Re: Re: Re: A symbolic discussion
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bgtg19

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef Quote: First, there's no such thing as 2.3. Second, the play has nothing to do with 2-3.... BktBallRef, thank you for delivering this irony. As you plead for "common sense" to prevail on the court, you insist on literal perfection on the discussion threads. I stand both corrected and entertained! :-)

That makes perfect sense since you must know the exact rule in order to apply common sense to it!

Sure -- What ingredients go in a "screaming viking?"

Back to the issue at hand:

I decided that Nevada was right -- this was a T. So, in last night's game, I issued one.

I also issued a T for a player whose shorts were too low -- it made the jersey number not centered vertically. Similarly, another player had the shorts too high.

Another player had a thread sticking out of the shadow trim around the number. Since the trim was already 1/2", the thread made the number illegal.

Another player's trim around the neck was frayed -- it was greater than 1/4", so I issued the T.

One team was wearing gold jerseys, and the T-shirt of one of the players was more of an ecru color.

After the game, both coaches thanked me for finally enforcing the rules and stated how they wished more officials would pay attention to all the little things that really matter.

Irony
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tomegun

Quote:

Originally posted by bgtg19 Quote: BktBallRef, thank you for delivering this irony. As you plead for "common sense" to prevail on the court, you insist on literal perfection on the discussion threads. I stand both corrected and entertained! :-) That makes perfect sense since you must know the exact rule in order to apply common sense to it!

tomegun, perhaps I should be more transparent in the irony: "0" and "00" are the same, but "2.3" and "2-3" are not the same. In any event, what *you* said -- that one must know the rules to apply common sense to them -- does indeed make perfect sense!

Ugh
 

7 pages and still going strong...this is brilliant.

I suddenly miss the belted pants threads...

Ah, a Cheers fan.

http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink1819.html

I kinda favor the "screaming multiple orgasm" though.

This whole thread is a hoot, ain't it?

Re: Re: Re: A symbolic discussion
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bgtg19

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef Quote: First, there's no such thing as 2.3. Second, the play has nothing to do with 2-3.... BktBallRef, thank you for delivering this irony. As you plead for "common sense" to prevail on the court, you insist on literal perfection on the discussion threads. I stand both corrected and entertained! :-)

That's why I'm here. :D

Don't take a offense. Just pointing out a small error, when I was probably tired of reading someone else's garbage. :)

Re: Ugh
 

Shall I start one, Smitty? :D

Re: Re: Ugh
 

Hey, consistency counts for something, doesn't it? This 0/00 thing puts into perspective just how intelligent a discussion about pants can be. A lot of people say there are no stupid questions. I'd like to invite those people here and get a second opinion. ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: A symbolic discussion
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Don't take a offense. Just pointing out a small error, when I was probably tired of reading someone else's garbage. :)

No offense taken! I don't mind being corrected (and I even appreciate the opportunity to improve - so, thanks!).

Re: Re: Re: Ugh
 

There are no stupid questions...just stupid people.

;)

btw, I prefer the pleated pants myself. no belt, of course.

There are no stupid questions...just stupid people.

[/B][/QUOTE]Wrong thread.

See "Soapbox" above. :D

Re: Irony
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bgtg19

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun Quote: Originally posted by bgtg19 Quote: BktBallRef, thank you for delivering this irony. As you plead for "common sense" to prevail on the court, you insist on literal perfection on the discussion threads. I stand both corrected and entertained! :-) That makes perfect sense since you must know the exact rule in order to apply common sense to it! tomegun, perhaps I should be more transparent in the irony: "0" and "00" are the same, but "2.3" and "2-3" are not the same. In any event, what *you* said -- that one must know the rules to apply common sense to them -- does indeed make perfect sense!

I think you missed the biggest irony of all. If there were a 2.3, it wouldn't be a 2-3 situation. In other words, something that is spelled out in the case book is, in fact, covered by rule and therefore does not fall under the "elastic powers" of 2-3. Now that is entertaining irony ;)

Clark,

You're looking for a guiding philosophy on this, here's how I generally look at these situations. As a lawyer, I'm sure you can appreciate the parallels to the legal system and society.

Over the course of years, it has become necessary to address issues that have arisen. Usually it's because somebody figured out a way to gain an advantage that was deemed damaging to the game. So a rule is created to prevent that advantage. Like all such rules (and as far as I can tell, laws), the intent was not that everybody should suddenly change how they play the game, or that penalties for incidental infractions should be regularly assessed (that would also change the nature of the game). Only that people should not be able to take unfair advantage.

