Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 934489)

As for illegally touched, I don't think it is illegally touched. It is legally touched in an illegal location. And that is the difference.

The NFHS has previously distinguished between the two in a few ways. For example, a kick is considered a violation before the throwin ends. An OOB violation is treated as if it occurs after the throwin ends. This is demonstrated in how the arrow is treated on a throwin. If the violation is a kick (illegal contact) the arrow is not switched. If the violation is an OOB (legal contact, illegal location) the arrow is switched. Likewise with the right to run the endline when there is a violation on a throw-in.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 934462)

Seems to me that it's a given that 0.0000 seconds elapsed between the instant the clock should start and the instant the clock should stop, and we, the officials, have positive knowledge of that. No time should run off in this case.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 934462)

Seems to me that it's a given that 0.0000 seconds elapsed between the instant the clock should start and the instant the clock should stop, and we, the officials, have positive knowledge of that. No time should run off in this case.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 934453)

I'll go back to the "legally touched" part of the NFHS rule as to why the clock shouldn't start. If a player touches the ball while standing on a sideline or endline it's a violation, which is not a legal touch of the ball.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 934489)

Certainly, they could be the same person. But, in a 3-person game, the administering official is only going to be covering one line much of the time (sometimes two).

As for illegally touched, I don't think it is illegally touched. It is legally touched in an illegal location. And that is the difference.

The NFHS has previously distinguished between the two in a few ways. For example, a kick is considered a violation before the throwin ends. An OOB violation is treated as if it occurs after the throwin ends. This is demonstrated in how the arrow is treated on a throwin. If the violation is a kick (illegal contact) the arrow is not switched. If the violation is an OOB (legal contact, illegal location) the arrow is switched. Likewise with the right to run the endline when there is a violation on a throw-in.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 934503)

And on the most basic level that incorrect understanding is what I've consistently posted against in this entire thread. The touching of the ball itself is not illegal, such as a kick would be. Rather the player is breaking some other rule by where he is standing.

Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 934521)

So NFHS 9-3-2 (No player shall be out of bounds when he/she touches or is touched by the ball after it has been released on a throw-in pass) means the touching isn't illegal? That's where we part company. In that particular instance the touching is illegal and the rule supports that idea.

By the way, if you're going to run time off the clock in the case of a a player catching a throw-in while standing OOB how much time should be run off? There's also nothing in the rules calling for an automatic run-off of, say, 0.3 seconds when a player contacts the ball.

This is a case of a touch and a violation taking place simultaneously. While the rule book doesn't always deal in logic, running the clock in this situation doesn't seem logical.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 934523)

The clock question really isn't all that different than the situation where the ball is thrown inbounds and is touched inbounds where it is immediately knocked OOB. We all know the clock should have started and then stopped but if no time has elapsed what do you do? Usually...nothing.

The point of the matter is that one official properly indicates that the clock should start and the timer does so. Another official covering the line where the ball is thrown, a moment later, indicates that the clock should stop...and the timer does so. I just don't see where there is an error. Everyone did what they were supposed to do. Short of a rule that says that it is an error to do what you're supposed to do, I see this as just a quirk in the rules and coverages.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 934524)

What about the equally likely scenario where both signals are made simultaneously, and the timer does not start the clock.

Or the primary question, what if Nevada is officiating and everything happens in his coverage. He chops time in and immediately hits his whistle. The timer does not respond, and no time runs off.
Anyone taking time off?