What's The Correct Call ???

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Rule 2-3 is there for situations that are not covered by the rules. So you're going to call a violation that you acknowledge is not a violation by rule?????

Absolutely 100% not true. Rule 2-3 may be used for other situations that arise during a game. But it should NOT be used to penalize actions which are not listed as illegal. (I'm including actions that fall under the catch-all "including, but not limited to. . .", even if they aren't specifically listed.) In fact, I was looking through old threads a while ago and found a discussion where I think 2-3 might legitimately apply. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the thread was now. But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.

+1

To put the point differently: rule 2-3 concerns situations not covered by the rules. All violations are defined by the rules, so one would never have occasion to call a violation using 2-3.

[jearef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Absolutely 100% not true. Rule 2-3 may be used for other situations that arise during a game. But it should NOT be used to penalize actions which are not listed as illegal. (I'm including actions that fall under the catch-all "including, but not limited to. . .", even if they aren't specifically listed.) In fact, I was looking through old threads a while ago and found a discussion where I think 2-3 might legitimately apply. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the thread was now. But I would never invoke 2-3 to call a violation that is not included in Rule 9.

Gosh, I've been wrong before, but "absolutely, 100%" wrong?

The point I was trying to make (and perhaps not doing a very good job of making) was this: Rule 2-3 very clearly provides that it is intended to allow us to deal with things that are not "specifically covered" by the rules. Your argument, as I understood it, is that I shouldn't use 2-3 in this circumstance, because it isn't covered in the rules. I believe that is exactly the situation where 2-3 should be, and was intended to be used.

Some would argue that violations are covered by the rules, and since this action isn't covered as a violation, it has to be legal and thus 2-3 isn't appropriate. I think that statement is way too broad. If we accept as correct the argument that says "if you can't explain why it's illegal, then it has to be legal", then 2-3 has no purpose, or at least none that I can see. If, on the other hand, we accept that the rules makers envisioned certain situations would arise which, although not specifically covered by the rules, would allow a player to gain an unfair advantage, then 2-3 becomes a useful tool.

I agree that the sitch is not traveling as the rule is written; nor is it double dribble as the rule is written. It just seems to me that the player here was attempting to gain an advantage not intended by the rules. I recognize that most here disagree, and I respect their opinions. You gotta love any play situation that gets us into the real nitty-gritty of the rules.