5-9-4 unannounced change
 

The timing rule was also changed to match the new throw-in rule by adding the word "legally" in front of touched.

So now the clock will only start when the ball is legally touched on a throw-in. This is good. If the clock moves on an immediate kick, it is a timing error and we should reset it.

Since this change was not announced or shaded in gray and we have discussed it on this forum, I thought that I would call attention to it.

Thanks Nev for keeping the bigger picture in mind.

Every year, there are a few of these. Anyone who finds any other unannounced changes, or "editorial changes", feel free to post them. Thanks!!

Yet a throwin pass that is touched by anyone other than A1, even if he is standing OOB, is considered a legal touch; presumably.

5-9-4: ......legally touched by, a player on the court......

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Yet a throwin pass that is touched by anyone other than A1, even if he is standing OOB, is considered a legal touch; presumably.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Right, the clock starting rule only applies to players who are inbounds. So if the player who first touches the throw-in pass is OOB, it doesn't matter how he contacts the ball, the clock will NOT start. IOW a touching by an OOB player cannot cause the clock to start.

So, if the official doesn't start the clock, and the timer does, it's considered a timing error?

Who would'a thunk it?

While I agree with this interp, I see what Snaqs is saying - how can the throw-in end if the clock never starts?

Exactly, this seems entirely inconsistent with the interp that says the arrow is flipped when the defense violates this way.

So we're saying that if the first contact of a throw-in is a kick, the clock should not start?

Correct, because it was not a legal touch.

Huh? The clock has nothing to do with game action. Some is timed and some is untimed. Just accept it.

For example, all FTs are untimed. They start and end with the clock not running. What's the big issue about some throw-ins being handled in the same manner?

It's also a question about the AP arrow.
The clock never starts because the touch isn't legal, yet the arrow flips because the throwin ends; per the interp.

Do you remember our long discussion about whether the clock should start on a kicked ball after a throw-in? Some thought the clock should start, then (immediately?) stop, because of last year's wording of 5-9-4. Others hoped they would add this wording that the ball has to be <B>legally</B> touched in order for the clock to start. This wording has now been added. In addition, if this was an AP throw-in, the arrow stays the same because the throw-in has not been completed.

So, let's fast-forward to this year's Sit. 3 interpretation - now they are saying the AP throw-in is completed, even though the ball is touched by a player OOB. So, are they counting the touch OOB as a legal touch? Therefore, should the clock start and stop? Or is the touching OOB not a legal touch, and therefore the switching of the arrow is in contradiction to the kicked-ball ruling?

Correct me if I'm wrong,
Team A has the AP throw-in. If the throw-in is first touched OOB by A2 it's a throw-in violation. Ball goes to the opponent at the original throw-in spot and A loses the arrow. No time would come off. You would never start and stop the clock for a touch OOB.