I disagree, it's IG if you are throwing it to an ineligible reciever.

You might wish to reconsider your disagreement, in light of rule 7-5-2(c):

ART. 2 . . . An illegal forward pass is a foul. Illegal forward passes include:
c. A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive
receiver.
PENALTY: intentional grounding (Arts. 2c,d) –(S36) – 5 yards plus loss
of down for (Art. 2b, c, d, e) – (S9).

As mbyron already posted, one of the types of IG is throwing the ball into an area where there are no eligible receivers. Now this is where seeing the play would be helpful. If the quarterback is clearly dumping it to avoid losing yardage and it's clear there were no eligible receivers I think calling IG could be justified here.

Seeing the play is critical. If A88, split out a couple of steps on the right side, went downfield 3 steps and cut to the right sideline, as the quick pass was thrown to the left of where A88 cut, and hit A77, you'd have nothing.

No Illegal touching as the contact with A77 was unintentional, no illegal forward pass, as you would have seen the receiver cut and went one way while the passer was expecting him to cut the other way, so you might logically conclude there was no "intent" to incomplete the pass.

This is the type situation where the wing official, or umpire, may have seen the confusion better than the Referee and should provide the Referee with his observation details.

I agree with you, I just did not use proper punctuation.

Ha! Sorry, I should have read the post to which you responded!

My bad. You are correct. Great example of typing before thinking.