2.3 Referees Authority

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Cover it with the same detail you'll cover "multiple fouls" -- that is, it's in the rulebook, but you should never use it. Then, quickly go on to something productive.

We have a winner!

Why waste time on something that might never be needed? I've never used R2-3 or seen it used- going back to 1959. Spend time on things that actually occur, not third world plays.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by wanja

Since we go over every rule for testing purposes it will be hard to avoid totally.

I can't remember ever seeing a question on an NFHS exam based on R2-3.

Just saying.....

[Old School]

Here's the real definition of rule 2-3, in laymen terms. Rule 2-3 is only to be used when all other avenues have been exhausted, and even then, use with discretion. Emphasize, use with discretion over and over when discussing whether to use this rule or not, especially if there are a lot of new or inexpereinced officials at the meeting. The referee can not think of any other resolution from the rules that covers the unique situation, and in an attempt to keep the game moving. Invoke this rule and keep going.

Possibly the biggest thing to the use of this rule is to "NEVER" tell a coach you are using rule 2-3. Never say rule 2-3 gives me the authoirty to do this. That's dangerous because most situations are in fact covered by the rules and if you are wrong, you are in even more trouble. IOW's, you just kicked the call if you're wrong. If you told the coach R2-3 gives you the right, then not only did you kick the call, you also kick the use of R2-3. That's two mistakes, get it! Again, be very careful with the use of this rule.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I've never used R2-3 or seen it used- going back to 1959.

Just curious: would that be CE?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Just curious: would that be CE?

Nope. AD.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can disagree all that you want, but it won't change the fact that 2-3 is for "points not specifically covered in the rules."

While what you did may have been intelligent and in the best interests of that game, it does not mean that your decision to overlook the illegal jerseys was an application of 2-3. It would be poor for wanja to give this as an example to his study class.

PS I have never claimed to be "from the NF" nor do I desire to make anyone think that I am. I don't know where you come up with these prevarications.

Nothing in the rules covers situations like a fire or income situations that might affect the actual application of rules or how to alleviate. Or what do you do when the court does not fit the specific rules as written. Do you cancel the game? Do you play? Do you consider a different line as the out of bounds line or division line. I played a year at a Missouri Private School and our court was not regulation and we still played the games. I am not giving Ts to prove I know a rule when circumstances might be unavoidable even if the rule is in conflict.

I think the problem Nevada you need to get out of the desert and get around to many different situations that are not packaged in a perfect little book.

Peace

[Adam]

Jeff,
Nevada's not saying you should have called the Ts. He's saying that giving the leeway there just isn't an application of 2-3 even though it's smart officiating.
Sorta like not calling every travel you see in the 7th grade C game. It may be smart game management, but it's not really an application of 2-3.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Just curious: would that be CE?

Shut up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nope. AD.

You too.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Jeff,
Nevada's not saying you should have called the Ts. He's saying that giving the leeway there just isn't an application of 2-3 even though it's smart officiating. Sorta like not calling every travel you see in the 7th grade C game. It may be smart game management, but it's not really an application of 2-3.

Good, then we disagree. The last time I checked, I do not put must stock in what Nevada thinks. Life will go on.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Good, then we disagree. The last time I checked, I do not put must stock in what Nevada thinks. Life will go on.

Peace

Ah, come on, Jeff. You're only disagreeing on semantics. But hey, if it makes you feel better.

[BayStateRef]

I have worked in a Christian school where the "gym" is a multi-purpose room with baskets and court markings. On the side of the benches (actually folding chairs), it is impossible for a player to sit on a chair and be off the court. So...if a player, dribbling, touches a player "out of bounds" do you call a violation? Or impose 2-3. Similar...if a ball goes out of bound at the bench location, it is literally impossible for the player to stand OOB for a throw-in. Again...you must impose 2-3. If you bring the ball to another "legal" throw-in spot (where the player can actually stand OOB), then you are ignoring the rule that says the ball must be put in play at the spot nearest to where it went OOB. There are other peculiarities caused by this gym...all of which require 2-3 for a fair game to be played.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I have worked in a Christian school where the "gym" is a multi-purpose room with baskets and court markings. On the side of the benches (actually folding chairs), it is impossible for a player to sit on a chair and be off the court. So...if a player, dribbling, touches a player "out of bounds" do you call a violation? Or impose 2-3. Similar...if a ball goes out of bound at the bench location, it is literally impossible for the player to stand OOB for a throw-in. Again...you must impose 2-3. If you bring the ball to another "legal" throw-in spot (where the player can actually stand OOB), then you are ignoring the rule that says the ball must be put in play at the spot nearest to where it went OOB. There are other peculiarities caused by this gym...all of which require 2-3 for a fair game to be played.

I don't know that these are 2-3 situations. Maybe the last one. However, the one in red is simply game management, ignoring a rule already in place. 2-3 says it only covers situations not covered by the rules.
The one in blue is covered by the rules as well, under "restraining lines."
Again, these are both covered by rules, but sometimes good game management dictates you might overlook a few things or ignore the rules for the spot of the throwin.
2-3 is rarely invoked, IMO.

BTW, I've worked Christian and public schools with these gym problems. One was even a large school in the 2nd gym.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

BTW, I've worked Christian and public schools with these gym problems. One was even a large school in the 2nd gym.

Private schools are usually smaller than the average public school. If a public school is smaller is usually because the town or district is small.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Private schools are usually smaller than the average public school. If a public school is smaller is usually because the town or district is small.

Peace

yup. I've seen more private than public with these problems, to be sure.