Illegal touching or what?
 

3rd and 5 at A's 25 yard line. A1 takes the snap and drops back to throw and completes a forward pass to A12 an ineligible receiver at A's 40 yard line.
B1 tackles A12 immediately at A's 40 yard line. What's the call?

there's a loss of down for illegal touching in High School?

NFHS: Illegal touching, 5 yard penalty from the previous spot and loss of down. 4th and 10 at A's 20.

dvasques, yes there is.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Illegal man downfield. 10 yards from PLS, DR.

Why was the play allowed to go with 12 men?

The play above is with 11 players. So assuming there were 11 players for A at the snap and its 3rd and 5 at A's 25 yard line. A1 takes the snap and throws a completed forward pass to A11 an ineligible receiver, at A's 40
yard line. A11 is then immediately tackled by B1 at A's 40 yard line.

1. Now there is definitely illegal touching, which is enforced at the spot of touching. However this would give A a 1st down from its own 35.

However; would B have the option to decline the illegal touching penalty in favor of an ineligible downfield penalty which would be assessed from the previous spot, which would give the ball to A on their own 20 and a replay of
3rd down.

In NFHS, illegal touching is enforced using the all but one principle, and since this is a loose ball play, it is enforced from the previous spot (A's 25). Ineligible downfield is also enforced from the previous spot. Since illegal touching carries an additional loss of down penalty, B should accept the illegal touching and decline the ineligible downfield. This makes it A's ball, 4th and 10 at A's 20.

See the 2006 Rules interpretations, Situation 3 (a).

Are you asking for NFHS, NCAA, NFL, or Canadian rules?

I was asking under NFHS. I did refer to rules interpretation for 2006, situation 3a. What made me question this ruling is the 2007 rule book summary on page 63 that specifically states enforcement for "illegal touching by ineligible" is enforced from "Spot of Touching".

I see what you're talking about now. Evidently this is an editorial mistake and it should be listed as ALL BUT ONE, as it was in 2006.

http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...c;f=9;t=002517

I believe the rulebook is updated online but I am not able to check this.

Mistake in the book. It should read "All but one".

We got an email about this a few weeks ago.