I'm always curious about this: can a school legally, intentionally get 2 officials in all their girls games while getting 3 for the boys games of the comparable level?

Let's be honest, there are some varsity girls games out here that really only need two, but they get three. The JV boys at these schools could not be reasonably worked with 2, however. Those schools get 3 for JV/V B and G.

I think this is the key phrase. What is reasonable? Some of us here can remember when the NBA used two officials. Were all the games up to this point "unreasonable"? Most things eventually come down to money, at least to some degree. If the schools think they can't afford it for both, some would probably cut back to 2 for the boys rather than go to 3 for the girls.

I don't think there is a simple answer to this. For example, if you have different budgets and different decision-makers deciding how to spend those budgets, it would be harder to criticize different choices as to the best place to spend the money. If it is the same decision-maker or same budget, a lot easier to infer gender bias and inequality as part of the decision.

Very strong case against the school. when you have both genders playing the same sport what you provide them with must be substantially similar. the dollars will always be close but they do not have to be the same. the experience, facilities etc must be equal. officials are integral to the game. there are many games, boys and girls, where we could get by with just 2. when you make the decision to hire 2 for all girls and 3 for all boys you are discriminating based on gender.


We have 3 officials on games because the thought is it makes the game better. the girls game might not be as athletic as the boys game at a school but 3 should make that particular game better. also, some of the most difficult games ive worked are when the athletes aren't as quick, strong or fast. attitudes..etc. any game, boys or girls, can be hard justifying 3. classifying the number of referees assigned just on gender wouldn't fly imo. the end..

It really depends on who is making the choice. If the girls programs have the opportunity to have 3 but choose to use their resources elsewhere (presumably each program is equally funded), then that is no longer an issue. Maybe the girls program would chose to spend that money by having a team camp for one more day or buying new uniforms. It isn't about having everything the same but having the choice to have it the same.

Actually, it is about sameness or equal experiences when you are talking about a sport that both genders play. The "who" you refer to making the choice is always the institution. The institution has the duty to make the experiences equal. The head of the girls program, when making decisions, is the institution. His or her actions are imputed to the institution. It is not enough for the institution to say we gave boys and girls programs same amount of money. Then walk away. The girls administrator chose inequality. Girls program made a "choice" --- 2 referees a game or chose every practice in the crap gym while boys got Taj Mahal. they can't choose inequality and get away with it. The entire institution works together to make sure there is gender equity.
It is not a defense to a player's claim of discrimination that the school gave the women's athletic department same amount of money and that the department made the choices.
If you look at the programs and you see an inequality that matters, 2 referees for all games or girls always practice in the dump, any affected player could raise the issue. And win..because it isn't equal.

Yep, and some of the smaller schools do. What is reasonable now can't be compared to what was reasonable in 1984, unless you're in the land that time forgot.