2.3 Referees Authority

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree. Then again you are not from the NF, but you want to make the rest of us think you are.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

1) So...if a player, dribbling, touches a player "out of bounds" do you call a violation? Or impose 2-3.

2)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. .

1) I hope that you don't do either. It isn't a violation. See NFHS rule 7-1-1 and case book play 7.1.1SitA. Rule 2-3 is for something that isn't covered by the rules. This one is.

2)Again, this is already covered under existing rules- R1-2-2. No need at all to make up a rule using R2-3. And I don't know whereintheheck you got the idea that there has to be a painted or marked "restraining line" on the court,as you stated in a previous post. Look up NFHS rule 7-6-4NOTE. That says that the administering official on a throw-in can impose an imaginary restraining line.

You're much better off to learn the existing rules before you start making up your own to replace them.