NFHS Rule book error

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The boundary lines are supposed to be 2 inches wide. Iow, the boundary line has 2 sides...with one side touching in-bounds. And each side of the boundary line also has a plane, with the respective planes being 2" apart. The rule is telling you that a defender can't break the plane of the edge of the boundary line that is closest to in-bounds.

Actually, since a plane has no thickness, the "inbounds side" of the plane is technically neither inbounds nor OOB, as it is directly above the inside edge of the line, mentioned in 4-9-2, which defines 'inbounds' and 'out of bounds'.

Give the OP half a point. He doesn't get the other half till he agrees with JR's interp.

[Back In The Saddle]

I cannot think of any situation that involves the OOB plane of the OOB line. Only in the in-bounds plane matters. Therefore it is not important for an official to ever judge whether a player passed through the first but stopped short of the second.

You might could argue that the rule is worded poorly and some creative editing could make it clearer. But the meaning would remain the same...it's the plane on the in-bounds side that matters.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

You might could argue that the rule is worded poorly and some creative editing could make it more clear clearer.

Would this count as creative?

Did you know that English actually has a rule for comparatives? I had to figure it out once when some non-native speakers asked what the rule was.

[Back In The Saddle]

English has a rule about everything. And exceptions to each of those rules. And sometimes rules about the exceptions. And, of course, exceptions to those rules, as well.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

English has a rule about everything. And exceptions to each of those rules. And sometimes rules about the exceptions. And, of course, exceptions to those rules, as well.

You'd almost think it was created by a rules committee...

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You'd almost think it was created by a rules committee...

Formalizing English usage is, IMHO, nothing like the formal rulesmaking process. It's more like an informal Saturday pick up game at the park, where that one kid who never got picked tries to explain the rules, as best he can make them out, to the bystanders. This is how Billy Packer got started. In fact, it's astonishing how many sports commentators have English degrees.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Formalizing English usage is, IMHO, nothing like the formal rulesmaking process. It's more like an informal Saturday pick up game at the park, where that one kid who never got picked tries to explain the rules, as best he can make them out, to the bystanders. This is how Billy Packer got started. In fact, it's astonishing how many sports commentators have English degrees.

With Dizzy Dean being the first of the lot.

[kopan99]

The rule says "Plane" not "Line", so the width of the line is irrelevant. The "Inbounds" plane of the line and "out of bounds" plane of the line are the exact same plane, where both meet.

[johnsonboys03]

Wow my head is spinning!!! I never really even thought about all this. If a thow in is being taken place and the thrower steps on the line I never called a violation. But since he stepped across the Out of Bounds line but not over the In bounds line.......where is he?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

Wow my head is spinning!!! I never really even thought about all this. If a thow in is being taken place and the thrower steps on the line I never called a violation. But since he stepped across the Out of Bounds line but not over the In bounds line.......where is he?

He stepped "on" the OOB line, not across it. He's still OOB.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Actually, since a plane has no thickness, the "inbounds side" of the plane is technically neither inbounds nor OOB, as it is directly above the inside edge of the line, mentioned in 4-9-2, which defines 'inbounds' and 'out of bounds'.

Give the OP half a point. He doesn't get the other half till he agrees with JR's interp.

The verbage, "inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane" indicates the "inside" refers to the line and not the plane. Take away that half a point please.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The verbage, "inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane" indicates the "inside" refers to the line and not the plane. Take away that half a point please.

Sorry, -2 for you: 'verbiage' is misspelled, and a line can't have a side because it's one-dimensional. Only a plane can have a side.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Only a plane can have a side.

And if that's true, then there can't be any problem with the original rulz language, right? It mentions the side of the plane closest to in-bounds as being the point of illegal entry.

Or do we need a poll instead?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Sorry, -2 for you: 'verbiage' is misspelled, and a line can't have a side because it's one-dimensional. Only a plane can have a side.

-1, I'll accept the mark for "verbiage."
The line, however, is often two dimensional on a basketball court. Two inches is standard.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

-1, I'll accept the mark for "verbiage."
The line, however, is often two dimensional on a basketball court. Two inches is standard.

True of the painted line; 4-9-2 refers to the "edge" of the line, which is a line proper.