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.

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.

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.

If he catches it beyond the LOS without being touched by B first, then it is OPI, if it just hits him, it is illegal touching (i.e. he did not make an attempt to catch it), and he is illegally down field. Multiple foul take your pick captain. IMHO

That was the rule years ago. It hasn't been for quite some time.

When there is a conflict in rulings, both from seemingly reputable sources, it's good to compare the outcomes/effects of the application differences.

I believe that OPI is 15 + LD.

What is the penalty for IT?

5 + LOD.

The rule was changed from OPI to IT in 2006:

NFHS: New rule for 2006. If any ineligible player intentionally touches a forward pass anywhere on the field it is Illegal touching--5yds and loss of down. If the touching was downfield the penalty will be enforced from the previous spot. If the Illegal touching is behind the line, its enforced from the spot of the foul. Again the touching must be intentional; if the ball simply hits him, that's not illegal touching.

Matter of fact, neither of these is right. If it just hits him (and it's unintentional), it's nothing. It's been that way for 6 seasons now. For it to be an illegal touch, it must be muffed, batted, or caught by an ineligible A receiver.

Quite frankly, I'm stunned that the NFHS would essentially removed 5 years of a rule change specifically made (with an erroneous case play) and then fail to admit their error. And quite frankly, this is a bad change, quite backwards IMO.

Amen.

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

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