3 feet Line

[wanja]

I'm using the NFHS 08/09 part 2 test as a practice exam for a new official class. 2 of the questions are

9. A restraining line may be used as a boundary line when space is limited, and may extend the entire length or width of the court.

68. If a thrower-in does not have a minimum of 3 feet of unobstructed space. The administering official shall impose an imaginary restraining line.

The rule references are:
1-2-2 If on an unofficial court, there is less than 3 feet of unobstructed space outside any sideline or end line a narrow broken line shall be marked ...

7-6-4 note The thrower shall have a minimum of 3 feet horizontally as in 1-2-2. If the court is not marked accordingly, an imaginary restraining line shall be imposed by the administering official.


I don't like question 9 or the related rule. I have a no answer since the question says may and the rule says shall. However, I can't imagine literally applying the rule to stop a game. Furthermore, the 7-6-4 note assumes that the game would not be stopped and the official would use an imaginary line.

Just me griping about a ridiculously written rule that I may need to explain to the practice test takers.

[Nevadaref]

I don't see the problem with this rule. Perhaps you could clarify your gripe and elaborate on your concerns.

[mbyron]

The restraining line is used for throw-ins. When administering a throw-in with very little space OOB, I'll wave my arm along the floor, gesturing to the imaginary line, and say: "give him 3 feet, and don't reach across."

Most HS players know what I'm talking about and do as I say. If I'm working a lower level, I'll give the defender a second chance to understand my meaning before whistling a violation.

1-2-2 is advice for people building a court, and does not require officials to stop a game.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by wanja

9. A restraining line may be used as a boundary line when space is limited, and may extend the entire length or width of the court.

The rule isn't ridiculous, the question is. Reminds me of some of the tricky questions that appear on the annual IAABO exam. The literal answer would be false because the restraining line is only used as as imaginary boundary during a throwin, i.e. you would not use it if a player dribbling near such a boundary steps on such boundary.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The rule isn't ridiculous, the question is. Reminds me of some of the tricky questions that appear on the annual IAABO exam. The literal answer would be false because the restraining line is only used as as imaginary boundary during a throwin, i.e. you would not use it if a player dribbling near such a boundary steps on such boundary.

As you all know, the NFHS questions are in sections with headings....it could be that this question had a heading of "THROWINS". If so, the question would be fine....but we don't know.

[BktBallRef]

There's nothing wrong with either question or rule. In older gyms where there may be only a foot between the sideline and bleachers. Both questions and rules would fit the situation.

Don't get hung up on shall and may. It's no big deal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by wanja

A restraining line may be used as a boundary line when space is limited, and may extend the entire length or width of the court.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's nothing wrong with either question or rule. In older gyms where there may be only a foot between the sideline and bleachers. Both questions and rules would fit the situation.

I officiate a few Catholic middle games each season in a gym that looks more like a bowling alley than a basketball court. It has restraining lines running parallel to both sidelines. According to the question as stated by wanja, and to BktBallRef's post, a player dribbling near the sideline who touches the restraining line would be out of bounds since, according to wanja's posted question, the "restraining line may be used as a boundary line".

Sorry, I'm not calling that out of bounds. wanja's posted question, without any more information, like limiting the question to a throwin situation, as suggested by Camron Rust, is false. It appears that the NFHS does the same thing as IAABO, putting very tricky questions on their respective exams.

[Mark Padgett]

Our local kids rec league uses one MS gym that has boundary lines painted on the gym floor three feet in from the walls on both endlines, since there's not that much space on either end. All the kids who play there know what those lines mean and we only explain it to the coaches before each game and tell them to tell their kids. Usually, the coaches just nod their heads and say OK, since most of them have coached in that gym many times. Fortunately, it's the only gym we use that has that situation. And yes, this applies only to throw-ins.

[wanja]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As you all know, the NFHS questions are in sections with headings....it could be that this question had a heading of "THROWINS". If so, the question would be fine....but we don't know.

Question 9 is in the Court and Equipment Section (Rule 1) and reads:

A restraining line may be used as a boundary line when space is limited, and may extend the entire length or width of the court.

Rule 1.2.2 reads
If on an unofficial court, there is less than 3 feet of unobstructed space outside any sideline or end line, a narrow broken line shall be marked on the court.

Originally Posted by mbyron

1-2-2 is advice for people building a court, and does not require officials to stop a game.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's nothing wrong with either question or rule. In older gyms where there may be only a foot between the sideline and bleachers. Both questions and rules would fit the situation.

Don't get hung up on shall and may. It's no big deal.

Three problems with the rule/question:

1. If rule 1.2.2 is meant solely as advice for people building a court that should be clearly indicated and the related question is a poor choice to include on a test for new officials.

