Ineligible receiver downfield

[Chidojuan]

Can someone explain to me why this is a penalty? NCAA Resources has a neat rules review video every few weeks, and they usually do a great job of explaining it. They did a horrible job on this one though. In the RPO, why does it matter if the offensive lineman blocks downfield? I don’t see a reason for this penalty to exist. If the OL interferes with a DB’s coverage of a receiver, they simply call offensive pass interference, and if the QB throws to the OL, they simply call illegal touching. All bases are covered. It makes no sense for this to exist. It doesn’t even give the offense a specific advantage. If the QB reads run, then everything is fine, if he reads pass, and the OL is blocking way downfield then it gives the DL a better shot at the QB. I just don’t understand it. Anyone have any insight?

[EagleMountainUte]

You have to declare as eligible or ineligible. It will change the defensive play calling and ability to cover a man. 

[Chidojuan]

Right, but that’s done with the jersey numbers and position of the players within the offensive formation. So if a player is clearly an ineligible receiver, why would it matter if they block or move further than 3 yards downfield?

[EagleMountainUte]

Well defenses can choose to ignore the big guy or maybe they end up covering him while a guy gets open. I kind of agree only should be flagged if he was actually targetted but what if a qb looks off a defender by looking at the big fat guy?

[Chidojuan]

I can see why that might be an issue, but at the same time, plays tend to develop too quickly for that to have a substantial impact. I actually don’t think it would change anything at all if this penalty was done away with. Sure the QB might be able to look off a defender, but chances are if that OL doesn’t have his hat on a defender, then that defender has a straight shot to the quarterback. It just really makes no sense. I read the NCAA rulebook and it gives no reason why this is a penalty, only that it is. The only real implication is that coaches would have to remind defenders not to pay attention to the OL that moves downfield, but that seems like a non-issue to me because of the speed of developing plays. I just really hate this penalty.

[GameForAnyFuss]

Then the better question might be, why not declare every lineman an eligible receiver on every single play? Problem solved.

Or is that not allowed?

[Chidojuan]

@GameForAnyFuss that goes back to the comment made by @BattleGroundUte that it would mess with the defense and their ability to cover, clearly giving the offense and unfair advantage. It would just turn into a Rugby game.

[GameForAnyFuss]

OK, so…why wouldn’t every offense declare every lineman eligible on every play? Wouldn’t an offense want to take away a defense’s ability to cover?

[Sweetness]

You don’t simply “declare” a receiver eligible or ineligible. As the previous poster mentioned, it’s determined based on how you line up. This is why there are also illegal formation penalties.

[EagleMountainUte]

Sometimes refs lose the LOS on some of them so it can be incorrectly called.

[gUrthBrooks]

Total guess but…should Garret Bolles be allowed to run 10 yards down field and destroy a corner before the pass is thrown to the receiver? IMO that would by offensive PI or holding. I’m not sure why a lineman can’t block further downfield on a pass play. I would think college football would want to open up the scoring…but I do see BattleGroundUte’s point that players inside the tackle are thought to only be lineman unless declared otherwise. 

[Chidojuan]

I feel like that goes back to the original thought that you would just call Offensive PI, which is a worse penalty anyway. The NCAA rule specifically states that even if the OL is engaged with a defender beyond 3 yards, it’s a penalty. Not just an untouched OL downfield. No justification for it.

[PlainsUte]

This a good question, and one that is problematic for the Utah ohfense with Huntley at the helm.  He has shown the willingness to hold on to the ball for awhile on a roll-out and then throw at the very last second to a receiver, sometimes just a few yards downfield of his position.   In doing so the play develops so slowly that the OL are “wandering downfield”, getting outside their limits and stop engaging with a defender – sometimes the defender has blown past and is chasing Huntley!!  If Huntley ends up running, no harm in that, but otherwise flags for people who are distant from the actual play so its very frustrating.  Wish there was more leeway, but one more thing for the OL to be aware of.

[gUrthBrooks]

Best answer: to give defenses a more fair shot…see link below

https://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/8/12/1616767/know-your-annoying-penalties

 

[Chidojuan]

@Hammer I read this one yesterday as well. Still doesn’t answer the question for me. How exactly does it give them a more fair shot? If it’s a traditional pass play, it would be stupid for the OL to block downfield because they open up a hole for the defense, if it’s a run, then the runner gets more room to run, if it’s an RPO, then the QB gets room to run and the defense gets a shot at him. Where is the advantage for the offense?

[teeme73]

Wow, it’s discussions like this that will totally ruin the reputation of a football forum.

[Chidojuan]

@teeme73 #Sarcasm?

