Why The "Or" ...
 

Great, thought provoking, questions Nevadaref. Thanks.

My interpretations, based on the rules: Start the clock in both situations.

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

I'm not quite sure why the NFHS states "touches, or is legally touched". To me, this seems like overkill, and it should be just "touches", or just "legally touches", based on the intent (I'm not even going to try to guess intent here) of the NFHS in this timing rule. "Touches" should take care of both legal, and illegal, touches, whereas, "legally touched" just takes care of legal touches. Why does the NFHS offer a choice here with the word "or"? If they wanted both legal, and illegal, touches to start the clock then they should have just gone with just he word "touches". If they wanted only legal touches to start the clock then they should have gone with just "legally touched". Again, why the choice? Why the "or?

That being said, let's go back to jump balls, where the rules specifically state "legally touched", and only "legally touched". To paraphrase my ninth grade Geometry teacher, Mr. Fiore, "if, and only if, legally touched". No if, ands, or buts; ors, nors, or fors.

5-9-2: If play is started or resumed by a jump, the clock shall be started when the tossed ball is legally touched.

Your move.

And a violation causes the ball to become dead, which stops the clock, so why did you start it?

Illegal Throwin
 

On a throwin, we are advised, by rule, to start the clock when the ball touches a player on the court, either legally, or illegally. If it's an illegal throwin, then I guess that we just stop the clock (dead ball) as soon as possible. Hey. I don't make up these rules. Don't kill the messenger. After all, it's the NFHS that we're dealing with here, not a Mensa International chapter.

Dueling rules:

5-8-1-C:Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Signals: A violation.

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

I would actually prefer that 5-9-4 have the words, "touches, or" deleted, so that it reads, "If play is resumed by a throw-in, the clock shall be started when the ball is legally touched by a player on the court after it is released by the thrower". The we could treat the throwin violations (as discussed above) the same as the jumpball violations (as discussed above) and reset the clock back to the original time if it was started in error.

Sometimes you have to read the part that isn't there.

i think if you look at the throw in rule--it says ball has to be touched by a player on the court. it then says (in bounds or out of bounds). so court means both inbounds and out of bounds to me.
this provision we are talking about says start the clock when the ball touches or is legally touched by a player on the COURT. i take this to mean that the clock should start when the ball hits a player, inbounds or out of bounds, or when a player goes after and touches the ball, inbounds or out of bounds, legally. we know touching the ball while standing with foot on line, out of bounds, is a violation. so if a violation could not be considered a legal touching it would not say this. i think technically, the clock is supposed to start when contact with ball is made by a player unless he kicks it or fists it. i dont think other violations equal an illegal touch...
in the real world if you are T at half court and the ball is thrown at basket you might chop time moment ball is touched, your partner at C then may realize that is BI and blow his whistle. if a second ran off the clock i dont think you put it back on. on the other hand, if you see and recognize immediatey that the touch is BI and dont chop time then clock shouldnt start. you did not signal so if timer did take it off i think you could put it back on. i think ultimately your arm is in charge...if you chop, clock should run, if you dont, it shouldnt...
but as i think a bit longer, i see why billy says they want you to always chop and then call violation. if you dont you could have a score with no time running off the clock...

my thoughts..

Stupid NFHS Start The Clock On A Throwin Violation Rule ...
 

I'm not sure what the NFHS wants, the reason for my "dueling rules" statement.

One thing that I do know, is that if the first touch on a jump ball is an illegal touch (catch, or on the way up), and if the clock mistakenly starts, then I'm setting it back to the original time.

So?

So. i dont know. something didnt seem quite right about it an hour ago....

So you are going to have the game begin and then a violation involving touching a live ball take place without it being timed? I don't agree with that. In my opinion, game action involving the touching of a live ball inbounds needs to be accounted for in the game time.

Either way true ruling on this eventually comes down, the NFHS needs to issue a clear directive on these timing matters. The committee did that recently with a throw-in being kicked (It said, "don't start the clock."), but it did not address other scenarios in which a violation occurs when the clock is supposed to start, by rule, such as A2 catching the throw-in pass while standing on a boundary line or BI during a throw-in. The NFHS could have addressed these situaions, but didn't. So does that tell us the "no time off" ruling only applies to a kick/fist being the initial touch? A solid argument can be made in support of that, but I can't say definitively that that is what the NFHS desires.

Btw BillyMac and I were part an extensive thread on this topic a couple of seasons ago. Since nothing new has been published by the NFHS there isn't any reason to revisit this now, other than to entertain a few new forum members.

What doesn't seem right is that the throw-in spot could change from one end of the court to the other without any time coming off the clock.

So?

That's Entertainment! (1974) ...
 

Agree, and I hope that we entertained the troops. I certainly enjoyed it.

I don't see a problem here. It's a (potential) quirk of the rules that no one could intentionally take advantage of.

Question: A1 and B1 Jumpers..A1 tips the ball and B1 catches ball off A1 tip.

LEGAL?

Was the ball initially legally touched? Yes. A1's tip was a legal touch.

Was B1's touch legal? No.