Step on Line -- Legal or Illegal?

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Mine is more complicated?

Seriously, yours are ambiguous at best..."areas we/they define"???

We define inbounds and out-of-bounds. Does the boundary line define inbounds or out-of-bounds?

We define a a 3-point area line. You have to rename the 3-point line to get yours to work. So, isn't it not really part of the area that it defines?

"Enclosed" is entirely unabiguous and doesn't require the renaming of lines.

Okay, how about "delineate"? All lines are parts of the areas they delineate. (Thinking all the time that the arc defines the 2-pt area)

.... which actually might be a better way to think about it -- "All shots are 3 points unless they are from within the delineated 2-pt area". Just an intellectual game really, I suppose....

.... I know, Jurassic, I think too much....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Common sense.

The rulesmakers have to give something half-way definitive to allow us to make a judgment. Making us try to guess whether a jumper's toe went more than half-way over a division line or not doesn't really make much sense from either the rulesmakers or rules callers side imo. We have enough to do out there without having to make stoopid decisions like that.

As you can see from what I wrote in one of my prior posts, I happen to agree with that reasoning.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

By 6-3-1 it appears that each jumper would be entitled to half of the division line, but that is a difficult way to make judgments.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And from a rules standpoint:
1) Rule 1-3-2 says that the division line divides the court into two equal parts.
2) Rule 6-3-1 says that the jumpers have to stay in their half of the circle(iow in their equal part).

1. Absolutely true, but those equal parts do not equate to half of the length of the court as each side would be one inch short.
2. The problem is that their equal part of the circle on each side of the division line does not equate to half of the circle as the rule stipulates.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Okay, how about "delineate"? All lines are parts of the areas they delineate. (Thinking all the time that the arc defines the 2-pt area)

Delineate is no better than "define" as you have to differentiate between which side of the line is being delineated/defined before it can be understood. Enclose, contain, encompass, etc. all work much better as they all imply an area that is part of the greater area and do not require further defintions (of what areas the lines delineate) to know the meaning.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Delineate is no better than "define" as you have to differentiate between which side of the line is being delineated/defined before it can be understood. Enclose, contain, encompass, etc. all work much better as they all imply an area that is part of the greater area and do not require further defintions (of what areas the lines delineate) to know the meaning.

Really? Hmmm... It doesn't feel that way to me, but I suppose I'd have to ask around to see how other people hear the words. I mean to me the out-of-bounds line delineates the out-of bounds area, so the line is part of the area it delineates. I don't need to know which edge of the painted line is the actual boundary, because the rule "Lines are part of the areas they delineate" tells me. You're saying you don't hear the words that way.

At least for myself, it gives me a quick reference in my mind, and when asked, I can use it as a beginning point for an explanation.