Throw-In or OOB Violation

[Freddy]

After B's made basket, A1's court-long throw-in is caught by A2 whose one foot is out-of-bounds. NFHS 2007-08 Interpretation (quoted below) rules this an OOB violation with subsequent throw-in to team B where A2 caught the ball while a foot was OOB, not a throw-in violation.

1) Is this still the prevailing and correct NFHS ruling?

2) Is NCAA-M the same? Does NCAA-M have any similar casebook citation or interpretation?

2007-08 Interpretation:
SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A, thrower A1 passes the ball directly on the court where it contacts (a) A2 or (b) B2, while he/she is standing on a boundary line. RULING: Out-of-bounds violation on (a) A2; (b) B2. The player was touched by the ball while out of bounds, thereby ending the throw-in. The alternating-possession arrow is reversed and pointed toward Team B's basket when the throw-in ends (when A2/B2 is touched by the ball). A throw-in is awarded at a spot nearest the out-of-bounds violation for (a) Team B; (b) Team A. (4-42-5; 6-4-4; 9-2-2; 9-3-2)

[Camron Rust]

Yes, it is the correct ruling.

It really was the correct ruling all along notwithstanding the interpretation that said it was a throwin violation that existed for a year or so. That interpretation, with A2 touching the ball, essentially said it was a violation on the thrower for the ball going "directly" OOB. It failed to consider that the person touching it and making it OOB might be on team B. It created an unintended consequence that team B could step OOB and touch the ball in order to create a violation against A and gain possession.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

A1's court-long throw-in is caught by A2 whose one foot is out-of-bounds.

Back in the late twentieth century, this was a throwin violation for not passing the ball to someone directly on the court, and Team B would get the ball at the spot of the throwin. Even odder, if B2 caught A1's court long throwin pass with one foot out of bounds, it still would have been a throwin violation against Team A, and Team B would get the ball at the spot of the throwin.

These interpretations are no longer valid.