if by A – (S9).

This rule was changed a couple of years ago to specifically REMOVE the touching by an ineligible from being OPI.  The case play change this year was a complete screw-up of the rule change.  The clarification issued tried to justify the case play change, but even further butchered the interpretation.  The committee tried to add the OPI provision for acts that would otherwise be OPI, but completely screwed up an otherwise good case play.

We have been told clearly that the intentional touching of a forward pass, be it a muff or a catch, is illegal touching, and is ONLY OPI if the actions would have been OPI had the receiver been eligible, which is what bama stripes has as well.

Expect this case play to go back to what it was in 2010:

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 infraction, but in (b) and (c), it is illegal touching. The acts in both (b) and (c) are intentional and not accidental as in (a). Although ineligible downfield could also be called, the loss of down provision for illegal touching will see that penalty most often applied.

[Wingman]

Sure would like to talk to the NFHS person who made the update to that casebook play and ask him where he/she came up with a change that has no rule support for.

Nothing has changed since 2006.. that was the year they, the NFHS, REMOVED the illegal touching aspect is automatic pass interference from the books.  Go back and pull out your 2005 and 2006 books.

There are two other case book plays dealing with illegal touching and neither have this update. The reason is simple..  it isn't grounds for automatic OPI.. period!

Why we are talking about this in October is odd... this should have been dealt with back in August when the books first came out and the NFHS made their first correction to that case book play. Someone should have got right back to them and inform them they still have it wrong.

My crew is using what the rule says should this ever come up in a game. That means last years same case play. When rules and case book are in conflict.. you go with the rules.

[FBUmp]

I would love to know where I can read where they have "clearly" told us anything regarding this play.

[Jackhammer]

 

I would love to know where I can read where they have "clearly" told us anything regarding this play.

Rulebook 7-5-13 is about as clear as it gets.

[FBUmp]

Rulebook 7-5-13 is about as clear as it gets.

You evidently haven't read the thread.  The rule is clear but the case play and "clarification" given by the NFHS is far from it.

[Jackhammer]

You evidently haven't read the thread.  The rule is clear but the case play and "clarification" given by the NFHS is far from it.

Nope I read the thread and that's clear to me too.  You asked for something clear.  The rule is clear.  The case is not clear.  The case is a supplement to the rule.  The rule rules, use it.  The case book in it's introduction even recognizes that cases will be in error.  Again the rule is clear, as clear as any rule is written.

Besides it doesn't even make sense that this foul should be OPI

[FBUmp]

Nope I read the thread and that's clear to me too.  You asked for something clear. 

Ah, no, I didn't.  A previous poster stated the NFHS has clarified the case play.  I asked that poster where I can read this clarification.  I hope that clarifies my post for you.

[Jackhammer]

Ah, no, I didn't.  A previous poster stated the NFHS has clarified the case play.  I asked that poster where I can read this clarification.  I hope that clarifies my post for you.

[/

I would love to know where I can read where they have "clearly" told us anything regarding this play.

These are your words ump...the rulebook is a location where you can read it and it is clear

[FBUmp]

OK, whatever you say.  Thanks a bunch. 

[AlUpstateNY]

  The rule is clear.  The case is not clear.  The case is a supplement to the rule.  The rule rules, use it.  The case book in it's introduction even recognizes that cases will be in error.  Again the rule is clear, as clear as any rule is written. Besides it doesn't even make sense that this foul should be OPI

Itseems to me that this revision simply verifies the previous version, and further explains that there is an optional judgment factor allowed for situations where the player who might otherwise be guilty of Illegal Touching, if in addition to touching the pass, clearly interferes with an opponents ability to intercept the pass, can be held accountable for OPI, instead of Illegal touching.

A difference might be an inelligible, such as a covered Tight end, going down field an catching a pass, versus a covered tight end knocking a defensive player in position to intercept the pass down, before illegally touching the pass. The covering official has the authority to apply the OPI penalty if he so judges.

[Atlanta Blue]

A difference might be an inelligible, such as a covered Tight end, going down field an catching a pass, versus a covered tight end knocking a defensive player in position to intercept the pass down, before illegally touching the pass. The covering official has the authority to apply the OPI penalty if he so judges.

But that right exists regardless of the Illegal Touching rule.  If a tackle goes downfield and clears out a defender while the ball is in the air, it's OPI (and Ineligible Downfield).  This was a "clarification" that set this interpretation back to a five year old rule.

[AlUpstateNY]

But it is what it is.  Is there something else I'm missing?  A clarification, that might seem somewhat inoccuous, is nothing new to the world of Case Book clarifications and may have simply been intended to help differentiate between two situations that some may have had difficulty recognizing.

If it helps clarify, great.  If you didn't need the added help, that's great too.

[Wingman]

The problem Al is that it is what is isn't.. it isn't an automatic OPI.

Nothing has changed since the '06 change.. Pass interference applies to any A-player whether eligible or ineligible. If they (any A-player) commit what the PI rules say is PI..  then it's PI.
Otherwise, you call it either a legal catch or if that A-player is an truly an ineligible, by any one of the factors, call it illegal touching.. forget the ineligible downfield.. No WH would offer that to the defense as an option because the IT is far more severe due to the LOD provision.

[AlUpstateNY]

I don't believe I ever suggested anything was an "automatic OPI".  As I suggested the revision, to some, may be totally unnecessary while helping to clarify the difference to others.  Sometime people can read way too much into what they're reading.

[Wingman]

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't..  but isn't it obvious from the initial casebook revsion followed the corrected on-line revsion that someone thinks it *is* an automatic OPI? They are incorrect

It is obvious to me a error has been made and has now gone nearly two months without so much as a peep from the source (that being the NFHS), nor even our state interpreter.. Yes Al.."our state". I know you but you don't know me.
regards

[mbyron]

The only context in which I use the word "automatic" is one where the rule uses it: for example, DPI carries an automatic first down. Once you have an accepted penalty for DPI (with or without yardage), it's an automatic first down.

Some people think that "automatic" means "no judgment required." For the OP, judgment IS required: the covering official must judge whether a B player could have caught the pass. Thus it is misleading to say that this is "automatically" OPI.

The case play does suggest that the covering official's judgment that B could have caught the pass is sufficient for OPI: no further considerations need be taken into account. I suspect that this is what most mean by "automatic" OPI.

[AlUpstateNY]

It is obvious to me a error has been made and has now gone nearly two months without so much as a peep from the source (that being the NFHS), nor even our state interpreter.. Yes Al.."our state". I know you but you don't know me.
regards

If you are really interested enough, and try hard enough you can find a pimple on a flea's behind. Fortunately, most fleas survive such blemishes so a lot of people don't find the effort involved is justified by the result.

Just maybe, neither NFHS nor our "State interpreter" is bothered by fleas.  I'm happy you "know me" and seem to be surviving OK without "knowing" you.

[Wingman]

good.. lets keep it that way.. 
How about sticking with football instead of diverging with nonsense talk about fleas.. I'll send you a collar if it will help you.

[AlUpstateNY]

Sounds like you have a burr under your saddle, THeisey, if you "know me", why not just come and tell me about it and perhaps I can help you relieve your obvious frustration.  Usually fleas really don't amount to anything more than just being annoying and are easy to ignore.