2. I understand and agree with the rationale for ensuring 3 feet of space for the thrower in. However shall vs. may is a big deal. Frequently the rule book uses shall to mean what shall means -- a requirement not an option.

2 of many, many examples:

9-2-5 The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court.
9-2-6 The thrown ball shall not touch the thrower in the court before it touches or is touched by another player.

Is bktBallRef suggesting that the we should choose when shall means required in the rule book rather than the rule book being consistent? Language counts. It particularly counts for new officials taking a certification test.

3. This is one of too many certification questions that raise more of a question of semantics than rule. But test takers and instructors still need to deal with it as it is.

[mbyron]

Sorry wanja, I still agree with BktBallRef: there's nothing wrong with the rule.

Also: don't assume that you're supposed to get 100% on the test. "Ambiguous, misleading, or poorly worded questions are par for the course." You're supposed to miss questions so that you'll stick your nose in the book and whine about how poorly worded the rules and test questions are.

You'll get over it eventually, and by then you'll know the rules pretty well.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by wanja

Is bktBallRef suggesting that the we should choose when shall means required in the rule book rather than the rule book being consistent? Language counts. It particularly counts for new officials taking a certification test.

I'm suggesting that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. I've never gotten an NFHS question worng because the book used "shall" and the exam used "may" or vis versa. Get over it, move on.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Ambiguous, misleading, or poorly worded questions are par for the course. You're supposed to miss questions so that you'll stick your nose in the book and whine about how poorly worded the rules and test questions are. You'll get over it eventually, and by then you'll know the rules pretty well.

Amen. It still pisses me off, but, Amen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I officiate a few Catholic middle games each season in a gym that looks more like a bowling alley than a basketball court. It has restraining lines running parallel to both sidelines. According to the question as stated by wanja, and to BktBallRef's post, a player dribbling near the sideline who touches the restraining line would be out of bounds since, according to wanja's posted question, the "restraining line may be used as a boundary line". Sorry, I'm not calling that out of bounds. wanja's posted question, without any more information, like limiting the question to a throwin situation, as suggested by Camron Rust, is false.

BillyMac: Your posts are so insightful. And I can tell from your writing style that you're probably a pretty handsome guy. You bring up an important point. As pointed out by mbyron, in discussing poorly worded rules and test questions, we'll get to know the rules pretty well. May we discuss this further? Like BillyMac, I also believe that the answer should be false.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

BillyMac: Your posts are so insightful. And I can tell from your writing style that you're probably a pretty handsome guy. You bring up an important point. As pointed out by mbyron, in discussing poorly worded rules and test questions, we'll get to know the rules pretty well. May we discuss this further? Like BillyMac, I also believe that the answer should be false.

Billy, it's just that all of us average people tend to ignore all the good-looking, intellegent ones.

If you look at the complete reading of 1-2-2, it says, "...This restraining line becomes the boundary line during a throw-in on that side or end, as in 7-6. It continues to be the boundary until the ball crosses the line." So, whether there's an actual, painted line on the court, or the official determines the imaginary line, it is only in effect during a throw-in, and ceases to exist once the ball crosses the line on the throw-in. It is only in effect for that side or end of the court, so any restraining lines on the sides are not in effect for a throw-in along the endline. Also, the restraining line extends the entire length of that particular sideline or endline, so all throw-in restrictions of players on the court are included. In your example of a player already in bounds, dribbling across that line, there really is no line there, according to the rules.

I believe the use of the word "may" in question 9 is because it is still the official's judgement as to whether to impose the restraining line during the throw-in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you look at the complete reading of 1-2-2, it says, "This restraining line becomes the boundary line during a throw-in on that side or end, as in 7-6. It continues to be the boundary until the ball crosses the line." So, whether there's an actual, painted line on the court, or the official determines the imaginary line, it is only in effect during a throw-in, and ceases to exist once the ball crosses the line on the throw-in. It is only in effect for that side or end of the court, so any restraining lines on the sides are not in effect for a throw-in along the endline. Also, the restraining line extends the entire length of that particular sideline or endline, so all throw-in restrictions of players on the court are included. In your example of a player already in bounds, dribbling across that line, there really is no line there, according to the rules. I believe the use of the word "may" in question 9 is because it is still the official's judgment as to whether to impose the restraining line during the throw-in.

M&M Guy: There aren't too many of us good looking guys left on this Forum, now that Chuck Elias, and Jurassic Referee have "left the building". Thanks for your great explanation, but unfortunately you're "preaching to the choir". I already know that this restraining line is used only during a throwin when space is limited behind the player making the throwin. The point that I was trying to make is that the original question simply says "A restraining line may be used as a boundary line when space is limited, and may extend the entire length or width of the court", and I don't believe that there's enough information in those twenty-five words to make the question true. With more information about a throwin about to take place, yes, it's probably true, but otherwise it's false.