Opi?

[Ref1973]

NFHS:

Lineman A77 is blocking lineman B56 5 yards beyond the neutral zone on a pass that crosses the NZ.

OPI or just ineligible downfield. 7-5-9(b) states that it is not OPI when an ineligible blocks when warding off an opponent. Just clarifying though.

[HLin NC]

You better read 7-5-10a too.

[Robert Goodman]

Did the contact meet the general requirements of pass interference?

[Welpe]

7.5.10 SITUATION A covers this play almost verbatim.

Did the contact meet the general requirements of pass interference?

He answered that when he said "Lineman A77 is blocking lineman B56 5 yards beyond the neutral zone on a pass that crosses the NZ."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

He answered that when he said "Lineman A77 is blocking lineman B56 5 yards beyond the neutral zone on a pass that crosses the NZ."

I don't see how that alone answers it. Was A77 interfering with B56's opportunity to move toward or play the ball? If A77's block made no difference on that score, it's not interference. You'd have to have some idea as to where the players were in relationship to the pass, where they were moving, and what they were trying to do. Same as obstructing a player's path to the ball on an opponent's kick.

[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.

[MTUMP]

Originally Posted by Ref1973

NFHS:

Lineman A77 is blocking lineman B56 5 yards beyond the neutral zone on a pass that crosses the NZ.

OPI or just ineligible downfield. 7-5-9(b) states that it is not OPI when an ineligible blocks when warding off an opponent. Just clarifying though.

7-5-9(b) has the presupposition that B touched the ball....read 7-5-10 rule as well very clear:

ART. 10 . . . It is forward-pass interference if:
a. Any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass.

[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.