[dwainegf]

It is a rule. Regardless if we like it or not it has been a rule since I played in the 1970’s. Like holding or clipping or any other rule it needs to be followed or a penalty will be assessed. The players know it is a rule as do the coaches. It is up to them to follow it. It is up to the refs to call it if they see it. Simple as that.

[Chidojuan]

@dwainegf What are you trying to accomplish with this response? We’re all aware that it is a rule, I’m questioning the justification for it. I’m not suggesting that Utah doesn’t coach to it, I’m trying to get insight as to why it actually is a rule. Even the article linked above didn’t give a good reason for it. I’m not even suggesting a revision by the NCAA, I just want a good reason for this to be a rule, and so far, I haven’t seen it.

[dwainegf]

@chidojuan, Why do games have rules at all? Why only 2 1/2 steps for traveling in basketball? There are lots of rules for sports. They are there to make it fair for both teams. The refs are there to make sure the rules are followed. There may be a great many rules that are unexplained. They are still the rules and each team is or at least should be forced to follow them. That is all I was saying.
If I may give you back your own advice on being condescending….. Just saying.

[Chidojuan]

@dwainegf I apologize, I can see where I was condescending as well.  Please accept my apology.  As to your response.  The reason I was previously questioning the rule is because, as a former defensive lineman (just high school, nothing big) all I could see was an opportunity to attack the quarterback, I didn’t think about the implications of a defensive back in zone coverage, and the members of this forum have been kind enough to enlighten me.  I still think it is a very arbitrary rule with inconsistent enforcement, but I can let sleeping dogs lie.  Sports tend to be logical, and the rules are there to maintain order.  When we get into arbitrary rules like ineligible receiver downfield, it starts to feel like a FIFA match where the zebras say that a score actually wasn’t a score.  Can you point out to me another rule that doesn’t have an explanation like the one we’re discussing?  I can’t think of another one.

[KJU]

Every rule then is arbitrary. Why shouldn’t the offense be able to use their hands? Why shouldn’t a forward pass not be treated like a lateral and have the ball in play until someone recovers it? Why shouldn’t offense be able to block in the back. Why does crossing the goal line result in 6 points?

[Chidojuan]

@KJU I disagree. I think that is a composition fallacy. The penalties help regulate fair play. Causing injury or giving the offense an unfair advantage make the play unfair. My original point was that I didn’t believe that this play caused injury or unfair advantage to the offense with a plea to help me understand why it exists. I’ve since learned that this penalty makes sense from the perspective of the DB, and now believe that the NCAA should be more consistent in it’s enforcement and explanation to the public. That in no way makes all other rules arbitrary.

[dwainegf]

We are good. I believe the NFL’s offensive formation rule is lacking. In college you can have everyone on the line except the QB. Of course that means only 2 receivers are eligible. This would give the defense an advantage because of the flawed formation. The NCAA allows it. The NFL penalizes it. In the NFL you must always have 7 on the line and 4 off the line. You must never have an eligible numbered receiver covered. This penalty makes no sense to me because you are penalizing a team for making the opponent’s job easier.

[KJU]

I agree that this is a stupid discussion. It is a rule and a good one. If you are a DB in the middle of a play and an player from the opposing team is in your area (assume zone coverage), your not going to look for their number or might not be able to see their number (side view). Do you cover that player or not. This game moves so fast that you go to cover. SMH at this

[Chidojuan]

@KJU at least you gave a reason, but there is no reason to be condescending. Why is it stupid to discuss a rule the NCAA gives no justification for? Did you read the initial post? I was searching for why this was a rule, and now I can kind of get behind the idea that it would potentially ruin zone coverage and give the offense an unfair advantage. Although, as I previously stated, that advantage is debatable because of the existence of the defensive line.

[KJU]

My apologies. Yeah that was bad on my part. I guess if you have played at any level you would know this. However, having played a little is not a requirement for being a fan and it definitely doesn’t make you a better fan or person. Sorry, I was a jerk.

[shakeitsugaree]

I’ve actually been wondering the same thing, and I, for one, found the responses that tried to explain the reasoning quite illuminating.

I have never been good at accepting “because I said so” as legitimate reasoning, but I also got into trouble a lot as a kid.

In reading more about this, the conclusion I came to is that defenses prepare for offensive plays by players whose specific positions are defined by rules. Kind of how chess pieces are only allowed to move according to their individual rules. If all the pieces had the same rules, the entire game would change, and would be much less about strategy than luck (checkers vs chess).

Maybe not the best analogy, but it’s all I’ve got.

[noneyadb]

Best guess- it’s a dated penalty to help the defenses. The rule keeps the extra lineman, when a defense rushes 3 players, from going down field early. Should be once the QB goes outside the tackle then lineman can also proceed down field.