NFHS Rule book error

[drofficial]

Fair enough. But could we all agree that asking officials to distinguish those 2 inches is a physical/visual impossibility. Thus, there is effectively one boundary-plane, not two?

Honestly, has anyone ever seen a play and said: the player crossed the inbounds side of the boudary line, but stopped short of crossing the out of bounds side.

[tref]

Originally Posted by drofficial

Fair enough. But could we all agree that asking officials to distinguish those 2 inches is a physical/visual impossibility. Thus, there is effectively one boundary-plane, not two?.

Absolutely not! If officials stay off the floor until the throw-in has ended, its quite easy.

Originally Posted by drofficial

Honestly, has anyone ever seen a play and said: the player crossed the inbounds side of the boudary line, but stopped short of crossing the out of bounds side.

No, but I have seen it the other way. During a throw-in the thrower may step on the line (crossed the OOB side of the boundary line) & not violate because they didnt cross the inbounds side.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drofficial

Fair enough. But could we all agree that asking officials to distinguish those 2 inches is a physical/visual impossibility. Thus, there is effectively one boundary-plane, not two?

Honestly, has anyone ever seen a play and said: the player crossed the inbounds side of the boundary line, but stopped short of crossing the out of bounds side.

Sure, it it'll make you feel better, we can agree with that. A 3" boundary line? Maybe not. None of that however still doesn't change the fact that there's not a damn thing the matter with the FED rules language cited above. As Snaqs pointed out, it nicely covers the varying width of all boundary lines that we might run into.

Paralysis through analysis.