NFHS New Rules are posted

[Zoochy]

Back in November I started a thread: Where's the Throw-in?
Where is the Throw-in?
If A2 or B2 is standing OOB when they receive the throw-in pass, is their touch of the ball considered 'legal'?
As was pointed out in that thread, the violation was on the thrower, not the receiver. Thus the 'new' throw-in would come back to the original spot. I think this new rule has implication to that scenario. The violation now is assessed to the receiver. Spot throw-in at that new location.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Back in November I started a thread: Where's the Throw-in?
Where is the Throw-in?
If A2 or B2 is standing OOB when they receive the throw-in pass, is their touch of the ball considered 'legal'?
As was pointed out in that thread, the violation was on the thrower, not the receiver. Thus the 'new' throw-in would come back to the original spot. I think this new rule has implication to that scenario. The violation now is assessed to the receiver. Spot throw-in at that new location.

I'm not sure that is correct. There is still a question of if the receiver "legally" touched the ball while standing OOB. Is his touch legal because he touched the ball with an eligible part of his body (ie didn't kick it) or is his touch illegal because he was standing OOB at the time and thus committed a violation simultaneously with the touch.

Furthermore, is this still a throw-in violation? If so, the ensuing throw-in would still be awarded from the previous spot.

I don't think the rule change has clarified anything about this play at all.

[Jimgolf]

If your touch is a violation, it is not a legal touch. Semantics aside, sometimes we think too much. Call it the way you interpret it until your boss tells you differently.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Back in November I started a thread: Where's the Throw-in?
Where is the Throw-in?
If A2 or B2 is standing OOB when they receive the throw-in pass, is their touch of the ball considered 'legal'?
As was pointed out in that thread, the violation was on the thrower, not the receiver. Thus the 'new' throw-in would come back to the original spot. I think this new rule has implication to that scenario. The violation now is assessed to the receiver. Spot throw-in at that new location.

This part isn't correct. The violation is still on the receiver, but the penalty for this violation requires a new throw-in at the original spot for the team that did not make this catch. Nowhere does it say the violation is on the thrower; especially if B2 is the one making the catch.
The new rule does not address this, at least not as it's been presented.
It does, however, offer a new question.
Scenario:
AP throw-in for A1, who throws the pass.
B2 is standing on the OOB line when he is the first to touch this pass.
We know we have a new throw-in for A1 at the original spot.
Do we switch the arrow?

I don't think we do.