Step on Line -- Legal or Illegal?

[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....

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

I'd be very pleased to see something in black and white on this, Bob.
From where do you derive your information?

[Nevadaref]

BTW this paragraph is relevant to the discussion in this thread.

SUPPLEMENT TO COURT DIAGRAM
Court Specifications:
...

3. Instead of the 2-inch minimum boundaries, it is legal to use contrastingcolored
floor areas by painting the out-of-bounds area, the center restraining
circle, and the restricted parts of the free-throw lanes so that the
mathematical line between the two colors is the boundary. If such contrasting
colored out-of-bounds belt is used, it should be at least 8 inches wide.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'd be very pleased to see something in black and white on this, Bob.
From where do you derive your information?

Common sense.

The rulesmakers have to give us 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.

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).

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Why thank you Nevada, I appreciate your magnanimity ...