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... ;)

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.

-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.

Anybody Need The Pythagorean Theorem ???
 

When did this change into the "Geometry Forum"?

The throw-in boundary line is the painted line. The restricted plane is the inbounds side of that painted boundary-line.

A Squared plus B squared equals C squared
 

Don't make me say it, Billy.

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.

The rule says both. :rolleyes:

Thats rignt, but "Boundary-Line" is refering to which plane.

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.

Ok so the moral of the story is that the inbound side of the line no matter the width is what matters...

It refers to the painted line, recommended to be 2 inches but sometimes larger. Sometimes it's nonexistent, in which case the plane on the out of bounds side of the boundary line is co-located with the plane on the inbounds side of the boundary line.

Ok I understand... thanks

LOL

That's just the way I read it. I'm just bored.

Ha me too. Thats why I'm talking to you all at 12:22AM LOL. You guys are very helpful to me though. This is only my second season as an official (I coached for ten years).

Welcome to the dark side. :D

that's what everyone tells me. The funny thing is I was a very verbal coach and recieved my share of Technical fouls especially early in my coaching career. When I came to the first officials rules interpretation meeting they raised there hands for everyone who had "T'd" me up....The only ones that didn't were the three new guys lol.