FED:

X.X.X=Case Play
X-X-X=Rule

Welcome to the forum. As you have experienced on your first day, there is much to learn here. There are several excellent officials who have numerous years of officiating. That tenure is of great help in situations such as this one in which the rule has developed and changed over time. Unfortunately, that process also leads to some confusion as the members of the NFHS Rules Committee, the NFHS Board of Directors, and the Rules Book Editor all change over the years. When new people assume these positions they don't share all of the thoughts of the previous people. You can find several examples of this.
Sadly, this leads to conflicting interpretations, play rulings, and even awkward wording in the text of the actual rules as they are changed or edited.

What other posters have told you in this thread is 100% correct. If Team A has an AP throw-in and the initial touch is kicking violation by a member of Team B, the result will be that Team A is awarded a new non-AP throw-in for the kicking violation and keeps the arrow for the next held ball since their attempt at executing an AP throw-in was not completed due to the illegal touch (kick).
This was all published extensively just two years ago as a rule change.
Unfortunately, someone with the NFHS then authored a contradictory interp for Team B violating during the AP throw-in by breaking the boundary plane. This person wrote that the subsequent throw-in remains an AP throw-in and the arrow changes upon its completion. Sad.
Anyway that's how this stuff evolves. It isn't perfect. You learn to sift through the errors over time.

The AP throw-in hasn't ended, but it is replaced by a new, non-AP throw-in.

So, you didn't read the Foreword in the case book?

Yes we searched through much of the casebook after our game but somehow overlooked that situation. I don't have it on me now but there was a situation in there that mirrored the rule book by talking about postponing the arrow. Once we saw that case play we must have focused in on only that case play when the answer was right there on another page for us to see. I have read the casebook but obviously some situations stick out and others you have to go back and review.

Like others have said, without the case play the wording in the rule book is not very clear. But with the case play it is very clear. Now I know with 100% certainty. Thanks again!

If you are talking about me reading it yesterday when you referred to it, no I did not. I didn't have my case book on me, and thought you were referring to the rule book. I did not know about the X.Y.Z. for one, and X-Y-Z for the other. So learned two things yesterday. That's why I was confused on why you directed me there because the rule book wasn't helping me.

But you are right, the case book is clear cut, the exact play, no way to misinterpret.

Not according to the person who wrote the NFHS interps for the 2009-10 season. :(

SITUATION 3: During an alternating-possession throw-in by Team A, B1 breaks the plane of the boundary line. The official stops play. RULING: Team B is issued a warning for breaking the throw-in plane. Since the original alternating-possession throw-in had not ended, the ball is again awarded to Team A and remains an alternating-possession throw-in. Any type of further delay by Team B results in a team technical foul. (4-42-5; 4-47-1; 6-4-4; 7-6-4; 10-1-5c)

I don't have my books with me. Is a delay of game scenario considered a violation? This seems different to me than administering after an illegal touch (kicked ball) on an AP throw in.

No, it's not a violation.

it seems different to me too, but breaking the plane by defense is a violation in 9. they go on to say that the first violation of the plane is a delay of game warning. (dont say anything else) earlier in the book it talks about it being an administrative procedure.

it is different, because there's a warning, but probably not different enough to say the next throw in is the continuation of the AP.

Interesting. I didn't see the conflict at first but now I see it.

i just dont think they think through or have somebody at nfhs that thinks about everything. they are asked about a specific situation and then,through a tunnel lense, give an interpretation without remembering/knowing/considering what they have already said in other places...

It most certainly is. Check rule 9.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

9-2-10: The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her
person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the
ball has been released on a throw-in pass. PENALTIES: (Art. 10)
1. The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of
the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one delay
warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the
opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.
2. The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed
to the offending team. See 10-1-5c Penalty.
3. If an opponent(s) reaches through the throw-in boundary-line plane and
touches or dislodges the ball while in possession of the thrower or being
passed to a teammate outside the boundary line (as in 7-5-7), a technical
foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required. See
10-3-10 Penalty.
4. If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul shall
be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

At least the ruling regarding the arrow is consistent with this.