OPI or Illegal touching?

[ljudge]

Hey all - I have been away from high school rules as I'm working mostly college but attended a meeting tonight and fellow officials were confused with a conflict between the rules and case book.  About 5 years ago a "covered" receiver (eligible by number, ineligible by position) who went downfield and caught a ball committed offensive pass interference.  That changed in approx. 2006 to illegal touching.  Since that time there have been zero rules changes putting this back to OPI as I still do fed ball when my schedule permits.  Of course some officials were reading rules and case books and appropriately voiced they are in conflict and were looking for direcgtion.  Several officials raised this and the local rules interpreter reached out to the state rules interpreter (New Jersey) and the word we got back this was indeed OPI.  I belive this is absolutely incorrect and another fellow referee asked me to post this to the board.  I'm curious as to how other states are enforcing this.  My contention was the following:  1) They never changed the rule back to OPI in the rule book.  2) This was never mentioned in the annual interpretation meeting that it was changed back to OPI.  3) It's a given the fed has misprints in their books all the time.  Having the week of from college I'm working high school and I guess I have no other choice than to enforce this as OPI should it happen this Friday. 

[HLinNC]

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8518.0

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8336.0

http://forum.officiating.com/football/82714-old-opi-rule.html

[JimD]

I'm confused as to why this would even come up in the first place.  As you said, they took the OPI out of this equation years ago.  If A76 waddles down field and catches a pass, it's illegal touching, not OPI. 

It's not a question in the rest of the country, I don't know why your association or NJ would be confused.  I suspect they didn't understand the question correctly.

[FBUmp]

The rule book is the Bible.

The case book is a supplement.

We go with what we know is right and that is the rulle was changed and has not been changed back.  Now, if the IT prevents a defender from intercepting, it's OPI.  Otherwise, it's IT.

[Wingman]

The NJ interpretation is incorrect. He's living in the past (pre-2006). But yes it could be OPI only if it would have been OPI as for any other eligible receiver. Otherwise it's just an IT. Wouldn't even consider the inlegible down-field aspect because its not the better option for team-B

[ljudge]

Thanks guys I felt like a lawyer typing this question knowing I knew (and agree) with what you were going to say before asking.  I was 100% positive this rule never changed back to OPI and was adamant about it in our meeting.  I was surprised this even came up.  I'm told that I must enforce as OPI for any Fed-level games I work and that came from the state.  This bothers me but when in Rome....

Bob M - I know you're a rules guru.  I'm hoping you reply with what you are hearing up there.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Actually, it's not as simple as just saying, "It's OPI, period!" The Federation was questioned about the case play, and they posted the following clarification on their website at: https://nfhs-football.arbitersports.com/Groups/105409/Library/files/2011%20NFHS%20Football%20Case%20Book%20Clarification.pdf

It's just as Tom Heisey described: It's not OPI unless the ineligible actually interferes with an opponent.

(Underlining in red shows additions; strikethrough shows deletions.)

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.

Even this attempt to clarify isn't very crisp or complete since it doesn't clearly answer the question: "What if the ineligible beyond the line DOESN'T interfere with his opponen's attempt to move toward, catch, or bat the pass?" But I think the implication that you wouold rule IT is a given.

So in short, the way I read this is: If an ineligible beyond the line catches, muffs, or bats a legal forward pass you have illegal touching unless in so doing he interferes with an opponent's opportunity to make a play on the ball. Then you would have OPI.

[ljudge]

Thanks for posting, Bob.  It's been a while.  I was in your neck of the woods a couple of weeks ago (at least I think) working Montclair vs. Cortland State.  Twice in as many years a down-to-the-wire game.