Referee Magazine - November 2006

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

In the NASO Edition of Referee Magazine, page N14, the "Disqualified Player" situation. Is it just me, or is the Ruling incorrect?

There is a specific version of RM for NASO members? I didn't know that.
Is it different from the normal subscriber's version? It must be since I can't find the play ruling that you mention in my copy. I wonder if the two versions are VASTLY different.

Anyway, you are correct that the play is goofed up and the ruling is incorrect.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is a specific version of RM for NASO members? I didn't know that.
Is it different from the normal subscriber's version? It must be since I can't find the play ruling that you mention in my copy. I wonder if the two versions are VASTLY different.

Anyway, you are correct that the play is goofed up and the ruling is incorrect.

I've not subscribed to it recently but when I did it has extra pages in the middle in the NASO version. They were a different color and easily identifiable. The rest of the magazine was the same.

[ref18]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is a specific version of RM for NASO members? I didn't know that.
Is it different from the normal subscriber's version? It must be since I can't find the play ruling that you mention in my copy. I wonder if the two versions are VASTLY different.

Anyway, you are correct that the play is goofed up and the ruling is incorrect.

Back when I subscribed, for 2 months of the year they sent us the NASO edition as a trial. The only advantage that NASO has is the insurance. I didn't find the NASO inset useful.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ref18

I didn't find the NASO inset useful.

How could you, if it provides rulings such as stated by Tanner, which are two years out of date?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How could you, if it provides rulings such as stated by Tanner, which are two years out of date?

A lot of the articles that appear in the NASO inserts are archived articles from old (sometimes very old) Referee magazines.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by ref18

Back when I subscribed, for 2 months of the year they sent us the NASO edition as a trial. The only advantage that NASO has is the insurance. I didn't find the NASO inset useful.

I usually don't get the NASO edition. As ref18 stated, they do these trial runs and that why I got it.

But yeah, they weren't even close on the ruling... wow!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I usually don't get the NASO edition. As ref18 stated, they do these trial runs and that why I got it.

But yeah, they weren't even close on the ruling... wow!

That might explain it. They may have just been sending you an old example of what the NASO insert looks like. Those could have been leftovers from prior issues a couple of years ago.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That might explain it. They may have just been sending you an old example of what the NASO insert looks like. Those could have been leftovers from prior issues a couple of years ago.

Hmm, I don't know. It'd seem like a lot of extra work. Plus the very first page (N1) says "November 2006 Report." Looks like they just really messed it up.

[Nevadaref]

Ok, now I'm reduced to surmising that they prepared this play ruling a while back and just got around to using it now, but failed to check it against recent rule changes.

However the goof occurred, it is very sloppy on the editor's part.