As you may be able to gather, I am realy hitting rule 7 right now. Another question (I'm pretty sure I know the answer)

1/10 @ A-20. A7 drops back to pass and is under a heavy rush. He throws the ball towards the middle of the field but ineligible lineman A58 turns around and sees the pass and tries to grab it but muffs the catch. It bounces in the air towards B95. A85 sees the ball in the air and blocks B95 to keep him from catching the muffed pass. Am I correct in saying that this is NOT O.P.I. because an A player touched it behind the line of scrimmage? It is illegal touching by A.

Is it safe to say you can't have both illegal touching and OPI during the same down?

Mike,

You are correct. The restrictions end for A when A touches the pass.

The NF has created a number of concerns with their failure to coordinate the definition of Post Scrimmage Kick foul in 2-16-2g, the definition of the basic spot for PSK in 10-4-3 and the comments on the rule revision which states that R must "have clean hands until the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone". Consider the following two plays, (1)K punts and while the ball is in the air beyond the expanded neutral zone, R holds the K "gunner" beyond the expanded neutral zone. There is no run back and clearly PSK will apply with the holding foul being administered from the end of the kick. Contrast this with (2) Everything remains the same, except K's snap bounces back to the punter who has to field it on the hop, side step the rush and get the punt off. Prior to the kick crossing the expanded neutral zone, the same holding by R occurs. However, now the foul occurs before the kick crosses the ENZ and R doesn't have "clean hands" when the kick crosses the ENZ. Do they really want this enforced from the previous spot and possibly give K a first down? I think not.

The NF needs to remove any concern over when the foul occurs as long as it occurs before the kick ends and beyond the ENZ.

Bill,
Yes I think they do want that penalty enforced from the previous spot. PSK is not a license to hold, block in the back etc....it just means that when K kicks the ball past the ENZ that they have given up possesion...in your scenario they actually could maintain possesion and possibly get a first down with a scramble.. Let me pose this to you, say the punter gets tackled...do you think that the federation wants this penalty enforced then?? To me there is very little difference...until K gives up possesion, R must keep their nose or hands clean..

Let me appologize for originally posting this on the wrong thread. It should be on the PSK thread, but you clearly figured that out.

If the punter gets tackled there was no kick and certainly no PSK. Now we have a running play and the foul is administerd from the end of the run. The problem is the NF does not have a definition for a "scrimmage kick play" yet 10-4-3 now refers to "an R foul during a scrimmage kick play." If the NF will define a "scrimmage kick play" as including all the action from the snap to the end of the scrimmage kick, the problem of when the foul occured in relation to the kick crossing the line will be resolved. That will make PSK closer to the NCAA approach.

Doesn't the NCAA use the "ball crossing the ENZ"? when do they determine that the possesion has been relinquished??

In NCAA Post-Scrimmage kick applies when Team B fouls occur (a) During scrimmage kick plays other than a try and during extra periods. (b) During a scrimmage kick play in which the ball crosses the neutral zone. (c) Three yards or more beyond the neutral zone. (d) Before the end of the kick. (e) When team A does not have possession of the ball when the down ends.

No, they do not. The "basics" for PSK are where did B's foul occur (three or more yards beyond the NZ), did the kick cross the NZ and was the foul before the kick ends.
That makes life simple. Why the NF tossed in before the kick crossed the NZ just complicates matters. NCAA does not have any such timing of the kick to worry about.

Just curious in NF what the definition of scrimmage kick play is. In NCAA a scrimmage kick play or field goal play is the interval between the snap and when a scrimmage kick comes into player possesion or the ball is declared dead by rule. So what that means it make no difference when B fouls whether it is before the kick is made or after as long as it meets the requirements for PSK enforcement.

Jason,

The term scrimmage kick play has not been defined by the NF. I think it has appeared for the first time this year in Rule 10. If the NF would adopt the NCAA definition of scrimmage kick play, the problem would go away, with some tweaking of when team possession changes.

I agree it would make things easier. If I am thinking clearly here (which may or may not be the case) the NF calls a scrimmage kick play a loose ball play, and on all loose ball plays penalties are enforced from the previous spot....except for PSK, also all runs leading up to the loose ball portion of the play are considered part of the loose ball play....so really they should go right in line with the NCAA and make it easy....oh sorry I forgot who we are dealing with here.....

It took something like nine years to get to this point and I guess some on the committee felt the NCAA enforcement was not possible with NFHS.

The chances of getting NFHS PSK to mirror NCAA are probably pretty null to nil.

I agree that if the Federation would define a "scrimmage kick play" and eliminate the words "scrimmage kick" from 2-31-1a, it would be very easy to make their rule consistent with the NCAA rule, but...we'll just have to wait.

It IS OPI
 

It is OPI.

Let's remember that if A touches the ball in or beyond the LOS Pass Interference restriction end for B....and if B touches the pass in or beyond the LOS Pass Interference restriction end for both A and B. Since it is not an Illegal Forward Pass it must be treated as a standard pass play.

