Step on Line -- Legal or Illegal?
 

In the thread about defining the backcourt violation, Jurassic said:

This is a great description, and very helpful.

I'm wondering if there's an equally simple, elegant way to describe all the different line violations. The boundary lines are all out of bounds, so if a person is throwing in, it's legal to step on the line, but the lines around the top of the key, where the shooter stands, are all not okay. Free throw lane lines are not okay to step on, during the free throw, stepping on the 3-point line makes a shot a 2-point shot. So basically all lines are like oob, except that the division line is legal if you're still in backcourt. To me, it's confusing. Anyone help here?

Juulie,

Think of those courts that instead of lines have different color paint. When you go into a new paint color, it is not good. i.e., on 3 point attempt, if foot touches different paint color it is a 2 point attempt. On the side and end lines a different paint color means a change of status from inbounds to out of bounds or vice versa.

The lines are boundaries, and they are not part of the court area they define. The OOB lines are not part of the court. The lane lines are not part of the lane. The division line is not part of the frontcourt.

I disagree on the lane lines. If you touch the lane line on a FT before it hits the rim, it is a violation.

It's confusing because you're looking at whether it's "okay" to step on it or not, which is the wrong mantra.

That's terrible! :)

The boundary lines are always OOB.

The lane lines are always part of the lane.

The division line is always part of the backcourt.

The 3 point arc is always part of the two point area.

Some courts don't have lines, they have merely a paint color change. Others have lines that are 6 feet deep. Thoughts?

When I was first taught the rules in my initial officiating class, the instructor stated that if a player is touching any line on the court, the player is within the area defined by that line.

For example, if a player is touching a boundary line the player is OOB.
If a player is touching a lane line, the player is within the FT lane.
If a player is touching the 3pt arc, the player is inside the 3pt area.
If a player is touching the division line that player is within the backcourt.
Touching the FT semi-circle puts the player within the area allowed for the free-thrower.

Perhaps someone can phrase it more smoothly in a single sentence, but that is the gist of it.

Correct.

addict,
The ONLY points on the OOB line that are relevant are the points that touch the court. In other words, even though the line is somewhere between 2 inches and 6 feet (or more) wide, only the razor thin line that defines the court matter.

Therefore, as long as said player's foot does not go completely through the line and make contact with the court, there is no violation. Touching the line is no different than touching the area behind the line as all of these areas are out of bounds.

Huh? So a free thrower can be on the line, but not over, as in OOB? That's not my understanding!

I said the semi-circle, Juulie, not the FT line.

The 6-ft radius semi-circle is part of the area in which the free-thrower may legally be. The FT line is part of the FT lane and not within the semi-circle, which has the farther edge of the FT line from the end line as its diameter.

I know what the FT line is, Nevada. I thought the semi-circle was also illegal for the shooter to step on.

But that just emphasizes my point. The shooter can step on the line (but not over the line) going backward, or sideways, but not forward. How to explain THAT to a coach?!?

It's not. The FT must be attempted from WITHIN the semi-circle. Now consider exactly what constitutes the mathematical line of the semi-circle? It's the outermost edge, right? That's what it says on the court diagram in the front of the rules book. So the whole of the curved line marking this on the floor lies within the FT semi-circle.
The two following rules state from where the FT must be attempted and define the foot placement of the thrower. Admittedly, the second one could be written more clearly, but it does say BEYOND ... the free-throw semicircle line is illegal, not on it.
9-1-1 . . . The try shall be attempted from within the free-throw semicircle and behind the free-throw line.
9-1-3e. 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 free-throw semicircle line.


The best way to explain this to a coach would vary, but I would suggest that one start by asking the coach if the kid is positioned inside or outside of the 3pt area when his heels are on the semi-circle.
Then ask him if the kid is within the FT lane when standing with his toes on the FT line.

Sometimes you get a mix.....we have a significant number of courts in our area that have a 2 inch line, a small gap and a wide painted area outside that. The court boundary is the inside edge of the 2 inch line.

Think of the line as defining a restricted area that includes the line. A violation occurs when a player enters or leaves a restricted area when they aren't supposed to by rule.

For example, the lane is a restricted area for everyone during a FT and for the offensive team when they have team control in their front court.

Likewise, out of bounds is an area that all players are restricted from intentionally entering when the ball is live, and which a player making a throw-in is restricted from leaving until they release the ball on throw-in pass.

The edge of the line is always the edge closest to the non-restricted area on the court. Why - common sense...it's easier to see when determining if a violation has occurred.

From the time that the ball is at the disposal of a free-thrower until the free throw restrictions end, no player may legally step on the the 3-point line or on any line within the 3-point line.

I think that defines all free throw violations concerning the lines.

He Said Sarcastically ...
 

Of course not, Larry bird did it over 5000 times and was never called for a single violation. But, of course, he was Larry Bird.

Semicircle ???
 

Nevaderef: Are you 100% sure about this? I would never call it a violation in a "real" game if the free throw shooter momentarily placed the back of his hell on, but not over, the semicircle, but, in theory, I would like to know the correct interpretation in case this ever shows up on an IAABO refresher exam. These refresher exams are known for to have weird situations, and picky questions.

NFHS rule 9-1-3(e).

"What's it gonna be boy? I gotta know right now!!!" (Meatloaf)
 

Jurassic Referee: Thanks. I couldn't find 9-1-7, but while looking for it, I came up with this:

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 free thrower shall not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the edge the freethrow semicircle line. Which edge? I've always treated it like a boundary line, the "inner" edge being "out". Nevaderef, I believe, says to use the "outer" edge in regard to this rule.

Which edge? And again, this is only for theoretical purposes.

Players can stand on the 3 feet deep "lines". Where the line ends and the court starts, the FINE LINE that separates it, that's where the player cannot step over. on a standard 3 inch line they are allowed to step on the line. The line makes them out of bounds if they were dribbling the ball on the court, so it still has them out of bounds if stepped on during a throw-in. Makes better sense?

1) Changed-used handy old rule book for cite instead of latest one. Handy old rulebook has now been thrown back into the drawer from whence it came.

2) If you take out the part in red which refers to one situation, it leaves the other situation of the two detailed in 9-1-3e(as written right below that in blue). Note that in the red-highlighted situation, they say that the FT shooter can't step on the closest edge of the FT line to him/her. It stands to reason that they also meant that the same criteria should apply to the semicircle line as the free throw line-i.e. the FT shooter can't step on the closest edge of the semicircle line to him. And afaik, that's the way it has always been interpreted and called.

So are you saying that Nevada is wrong when he says shooter CAN step on semi-circle line? I mean, are you saying it's ILLEGAL to step on the semi-circle line? I'm so confused...

Yes.

And There Aren't Any Monkeys Flying Out Out Of My *** ...
 

Nevaderef is wrong? Let me look out the window. No, I don't see any pigs flying by.

http://thm-a02.yimg.com/nimage/6ee544805f7e9120

:rolleyes:

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.

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. :)

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.

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?

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. :D

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).


<DL>RULE 2 SECTION 6 FREE-THROW LINE <DD>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. </DD></DL>

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.

Can the jumper have his foot on the division line?

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

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

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.

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.

I actually wrote that with sincerity in an attempt to be polite and helpful despite your recent behavior towards me to the contrary.

In particular, I would identify your recent sardonic post (#24 in this thread).

You might wish to reflect upon why you write such things simply because we disagree on a few points of the rules.

Have a nice day. :)

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?

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.

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).

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....

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

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.

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.