Curious, we've already been down that road. IP was never the issue by itself. It was a rumored change to the definition for OOB that would only be in effect when IP is being considered. Ralph subsequently corrected himself by saying that the OOB definition would not be changed. The reason is probably because of the scenario we discussed: Player steps out, then back in and leaps to try and catch the ball but instead tips it to a defender. If he became, AND REMAINED, an OOB player after stepping back in because of a new definition change, the turnover would be nullified because the ball would be dead as soon as the OOB player touched it. Now we have to go with assurances that the change to the IP rule in Rule 9 will suffice WITHOUT any changes to the definition of who is OOB in Rule 2.