[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not saying whether that's what Nevada's trying to do; I didn't read it that close. (Sorry, Nevada.)
I will, however, agree that it is likely this ref goofed if the explanation he gave the OP is accurately reflected in this thread. From what it looks like, if the count hadn't started, it should have. Regardless, it looks like the ref involved understood the rule even less than the OP; who had a basic understanding at the very least.
And how many of us actually start a count when the thrower simply sets his foot down OOB and releases the pass a split second later? It's sort of an implied count, IMO, when it happens that quickly.

Right. I agree. And the ref should not have granted the TO once the opponent had taken the ball oob even if the count wasn't begun, which it should have been, even if not visual.