Opi?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't see how that alone answers it.

It does. Blocking down field on a forward pass play is not legal, period. Reference the case play I already posted. It's the same in all codes with the addition in NFL that the forward pass doesn't even have to cross the LOS.

Remember, pass interference restrictions for the offense starts at the snap.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by welpe

it does. Blocking down field on a forward pass play is not legal, period. Reference the case play i already posted. It's the same in all codes with the addition in nfl that the forward pass doesn't even have to cross the los.

Remember, pass interference restrictions for the offense starts at the snap.

amen!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

It does. Blocking down field on a forward pass play is not legal, period. Reference the case play I already posted.

Sorry, no case book here, so someone'll have to quote it.

Remember, pass interference restrictions for the offense starts at the snap.

Everyone here knows the conditions under which the restrictions apply. But that doesn't say what the restrictions are. If the opponent has not had the opp'ty to move toward or play the ball interfered with, it's not pass (or kick) interference. We don't know whether the blocked player was trying to, was in position to, or even aware it was possible for him to play the pass, so we don't know whether interference took place. For all we know, he may have had his back to the whole thing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But that doesn't say what the restrictions are.

Not to be too snarky... but seriously - try the rulebook. It's right freaking there.

We don't know whether the blocked player was trying to

Irrelevant

was in position to

irrelevant

, or even aware

irrelevant

it was possible for him to play the pass, so we don't know whether interference took place. For all we know, he may have had his back to the whole thing.

Irrelevant.

Seriously. Rule book... clinic... on field training in that order. Please.

[Cliffdweller]

7.5.10 SITUATION A:

During a forward-pass play in which the ball crosses the *neutral zone, A1, an ineligible receiver, is illegally downfield and:

(a) B1 illegally contacts him with an elbow; or
(b) A1 blocks B1.

RULING: In (a), the personal foul by B1 and A1's foul for being downfield combine to make a double foul and the down will be replayed. The contact by B1 is not defensive pass interference because A1 was an ineligible receiver. Defensive pass interference may occur only against eligible receivers. Had there been no contact and had ineligible A1 touched such a pass, the result would have been illegal touching. In (b), it is a multiple foul for an ineligible illegally downfield and also offensive pass interference. (7-5-6a; 7-5-13; 10-2-1,10-2-3)

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Sorry, no case book here, so someone'll have to quote it.

Well, OK then. Thanks for sharing.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Everyone here knows the conditions under which the restrictions apply. But that doesn't say what the restrictions are. If the opponent has not had the opp'ty to move toward or play the ball interfered with, it's not pass (or kick) interference. We don't know whether the blocked player was trying to, was in position to, or even aware it was possible for him to play the pass, so we don't know whether interference took place. For all we know, he may have had his back to the whole thing.

It's not a matter of if the defender has had a chance to move toward the ball or not. Blocking downfield signals to the defender and his teammates that the play isn't a pass but it's a run.

[Rich]

Wow. Someone on this thread has no understanding of OPI. I'll let the people on the thread figure out who that is.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by APG

It's not a matter of if the defender has had a chance to move toward the ball or not. Blocking downfield signals to the defender and his teammates that the play isn't a pass but it's a run.

But you already have a rule for that re ineligible receiver downfield, whether the player blocks anyone there or not. But it's not interference unless it actually interferes. It may not be a big deal since loss of down was eliminated for the OPI in the various codes, but it's still technically a different foul.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But you already have a rule for that re ineligible receiver downfield,

Which is a much lighter penalty than offensive pass interference. As you can see from the case play, an ineligible blocking down field is guilty of multiple fouls. Restrictions against blocking down field apply to all A players, not just ineligible players. An eligible receiver blocking down field on a forward pass play is also guilty of OPI.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Which is a much lighter penalty than offensive pass interference. As you can see from the case play, an ineligible blocking down field is guilty of multiple fouls. Restrictions against blocking down field apply to all A players, not just ineligible players. An eligible receiver blocking down field on a forward pass play is also guilty of OPI.

Then you've been citing the wrong rules section. The blocking per se is covered under 9-3, "illegal blocking", specifically 9-3-1(b).

[Welpe]

Actually we haven't but I'm glad you've found more evidence disproving your intereptation on your own. Notice that 9-3-1-b penalty references 7-5-10 and that the case play is numbered 7.5.10.

Consider 9-3-1 as examples of illegal blocks because all of those are defined as particular fouls in other rules (Rule 6, Rule 7 and further in Rule 9).

[Juxone]

It was my understanding that any lineman such as "Lineman A77 is blocking lineman B56 5 yards beyond the neutral zone on a pass that crosses the NZ." Is an illegal receiver down field --- but its NOT OPI unless he actually interferes with .....

[HLin NC]

but its NOT OPI unless he actually interferes with

And just what would blocking him be
Remember, all of B is eligible.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

And just what would blocking him be
Remember, all of B is eligible.

But they way they wrote it (and they wrote it a long time ago) is misleading. it would be clearer if they simply said that blocking an opponent downfield was illegal under the circumstances.