OPI - Illegal Touch

[Old Guy]

The NFHS clarified case-book play 7.5.13 and clearly state that this can be OPI. It doesn't make sense that if the Right Guard goes down field and touches the arm of a potential receiver then it is OPI but if he catches the ball in front of a potential receiver is is only an illegal touch.

Google 2011 NFHS Football Case Book Clarifications.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Old Guy

The NFHS clarified case-book play 7.5.13 and clearly state that this can be OPI. It doesn't make sense that if the Right Guard goes down field and touches the arm of a potential receiver then it is OPI but if he catches the ball in front of a potential receiver is is only an illegal touch.

Google 2011 NFHS Football Case Book Clarifications.

It makes sense because the coaches convinced the rulesmakers that 15 yards + LOD was too severe a penalty for this action. They were willing to give up the rare occurrence when an ineligible knocks the ball away from a potential interceptor.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Old Guy

The NFHS clarified case-book play 7.5.13 and clearly state that this can be OPI. It doesn't make sense that if the Right Guard goes down field and touches the arm of a potential receiver then it is OPI but if he catches the ball in front of a potential receiver is is only an illegal touch.

Google 2011 NFHS Football Case Book Clarifications.

Google whatever you want, but this case contradicts the plain language of the rule. OPI was not in the 2009 or 2010 versions of the case, which had the rule correct. I expect this part of the case to disappear as quietly in 2012 as it appeared in 2011.

If you call OPI in a game for this, good luck to ya.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Old Guy

The NFHS clarified case-book play 7.5.13 and clearly state that this can be OPI. It doesn't make sense that if the Right Guard goes down field and touches the arm of a potential receiver then it is OPI but if he catches the ball in front of a potential receiver is is only an illegal touch.

Google 2011 NFHS Football Case Book Clarifications.

The Rule Book is the law.

The Case Book is a supplement to the Rule Book.

It's illegal touching, not OPI.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The Rule Book is the law.

The Case Book is a supplement to the Rule Book.

It's illegal touching, not OPI.

Amen.

The rule was changed several years ago. The casebook is flat wrong!

[Welpe]

I see the NFHS has decided to add a case for football that is as patently absurd as the infamous backcourt play in basketball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Old Guy

The NFHS clarified case-book play 7.5.13 and clearly state that this can be OPI. It doesn't make sense that if the Right Guard goes down field and touches the arm of a potential receiver then it is OPI but if he catches the ball in front of a potential receiver is is only an illegal touch.

Google 2011 NFHS Football Case Book Clarifications.

What BktBallRef said.

[wisref2]

Odd - I just sent this question in to our state - which forwarded it to the NFHS. I will post the reply when I get it.

The rule book and case book are in conflict. I say it should be illegal touching, like the book says (and as the chart of passing situations says). Case book still calls it OPI - even the updated Clarifications on Case Book Plays calls it OPI.

[wisref2]

I just got the NFHS reply to me question on the OPI/Illegal touching quandry. The Federation is standing by the case book play. Frankly, I'm going with the rule book.

First, the Federation response:
The NFHS Football Clarification that was sent out to the Committee on August 25, 2011 is correct. The Editorial Committee is going to review the rules language for Rule 7-5-13 for 2012.

Here is the case book play. This is from the NFHS Clarifications of Case Book Plays, which is slightly different than the case book - but those parts specific to our question are not changed:
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.

[MD Longhorn]

Sometimes you wonder if these yahoos even read the rules they publish. Good grief, that's a Freaking Mess.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sometimes you wonder if these yahoos even read the rules they publish. Good grief, that's a Freaking Mess.

The case is new (revised, actually) this year. I guess they plan to "fix" the rule to match it for next year. Ew.