2.3 Referees Authority

[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.

[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.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I 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.

Game management is to "ignore" the touching? Fine,if it is simply a dribbler's foot touching the foot of a sitting player. Now, what if the ball hits a bench player whose foot is "on the court" and rolls away, where a defender picks it up and goes in for a layup? Ignore that too? No. I think the authority to blow the whistle and return the ball to the offense is covered by 2-3.

Further, the "restraining line" rule requires a dotted line to be on the floor. It's not going to happen in this gym. And I am not going to refuse to ref. You can call this "ignoring" a rule. I prefer to say that I am using my authority under 2-3 to make decisions not covered by the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Game management is to "ignore" the touching?

Yup, you can't use 2-3, because it's covered by the rules.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Fine,if it is simply a dribbler's foot touching the foot of a sitting player. Now, what if the ball hits a bench player whose foot is "on the court" and rolls away, where a defender picks it up and goes in for a layup? Ignore that too? No. I think the authority to blow the whistle and return the ball to the offense is covered by 2-3.

This might just be a 2-3 event.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Further, the "restraining line" rule requires a dotted line to be on the floor. It's not going to happen in this gym. And I am not going to refuse to ref. You can call this "ignoring" a rule. I prefer to say that I am using my authority under 2-3 to make decisions not covered by the rules.

While the rules for court markings require a restraining line in small gyms, they also make a specific allowance for the official to create an imaginary one in the absence of a dotted line. This is not a 2-3 situation.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I agree with JR. That said, I think your example of the ball hitting a player on teh bench (in the small gym example) might be a valid use of 2-3 (otr maybe it's just game management).

Wasn't there some NBA or NCAA game last year where a sub on his way from the bench to the table somehow got involved with the play? I think the officials just gave the ball back to the offense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That said, I think your example of the ball hitting a player on the bench (in the small gym example) might be a valid use of 2-3 (or maybe it's just game management).

Could be either really, I guess.

Or maybe the case where a player came off the bench to block a shot? Covered now but wasn't before.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I get it from the Rules.

1-2-2: "If...there is less than 3 feet of unobstructed space outside any sideline or end line, a narrow broken line shall be marked on the court parallel with and 3 feet inside that boundary. This restraining line becomes the boundary line during a throw in ...."

I don't make this stuff up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I get it from the Rules.

1-2-2: "If...there is less than 3 feet of unobstructed space outside any sideline or end line, a narrow broken line shall be marked on the court parallel with and 3 feet inside that boundary. This restraining line becomes the boundary line during a throw in ...."

I don't make this stuff up.

See rule 7-6-4NOTE. I didn't make that up either.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Ah, yes, my favorite metaphysical rule.