Changed in 2007, I just checked in my Fed book and "legal" is highlighted. 2-32-11 is also listed right at the front of the book in the rule changes section.

At the back of the book (page 90) in the "Comments on 2007 changes", it says

adding the word legal to the definition of a passer will clarify the rule


The rule committee might have been thinking primarily about illegal passes from beyond the line and not wanting RTP on those instances?
.

That may have been part of the genesis of it. If a would-be passer is past the line, the defense has a right to consider him a runner, with whom you have a bit more latitude. If said runner suddenly becomes a passer after he's crossed the line and throws a ball and you nail him, it doesn't seem fair that he could say he was a passer.

That said, if they'd meant it to be only for illegal passes beyond the line (which is only one of the many illegal passes), they could have specified that.

[QUOTE=Deep;540014]
Fourth, you might want to ask the B about having 2 USC penalties on the same guy on the same play. It's possible, but it's rare.


QUOTE]

THe situation was that at the end of the play B77 was taunting A15 for the first USC and after the BJ threw the flag B77 said to the BJ "Your going to call that bullsh!t."

Regardless, it says what it says. IG is usually thrown with imminent pressure and it's unlikely we're going to have RTP in a normal IG situation anyway. But once ruled IG, we either have a PF or we have nothing.