It's A Question, Notice The Question Mark ...
 

... and if said player steps on, or over, a boundary line, then it isn't an out of bounds violation, according to 4-15-6-D (During an interrupted dribble: Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble)?

Better ???
 

Once he dribbles the ball the dribble is no longer interrupted, and all bets are off.

Closure ???
 

So who's right, Nevadaref, or BillyMac. I say BillyMac, but of course, I always side with the handsome, intelligent guys.

I think Nevadaref was misreading the OP.

Nope, I read the OP just fine.
However, I never responded to it or commented on anything in it.
What I did was take exception with a statement that BillyMac posted and wrote a reply to that. You are the one who misread my post as evidenced by your first reply in this thread.

Not the first time that's happened.

Billy, let me try to clarify this for you. The only rule which a player involved in an interrupted dribble is exempt from is the Note directly under 9-3-1 and that is because he simply is NOT a dribbler! All other rules apply to this player as normal.

I guess it was unclear to some folks back in the day, if a player violated per 9-1-3 Note during an interrupted dribble, so the NFHS attempted to clarify by crafting this. Of course, this language was written long before 9-3-3 was added to the books. As you know it was previously a technical foul to deliberately leave the court during playing action. So the wording has now gone from poor to very poor. The NFHS should never have written that the player isn't subject to an OOB violation. We have given several examples which demonstrate that he is. What they should have written was that the provision listed for a dribbler in 9-3-1 Note does not apply to a player involved in a interrupted dribble. That's it.

And not a big deal. Just wanted to clarify for you that all of my comments in this thread pertain to BillyMac's sentence which I put in red.
I think that I need a nap now.

Nobody is disagreeing with this. But that's NOT what you wrote. Read your original post. You wrote, "Once he TOUCHES the ball..."

Touching the ball does not automatically constitute a dribble NVRef and Camron have both previously pointed this out.

Corrēctiō ...
 

Agree on the original post. Maybe you missed the title of the second post in which I stated, "Once he dribbles the ball the dribble is no longer interrupted, and all bets are off". The title: "Better ???", meaning, is the correction an improvement from the original post?

Closure ???
 

... because an interrupted dribbler is no longer a dribbler. So 4-15-6-D (During an interrupted dribble: Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble.) is correct.

Are we in agreement?

Closure ...
 

... and if said player, an interrupted dribbler, contacts the ball, and touches out of bounds, at the same time, that player has committed an out of bounds violation.

Are we in agreement?

The Rain In Spain Stays Mainly In The Plain ...
 

Player A1, while dribbling near a sideline, touches the boundary, but not at the same time that he is touching the dribbled ball. Violation 9-3-1 Note.

Player A2, while dribbling near a sideline, bounces the ball off his foot, becomes an interrupted dribbler, and while attempting to regain control of the ball, touches a boundary, when he is not in contact with the ball. No violation 4-15-6-D.

Player A3, while dribbling near a sideline, bounces the ball off his foot, becomes an interrupted dribbler, and while attempting to regain control of the ball, touches a boundary, when he is in contact, but not in control, of the ball. Violation 9-3-2.

"By George, I think she's got it."

I concur.