B then has the choice of taking the results of the play (should they succeed in securing the interception) and declining the penalty. Should B accept the penalty it is enforced from the previous spot (loose ball penalty) and additionally A incurs a loss of down.

Since A53 did not unintentionally or incidentally touch the ball, but rather intentionally touch the ball he is guilty of Illegal Touching. Should B accept this penalty it would be enforced five yards from the previous spot. However, since the OPI is more damaging I'm sure that's the penalty they will accept.

Re: It IS OPI
 

Check that again. Once the ball was touched behind the line of scrimmage by A53, PI restrictions end for all eligible A players. A85 is not guilty of OPI, is he?

Re: Re: It IS OPI
 

REPLY: No, he's not! But let's suppose that instead of A85, it was A58, an <u>ineligible</u> who is legally downfield. Then what's the story? Let's discuss what exactly are the restrictions governing A58 contact with an opponent?

Re: Re: Re: It IS OPI
 

The contact restriction beyond the LOS is the same foe ALL A players A58 or A85. No player whether eligible or ineligible can interfere with B's attempt to catch a pass beyond the LOS.

REPLY: But recall in the posted play, the ball was touched by an ineligible (A53) behind the LOS. Don't you agree that this changes the situation? (See NF 7-5-9b)

You asked if A58 were ineligible down field. He still has the same restrictions until the ball is touched in accordance with rule 7.

REPLY: I think we're talking past each other. Let's go back to the original play. An ineligible (A58) muffs a forward pass behind the line -- an illegal touch. Now the pass rebounds beyond the line where an eligible (A85) pushes a B defender to keep him from making an interception. Leave the first part of the play the same (i.e. the illegal touch). All I'm asking is what happens if the A push is by A56 (an ineligible) instead of A85. Are there different restrictions for him than there are for eligible A85? Remember that it is certainly possible for A56 to be downfield legally, assuming that he released after the ball is in flight.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It IS OPI
 

Lets clarify that I am speaking about NFHS rules.

PI restrictions are lifted for all ELIGIBLE A receivers when anyone touches the pass (including another A player). See 7-5-9b. The PI restrictions still apply to ineligible players until B touches a pass (or last pass).

Mike,

You are correct. Restrictions on ineligible A do not end until the pass is touched by B.

REPLY: However, NF 7-5-9b says that pass interference restrictions end for...<i>"Eligible A players when A touches the pass or last pass if more than one. Ineligible A players may not touch the pass, but can use hands or arms in a legal block to ward off an opponent."</i>

What about that second sentence? Doesn't it imply that restrictions for eligible A players are indeed different than for ineligible A players in this play? Doesn't it say that interference restrictions on ineligible A players are at least "partially" ended when A touches the pass? Comments...

Is this another contraction in the rulebook? It seems (to me at least) that the rulesmakers make it clear that PI restrictions don't end for ineligible <s>B</s> <b><u>A</u></b> players until B touches the (last) pass. Then we run into the comment with no case book support that I can find.

If this comment means that A can block behind the neutral zone to keep B from intercepting the pass, there is no need for this comment because the rules already allow this.

I wonder if they actually mean that ineligible A players can <u>block</u> beyond the neutral zone when A touches the pass but that ineligible A players cannot <u>catch</u> the pass as this would be OPI?



[Edited by mikesears on Jul 9th, 2003 at 06:59 AM]

Huh? :confused:

What are "ineligible B players?" ;)

<i>I wonder if they actually mean that ineligible A players can block beyond the neutral zone when A touches the pass but that ineligible A players cannot catch the pass as this would be OPI?</i>

That's <b>exactly</b> what they mean. There wouldn't be any PI restrictions to speak about if we weren't beyond the NZ, since that's the only place they can take place. So big ole lumbering A79 sees the ball tipped in the air by A32, then sees B21 getting ready to snag the pick, so he blocks him from the front above the waist, away from the ball, and it falls harmlessly incomplete. The A coach breathes a sigh of relief. All legal. If lumbering A79 were to touch the pass in an attempt to catch it or tip it away from B21, that's OPI.

REPLY: That's what I was getting at. Ineligible A can block beyond the NZ once A touches the pass. However, he cannot touch the pass. Now let's take it further: He must use a legal blocking technique (defined in NF 2-3-2). So he cannot use his hands to momentarily push or pull an opponent (as allowed by NF 2-3-4) since he <u>cannot</u> legally touch the pass. An eligible A could in this case.

And to get back to one of the questions Mike asked in his original post: “Is it safe to say you can't have both illegal touching and OPI during the same down?” – No, it’s not safe to say that. Consider: an ineligible illegally touches a pass behind the NZ and the ball rebounds beyond the NZ. Then an ineligible muffs the pass beyond the NZ prior to any touching by B. This is a multiple foul: illegal touching and OPI.