0 and 00

Freddy · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 11:27am

Clemson just given administrative T for having 0 in the book but player wearing 00.

Announcer stated that a team can have both 0 and 00 playing but 0 must be 0 in the book and 00 must be 00.

Interesting that NFHS does not allow that: "A team member list shall not have both numbers 0 and 00." (3-4-3d)

Is NCAA-M different? Or was the announcer wrong?

bob jenkins · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 12:04pm

From the NCAAM rules book:

2�
The following numbers are legal: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 00, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55� Team rosters can
include 0 or 00, but not both�

Nevadaref · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 12:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy

Clemson just given administrative T for having 0 in the book but player wearing 00.

Announcer stated that a team can have both 0 and 00 playing but 0 must be 0 in the book and 00 must be 00.

Interesting that NFHS does not allow that: "A team member list shall not have both numbers 0 and 00." (3-4-3d)

Is NCAA-M different? Or was the announcer wrong?

The announcer is incorrect. The rule is the same as for NFHS.

I gave this exact same technical foul about seven years ago. Kid was wearing 00, but was listed as 0. Those are different numbers/symbols used to identify players, just as 33 is not the same as 3.

Hugh Refner · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 02:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy

...Or was the announcer wrong?

Why did you put this statement in the form of a question? This isn't Jeopardy.

Rich · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 02:56pm

I'd chalk it up as a transcription error.

Since 0 and 00 can't play at the same time, where's the confusion?

Raymond · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 03:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd chalk it up as a transcription error.

Since 0 and 00 can't play at the same time, where's the confusion?

I think I'll start verifying it's correct whenever I see 0 or 00 in the book and save the headache.

Nevadaref · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 04:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think I'll start verifying it's correct whenever I see 0 or 00 in the book and save the headache.

It doesn't matter what's in the book, only what is on the roster that the team submitted to the official scorer.

Raymond · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It doesn't matter what's in the book, only what is on the roster that the team submitted to the official scorer.

Doesn't preclude me from verifying it's correctly input so I don't have to deal with it later. I prefer dealing with any book issues before the game, not during the game.

Sharpshooternes · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 05:59pm

So is it an administrative tech or a direct to the coach for an illegal uniform? What if both numbers are present can the coach avoid the tech by not playing one of them?

Freddy · #10 (**permalink**) Thu Nov 17, 2016, 10:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So is it an administrative tech or a direct to the coach for an illegal uniform? What if both numbers are present can the coach avoid the tech by not playing one of them?

The relevant rule then is 10-6-4: "The head coach shall not permit a tam member to participate while wearing an illegal uniform (see 3-4)".

Does that answer the above question? Or is there some other casebook or interpretation that steers us in a different direction?

bob jenkins · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 18, 2016, 07:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy

The relevant rule then is 10-6-4: "The head coach shall not permit a tam member to participate while wearing an illegal uniform (see 3-4)".

Does that answer the above question? Or is there some other casebook or interpretation that steers us in a different direction?

What part of the uniform was illegal? 0 is a legal number. Your cite would be relevant if the player was wearing 88, for example.

The relevant cite is "changing a number in the scorebook to match what the player is wearing." (or whatever the specific wording is)

Raymond · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 18, 2016, 08:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What part of the uniform was illegal? 0 is a legal number. Your cite would be relevant if the player was wearing 88, for example.

The relevant cite is "changing a number in the scorebook to match what the player is wearing." (or whatever the specific wording is)

Would we consider one of the jerseys illegal if there were players wearing 0 & 00?

Freddy · #13 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 18, 2016, 09:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What part of the uniform was illegal? 0 is a legal number. Your cite would be relevant if the player was wearing 88, for example.

Thanx Bob!

BigCat · #14 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 18, 2016, 09:42am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Would we consider one of the jerseys illegal if there were players wearing 0 & 00?

The rule says the team member LIST shall not contain 0 and 00. So i would say we are removing the number from the list in the book and go administrative as opposed to a direct T for illegal uniform. have to think more about it.

ronny mulkey · #15 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 18, 2016, 09:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd chalk it up as a transcription error.

Since 0 and 00 can't play at the same time, where's the confusion?

I know this has been discussed on here before and it all came back to a NFHS interpretation that is posted on this website from the year 2008. It seems to indicate that they could play at the same time and the penalty would be for illegal uniform. At least, in NFHS.