Actually, NCAA and Fed make the point of saying that if the ball touches the pylon at the intersection of the goalline and the OOB line, it's a TD. What I meant by "your interpretation" is your statement that both ruling bodies put in the statement "At the intersection..." to direct us to which pylon they meant.
I don't believe I've ever heard anyone make that assumption, so I'm wondering why you (or others) do.
Don't you think it would be a little comical for them to add the "At the intersection..." part to tell us which pylon they meant (and, um, would you not say that in the bizarre case where Julius Erving dives for a TD and touches the pylon at the intersection of the BACK line and OOB, that it's still a touchdown!?!?!)
Surely that is not the reason they put in "at the intersection...". Surely they are putting that in to define what happens if the ball hits the corner, since the rulebook doesn't explicitly spell that out (the rulebooks DO say that if the ball is out of bounds before it's across the endline it's out of bounds, and vice versa). The "At the intersection" part is to tell us that if it hits the pylon "at the intersection" (which is EXACTLY what is says), it's a TD (and I suppose to tell us, basically, when in doubt of which side of the pylon was hit by the ball first, call it a TD).
What I find strange is that there seems to be a desire (not just by Bob, but by most here) to ignore the rulebook in this case. An apathy in that direction, in fact (as evidenced by the "Why make this hard?" type commentary). Maybe this would have gotten more agreement if the casebook play did not exist, but I truly feel that the majority here is misinterpreting the "at the intersection" part to make the caseplay contradictory to the rulebook. (PS - in other cases where the casebook has clearly contradicted the rulebook, the default is ALWAYS the rulebook, not the casebook, right?)