So when it comes to enforcement of rules that are not part of the game (like administrative stuff), let the spirit of the rule be your guide. If a person is obviously trying to gain an unfair advantage by breaking a rule, penalize them. If a person has innocently run afoul of the rule, while seeking no advantage, fix it and move on. The over-zealous, thoughtless enforcement of obscure rules and administrivia is as damaging to the game as over-zealous, thoughtless enforcement of analgous laws is damaging to society.

BitS-

That makes sense to me.

tomegun-

You forgot the most important phrase in Vegas: "lap dance."

Clark

Just my $00000.02
 

The discussion about 0, 00, 4, 04 and legal numbers in general is interesting. Coming from a computer programmer's point of view, my perspective is perhaps a little different.

First of all, I would agree with everybody who has asserted that 0 and 00 are the same number (same with 4 and 04). They are mathematically equal and merely different representations. For any single number, there are an infinite number of representations. Not only can we get wild and whacky with the leading zeroes -- and this is where the arguement about $600 and $060 is flawed, leading zeroes do not change the value of a number, trailing zeroes before the decimal point do -- but propeller heads like myself often deal with numbers in entirely different bases. Computers only understand binary (base 2). Programmers chaffe at dealing with binary and use the more "convenient" hexadecimal when forced to deal with how computers represent numbers. For the uninitiated, hexadecimal is base 16 and uses digits 0-9 and A-F. We humans prefer decimal (base 10), probably because we can cheat and count on our fingers ;)

The wording of the rule is technically ambiguous. It appears they've attempted to enumerate the set of all legal numbers. But a set, by strict definition, contains only a single instance of any member. Since they have included 0 and 00, they have included the same number twice. Perhaps what they really meant was to enumerate the set of all legal representations. If this is the case, then the inclusion of both 0 and 00 is valid. It would also mean that the representation 04 is illegal as it is not contained in the set of legal representations. But 04 is a legitimate number, and the rule uses the word number.

Since the wording is ambiguous, we cannot infer the rules committee's exact intent. But this much is clear, both 0 and 00 can legally appear on jerseys and a team cannot use both at the same time. Beyond that, we would be applying personal interpretation. And I'd hate to think we might be penalizing the kids based on something that is our own personal interpretation.


There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those that understand binary, and those that do not.

Wow...

20 minutes of my life that I'll never get back..

Not to throw a buddy under a bus or anything...but...

Hey Nevada, get back in here :)

All right, here goes.

The reason that both 0 and 00 are listed as legal numbers is that because it is common practice in sports to list Zero as either number. It is not common practice to put 01, 02, 03 and so on, on a jersey. That is why they are not listed as legal numbers.

The reason they both 0 and 00 cannot be in the game is because they are the same number, just like 3 and 03, it is just not commom practice to put 03 on a jersey. If it were, they both 0 and 03 would be listed as legal numbers and only one could be used because they are the same number.

Re: Just my $00000.02
 

Huh?












:D :D :D

NO T for me, but..i do understand the confusion...i would have just added another 0 in the book and informed the coach so that it wouldnt happen again...

No T. And a question for all you math geniuses - how many times does 44 go into 22? ANS. It depends.

I think he jumped off a bridge or something...

1st time he ever screwed up a game (before it even started):D

I only wrote that about three pages ago. ;)

But nobody listened when I said it either.

I had a 00 tonite. She was in the book as 00. Whew. I was worried I was going to have to call the T :)

Perhaps the only thing worse than reading this thead (even though I skipped pages 4-8) is posting to it. It's almost like the five car pile-up I saw on my way to work the other day: You don't <i>want</i> to look, but somehow you just can't help yourself.

First of all, a little history... The reason that the NFHS stopped allowing both 0 and 00 is not because it is the same number, but because computer software for statistics started becoming popular and, apparently, some of these software packages had problems allowing both 0 and 00. At least, that is the story that I heard. Or dreamt.

Regardless, the NFHS should just get rid of the 00 anyway. Does anyone actually think that the <i>double</i> zero is clever anymore? Really. It isn't even a real number - just something invented in Vegas to give the house a little better odds at Roulette.

Personally, I'm not worried about 00 vs 0. I probably wouldn't even notice it in the book and, if I did, I certainly wouldn't make an issue out of it (read: No T).

I do think that I may incorporate the double zero my game though. In the future, if the foul count happens to be 6-0 and the coach is b*tching about the foul count (I say "the coach" because it is universally apparent as to which coach was doing said b*tching), I may go over to the clock personnel and instruct them to make the foul count 6-00, just to make a point.

Re: Re: Just my $00000.02
 

I love it!

Re: Re: Re: Just my $00000.02
 

Hey, if someone doesn't know that isn't right! :D :D :D :D

Re: Re: Re: Just my $00000.02
 

I figured there'd be a few fellow propeller-heads out there ;)