OPI - Illegal Touch
 

Anyone else have someone try to convince them that an ineligible receiver down field catching a pass is not OPI?

It's not, it's illegal touching.

from the 2011 NFHS Football Case Book Clarifications

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.

If they are, they are using a 4-5 year old (?) rule book as it was changed.
Someone out there have the correct year, let me know.

jdmara, all I can say is that the case book play is wrong and completely contradicts the rule. Once upon a time, this used to be OPI but it is no longer.

Yes...it is wrong.


ART. 13 . . . An ineligible A player has illegally touched a forward pass if he bats, muffs or catches a legal forward pass, unless the pass has first been touched by B.

PENALTY: Illegal touching (Art. 13) – (S16) – 5 yards plus loss
of down.

(Courtesy of 2011 NFHS Football Rules Book - Page 62)

That's wrong.

This came up on another board. Speculation is the Fed resurrected an old case play without realizing it. Nothing official has come down but its probalby incorrect.

Wouldn't be the first time.

2011 NFHS Case Book Clarification
 

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.

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.

The Rule Book is the law.

The Case Book is a supplement to the Rule Book.

It's illegal touching, not OPI.

What BktBallRef said.

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.

NFHS 7-5-10 advises, "it is forward pass interference if: (a) any player of A or B, who is beyond the neutralzone interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move move toward, catch or bat the pass.

It would seem the revised Case Play (7.5.13) clarifies that an ineligible A player can be guilty of either (both) Illegal touching (when he "bats, muffs or catches a legal forward pass), but can also be guilty of Offensive Pass Interference, if in so doing he would, "interfere with an eligible opponents opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass".

Which penalty applies is a matter of judgement by the covering official.