Step on Line -- Legal or Illegal?

[Nevadaref]

9-1-3-e: The free thrower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket or the freethrow semicircle line.

The key for me is the word "beyond." Standing ON the semicircle is not placing a foot beyond it. The rule clearly states that for the FT line the farther edge from the basket is the edge which a foot may not be beyond.

JR and I disagree about which edge of the 2" wide FT semicircle restricts the thrower. I believe that it is the same edge which restricts the players not in marked lane spaces along the FT lane. So the thrower gets the arc, but the players outside of the 3pt area do not. The latter is point which JR mentions. Note what is the mathematical line of demarcation here. It is the outermost edge or the arc. There is no neutral zone between the FT shooter and the players outside of the 3pt area provided for in the rules.

Also, if one consults the court diagram in the front of the rules book, one can see that the apex of the 3pt arc is exactly 25 feet from the end line and has a radius of six feet as measured from a point at the center of the FT line which is farther from the end line. The farther edge of FT line is 19 feet from the end line and 15 feet from the plane of the backboard.

In order to give the FT shooter his full six feet of space one has to give him the arc. To not do so would be to only allow him five feet and ten inches of vertical depth.

[bob jenkins]

I think there are some courts where the entire semicircle is one color -- and it extends to the three point arc.

So, similar to the OOB "line" being one color all the way to the wall, I think the shooter can stand on the semi-circle line.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think there are some courts where the entire semicircle is one color -- and it extends to the three point arc.

So, similar to the OOB "line" being one color all the way to the wall, I think the shooter can stand on the semi-circle line.

Great point, Bob.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In order to give the FT shooter his full six feet of space one has to give him the arc. To not do so would be to only allow him five feet and ten inches of vertical depth.

Where does anything say he is entitled to six feet?

And why would he possibly need it?

And has anyone ever seen this violation?

And if so, I bet a million dollars the shooter stepped over the line anyway, not just on it, so it really doesn't matter.

[Camron Rust]

The semi-circle is defined as being a 6-foot radius....not a 5'10" radius as would be measured if you measured to the inside edge of what is painted on most floors. The thickness of the semi-circle marking is entirely within the semi-circle....just as the FT lane lines are within the lane. The FT line is also within the lane. It is the outside edge of all the lane-related stripes that define the respective areas. The FT shooter can step on the semi-circle but not outside of it.

And as Bob said, sometimes the entire semi-circle is painted. For those that assert that the line is outside of the legal area for the free thrower, where will the free thrower stand?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9-1-3-e: The free thrower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge of the free-throw line which is farther from the basket

JR and I disagree about which edge of the 2" wide FT semicircle restricts the thrower.

As written above, from this part of the rule the FT shooter can't legally step on the FT line. To my thinking, to be consistent rules-wise the same logic should also apply to the other boundary lines(if present) surrounding the FT shooter.

There is a gray(grey?) area imo. However, in real life I have seen FT shooters step on the free-throw line but I have never seen or heard of a FT shooter being called for just stepping on the semicircle line. Soooooo, I don't think it's really a biggie, one way or another.

And also note that if Nevada wants to declare himself the winner and do a victory lap, that's OK with me too. I'd still disagree with him but it's always fun to watch.

[Juulie Downs]

Okay, after chewing on this for a while, here's how it comes down for me.

All straight lines are parts of the areas they define. All curved lines aren't.

However, if we call the 19-foot arc a 2-point line, instead of a 3-point line...

All lines except the semi-circle line are parts of the areas they define.

But if the arc is as above AND if Nevada's right about the semi-circle and its line...

All lines are parts of the areas we define.

We're really getting somewhere! (In case anyone cares!)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Okay, after chewing on this for a while, here's how it comes down for me.

All straight lines are parts of the areas they define. All curved lines aren't.

However, if we call the 19-foot arc a 2-point line, instead of a 3-point line...

All lines except the semi-circle line are parts of the areas they define.

But if the arc is as above AND if Nevada's right about the semi-circle and its line...

All lines are parts of the areas we define.

We're really getting somewhere! (In case anyone cares!)

Try it a different way....

The OOB lines are OOB. All other markings are part of the area they enclose.

Works for lane lines, FT line, semi-circle, 3-point arc, center circle, and division line (as long as you view it as enclosing the backcourt).


And, yes, Nevada is right. All of the inbounds markings/areas on the court are measured to their outside edge (except the division line which really has no outside/inside edge).

RULE 2 SECTION 6 FREE-THROW LINE

A free-throw line, 2 inches wide, shall be drawn across both circles, which have an outside radius of 6 feet as shown on the appended court diagram. It shall be parallel to the end line and shall have its farthest edge 15 feet from the plane of the face of the backboard.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Try it a different way....

The OOB lines are OOB. All other markings are part of the area they enclose.

How is that different from what I said? Except yours is more complicated.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

How is that different from what I said? Except yours is more complicated.

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.

[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 Juulie Downs

All lines are parts of the areas we define.

We're really getting somewhere! (In case anyone cares!)

Glad that you are now being able to formulate what you desired from this thread. It now looks as if you will end up with a simple phrase to help you understand and communicate to others the areas of the court as defined by the lines.

Think of the 3pt line as defining the two point area, if it helps you.

I also found another parallel to the FT semicircle which might help convince you of my position there. Look at 6-3-1 which requires each jumper to have both feet within his half of the center restraining circle for the jump ball. Now consider 1-3-1 which defines the center circle, and think if you would allow a jumper to position himself with his heels on the arc, but not beyond it.

What if the entire center circle was one solid color with the division line passing through it?

I truly hope that this thread has been helpful to you and that you have learned something useful from it. After all that's why we post here.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I also found another parallel to the FT semicircle which might help convince you of my position there. Look at 6-3-1 which requires each jumper to have both feet within his half of the center restraining circle for the jump ball. Now consider 1-3-1 which defines the center circle, and think if you would allow a jumper to position himself with his heels on the arc, but not beyond it.

Can the jumper have his foot on the division line?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Can the jumper have his foot on the division line?

Excellent question. Not one which I can answer clearly right now. I'll have to do some research and see if there is anything in my files.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Excellent question. Not one which I can answer clearly right now. I'll have to do some research and see if there is anything in my files.

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.

I think not. By definition, the division line is "in the other half" for both jumpers.