The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 10:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
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??
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 10:21am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
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.

Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 10:25am.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 10:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 10:41am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by drofficial View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 10:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 11:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by drofficial View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by drofficial View Post
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.
__________________
I gotta new attitude!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 12:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 01:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Send a message via AIM to Back In The Saddle Send a message via MSN to Back In The Saddle Send a message via Yahoo to 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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming

Last edited by Back In The Saddle; Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 02:02pm. Reason: Penance for my grammatical misdeeds
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 01:19pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by drofficial View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 01:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 01:36pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 01:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 01:48pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 02:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Send a message via AIM to Back In The Saddle Send a message via MSN to Back In The Saddle Send a message via Yahoo to 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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 30, 2010, 02:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle View Post
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...
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFHS 2009 - Rule / Book ukumpire Softball 14 Fri Apr 24, 2009 02:29pm
Is NFHS Case Book Play 2.10.1 Sit. G(d) (re: corr. error situation) really an error? rpirtle Basketball 3 Wed Dec 24, 2008 03:25pm
NFHS Online Rule Book Kajun Ref N Texas Basketball 2 Wed Feb 08, 2006 02:14am
Does anybody have a NFHS Rule book buddha69 Softball 1 Mon Sep 27, 2004 08:05am
NFHS Rule Book whiskers_ump Softball 2 Wed Nov 14, 2001 09:00pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1