NFHS Rule book error
 

Rule 9-2-10 reads: "The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw in pass."

This clearly should say "his/her person through the OUT-OF-BOUNDS side of the throw-in buondary-line."

Or am I missing something??

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.

Interesting. But it is humanly impossible to distinguish those two inches in real time speed. Plus, it is not required for courts to have a 2 inch line. They can use contrasting colors instead, in which case there is only one single boundary-line. I personally still think it's an error. If not, it should be clarified.

Since it is not required, you should also note that some boundary lines are more than two inches. It's not an error, nor should it be clarified, as it is the plane that borders the actual in bounds area that cannot be crossed. I've seen boundary lines that are measured in feet rather than inches.

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.

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


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.

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. :D

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.

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.

Would this count as creative? :D

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.

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. :p

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?

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... ;)