2006 NF Rule Changes

[rdfox]

Does anyone know the details of the 2006 NF change about illegal touching now being consistently applied all over the field?

Have they changed the ineligible tight end who does go downfield and catches a pass to be illegal touching rather than offensive pass interference?

[SC Ump]

From: http://www.nfhs.org


7-5-10, 13: The act of illegally touching the ball by an ineligible player carries the same penalty whether the act occurs behind, in or beyond the line of scrimmage.

[MJT]

Originally posted by rdfox
Does anyone know the details of the 2006 NF change about illegal touching now being consistently applied all over the field?

Have they changed the ineligible tight end who does go downfield and catches a pass to be illegal touching rather than offensive pass interference?

That is what they want, yes. Rule 7-5-10 in the 05 rule book is the rule saying it is OPI for an ineligible to touch a forward pass beyond the NZ.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I understand the principle, but...what if the illegal touching by an ineligible occurs twenty yards downfield? The stated enforcement spot for illegal touching is the spot of the foul (see Table 7-5). You can't allow A to gain 15 yards by fouling! They're going to need to change enforcement to standard all-but-one methodology.

[Dale Smith]

Bob
If the illegal touching happened beyond the LOS we would have a Ineligible down field foul. So A would not gain any yardage after the penalty is enforced.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Dale Smith
Bob
If the illegal touching happened beyond the LOS we would have a Ineligible down field foul. So A would not gain any yardage after the penalty is enforced.

REPLY: True...but the illegal touching also includes loss of down, which the ineligible downfield does not. So Team A would gain the advantage of replaying the down. I contend that when this all washes out, the illegal touching downfield will probably result in a 5-yard penalty from the previous spot with LOD--similar, but not quite the same as illegal touching in NCAA. NCAA does not have LOD for this foul.

[ljudge]

Let me put another spin on this. Say it's A's ball on their own 2. A covered player goes downfield and catches the forward pass, and no other eligible player is in the area. Now I guess we can have a 3rd foul on the offense for an illegal forward pass which could then be a safety.

Agree?

Basically, where ever the QB is the foul can be enforced from that spot (where his run ends) so it would be more severe than previous spot.

[Edited by ljudge on Mar 7th, 2006 at 12:33 PM]

[CBrockett]

I think since touching of the ball precedes possession, The foul is during a loose ball play, therefore penalized from the previous spot.

CBrockett

Thats all I got to say about that.

[ljudge]

If it's ruled an illegal forward pass (throwing into an area unoccupied by an eligible receiver) it's a running play, not loose-ball play.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by ljudge
If it's ruled an illegal forward pass (throwing into an area unoccupied by an eligible receiver) it's a running play, not loose-ball play.

REPLY: Joe...I'd stay away from calling this one an IFP. The only reason that the restriction on "throwing into an area unoccupied by an eligible receiver" is in the rules is to keep the QB from dumping the pass. In the case you mentioned, he wasn't doing that. He was throwing to a player that he--and probably everyone else--thought was eligible.

[dumbref]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I understand the principle, but...what if the illegal touching by an ineligible occurs twenty yards downfield? The stated enforcement spot for illegal touching is the spot of the foul (see Table 7-5). You can't allow A to gain 15 yards by fouling! They're going to need to change enforcement to standard all-but-one methodology.

I think this alway fell under the all-but-1. I think they used the term "spot of touching" so it would not be confused with the spot of the pass (EOR). Spot of touching would have been incorrect had the touching occured in the expanded neutral zone - that would have to be the previous spot.