I disagree with your statement here.
The rules state that the clock starts on the touch and stops when the violation is whistled. For a kick the NFHS issued a specific statement to not start the clock.

5-8-1: .......the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official signals a violation.

This tells me that if it is not running there's nothing to do.

Are you saying that if the throw-in pass is caught by a player standing on the sideline you will chop the clock in and then signal the violation?

The "you" here might be two different officials. The administering official may not be in any position to observed the OOB situation. Thus, time will be started by the administering official and will be stopped by the covering official.

If it is one official (me), I'm not going to start then stop the clock.

Yes.

Any way you slice it, you are starting the clock at a time when it should be stopping. I see no way to justify this.

On this play I know the answer for NCAAW would be no.

A group of officials and I discussed this scenario after a scrimmage a few years ago. We were split so I e-mailed Debbie Williamson. I e-mailed her again in Feb. of 2012 since I'd forgotten the interpretation:

Nothing has come out in the past two years indicating the interpretation has changed.

I think we should use some common sense here. If the clock has not started and the first touch results in a violation, I don't think the clock should have run. It's kinda like that "legal touch" language that ends a throw-ins.

Unless it's the end of the game and getting the time correct is paramount, I will probably ignore trifling timing errors.

Regarding the other issue, if a player catches the ball with a foot on the sideline, is that really a legal touch? Wouldn't the ball come back to the original throw-in spot just like if the ball never touched anyone inbounds before going out?

It's an OOB violation, not a throw-in violation, so the next spot is where the ball was touched.

Misty Watercolor Memories ...
 

Taking a walk down Memory Lane, this used to be a throwin violation. If inbounder A1's throwin first touched B1, who was out of bounds, possession went to Team B at the spot of the original throwin. You heard right. Team B's possession.

This odd ruling was changed about thirty years ago. It might still confuse some more experienced (how's that for a euphemism) officials.

If a player'slocation is determined by where he last touched the floor and if that location was OOB, then why would we not have a throw in from the same spot of the last throw in? I am thinking that this would be the same as a ball that was thrown down court and not touched before going out of bounds. In that case we come back to the original thrw in spot so it makes sense to me that we should do the same if the first plkayer to touch it is standing OOB. But, I am open to other opinions since all I am going on is my own "common sense".

This is the problem with using common sense when there are rules to use instead (not a knock on you Rich, lots of us try to do it).

In the rule book, throw in violations are separate from OOB violations, and the spot of the throw in is different for each.

A throw in violation occurs if the thrower fails to throw the ball so that it touches a player before going out of bounds. If another player catches the ball, but is standing out of bounds, the thrower has done his job. It is not, therefore, a throw in violation.

The player who catches the ball, however, has committed an OOB violation, so the throw in spot is determined accordingly.

Adam, looking at it that way makes it easier to understand. Since a different player caused to be an OOB violation then we would use that spot. Thanks.

And that is also why this action is timed!

As posted above in this thread, the text of the NCAA rule is different from that of the NFHS. The NCAA specifies that the touch must be by an "inbounds player" while the NFHS does not have such a requirement.

Whether the action should be timed is certainly up for debate, but I fail to see how your reasoning here applies.

For me, if the same action that should cause the clock to start (ball being touched by player) also causes the clock to stop, then it's valid that no time should elapse and I tend to rule accordingly if I'm the official responsible for both.

I wouldn't make a correction either way, however, during a game.