Throw out-of-bounds pass negates ineligible receiver?

[jTheUmp]

As Welpe said, it's a commonly accepted philosophy rather than an official 'rule'... the theory is that there's no advantage gained by Team A in this situation.

I'll leave out the "but what if there's a foul on the defense during the down?" wailing and gnashing of teeth for another day.

[Welpe]

Philosophies are developed around existing rules with the purpose of creating consistency in enforcement and helping to ensure the game is called as expected. A more well known example of a philosophy is that holding should not be called if it has no material effect on the play. While a player holding a defender well away from the point of attack violates the written rule, the established spirit of the rule says that this should not be called a foul because there was not an advantage gained.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

As Welpe said, it's a commonly accepted philosophy rather than an official 'rule'... the theory is that there's no advantage gained by Team A in this situation.

If that theory is correct, it would also apply to any other forward pass that goes beyond the neutral zone before becoming incomplete. Now that I think about it, allowing the option of a penalty for ineligibles downfield on an incomplete pass does seem like an extra bite of the apple. If the defense defended successfully against completion of the pass, what advantage did team A gain by ineligible receivers downfield?