Two Violations in One

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I think we had a very long discussion on this a while back. Reading the RS, it seems that could refer only to the person obstructed being involved in the interference.

Would not accepting the enforcement of the rule negate the play? And if you negate the play, how can you have interference on a play that didn't exist?

And this logic, which completely makes sense to me, is exactly the reason I DON'T think the logic is correct on the OP. Seems to me - if we're being consistent... the offense should be allowed to accept the penalty for the IP, which wipes out the leaving early just like it wipes out the INT on Manny's play.

But... I don't make the rulings, I just enforce them.