Yet another play for you:
 

NFHS only:

A 3/10 @ 50. Receiver A80 leaps from the B1 yard line while the pass is in flight. While in the air his leg touches the pylon. While in the air, he possesses the ball in flight, then lands in the end zone in bounds. Enforcement spot?

Much disagreement on this one as well.

Not sure why. Foul during a loose ball play, basic spot is the previous spot. Since this is not a foul by the offense behind the basic spot, the enforcement spot is the same. (9-6-1 Penalty)

Or is the disagreement over whether this is IP or simply an incomplete pass?

My initial, and seemingly obvious, response as well.

BUT...

Is it a loose ball play?

Live ball foul, basic spot enforcement, which for illegal participation would be the spot where he participated illegally which is the end zone. Enforce from the goal line.

A 1/10 from the B15. I assume the argument is loose ball play, enforce from the 50?

I thought there was a case play for a player touching an upright prior to touching or catching a pass but maybe it was an exam question because I can't find in the online case book.

Since touching the pylon was not intentional, this Illegal Participation is covered in 9-6-1 (accidental) and not 9-6-2b (intentional). The difference being, in 9-6-1 it is not IP until the A player returns inbounds. In 9-6-2b it is IP when the A player touches the ball.

Foul during run and the run ended in the EZ, enforce 15 yds from the GL 1st & 10 at the 15.

HLin NC ... sorry for the "over post" I am a slow search & peck typest. Like you, I seem to recall a case play that involved the upright, but I cannot locate it either.

Ok, devils advocate: He returns inbounds when his foot touches inbounds (which is when the foul occurs).

It's not a catch until he established possession and then returned to the ground.

So they both seem to happen simultaneously. How can we determine if the foul occurred during the pass (loose ball play), or after he caught it (running play)?

This ruling, if correct, is insane.

+1

The Law of Unintended Consequences

No argument here

Put me on record for thinking the NCAA ruling makes a TON more sense.

But at least thankfully we can move on from the whole "is touching" fiasco of yore.