Dude, the two plays have nothing to do with each other.

You stated that the situation was not covered by rule last year and I presented the case book play which proved you wrong. Now, we're past that play. Back to the original:

5-9-4
If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the ball touches, or is touched by, a player on the court after it is released by the thrower.

Whether the ball is kicked or touched OOB on the initial contact, the clock starts when the ball is touched.

And no, I'm not playing devil's advocate on this one. This is the rule. No one has provided any reference that proves different.

The clock starts when touched. The ball is dead and the clock is stopped on a violation. The out of bounds touch and the kick are both violations. The clock should therefore start and stop at the same instant. This seems to me to be impossible. My conclusion: We deserve more money.

We agree.

Long thread and I may have missed someone saying this:
Since there was a time - out, 2 actually, did anyone go over to the person operating the clock and go over their responsibilities? I am assuming the two officials conversed about who had the shot etc, but it sounds like no one talked to the clock keeper. IMHO, it would go along way to avoiding timing conflict. Simply tell the clock operator "Don't Start the Clock until you see a)Me, b) Partner chop the clock." Make sure they are only looking at the official who has the clock. The coaches will see this and be moderately appeased if there are any timing difficulties, plus it will take some of the pressure off the clock operator.

Good one, big! :D

Haven't we gone over this situation about 100,000 times before?

Anyone ever think of writing in to the NFHS and getting a definitive interp on this? (Hint, hint, MTD, Sr.)