My non-varsity opinion is probably meaningless here, since I've done two freshman games this year where teams have had as many as two pairs of players with the same number (due to a mixing of Freshman A and B players). We just talk about it beforehand and ask the coach not to put them on the floor at the same time and then we hope they don't foul or it's so late in the game that it doesn't matter.

But if there's a 0 and a 00 (or one in the book and the other on the jersey), you ain't seeing a tech from me. I'm going to look to the ceiling and whistle a happy tune as I walk to the center circle with the ball and if someone else wants to call it, well knock yourself out.

Again, non-varsity opinion.

Poor Frank has been knocked around a bit...

But of course it wasn't Frank that DID call the T...

That was NevadaRef.

What were you thinking? :D

We calmly explain that 0 and 00 are the same number.

What difficult is that? Even a coach can understand it.

That's why you should report the foul on gold THIRTY-THREE, and not gold THREE, THREE.

So if this same announcer mispronounces the kids name and says Joe SYMTHE instead of SMITH you going to throw a T.

Ok I get it now. My game fee is not $60, it's $600. Thanks.

This is why you should verbalize #33 as "thirty-three" rather than as "three-three."

Especially when dealing with any number involving the digits one or two.

Which becomes worse if you have free throws.

I say "Coach, they can announce him as His Majesty Henry VIII wearing number 79 for all I care."

Let's say your game fee is sixty dollars. Which one of these makes a difference?

Situation 1: You get a check for $600.

Situation 2: You get a check made out for $060.

No Tee from me.

A symbolic discussion
 

I work at a university. I believe that I have heard the chair of our mathematics department say something to the following effect: Numbers are merely symbols; they are symbols of values. Thus, in "real life," as well as in "basketball terms," one could say that "0" and "00" represent the same thing of value (in the case of a basketball team, a team member eligible to become a Player). Accordingly, the scenario here does not merit a T from me.

I think, however, that Attorney totalnewbie is absolutely correct about the list of eligible numbers/symbols. This may be a case where both crowds -- to T and not to T -- are within their appopriate 2.3 powers to rule.

Whatever the resolution, I agree that it is a good practice to inform the coach/team/scorer of the discrepency so that they can correct the situation so that it doesn't happen again and therefore confront officials who have not had the luxury, nay the honor, of thinking about this issue after reading this discussion thread....

Now you're simply being stupid.

Isn't it amazing how all of us are wrong and you're the only one who is right?

Re: A symbolic discussion
 

First, there's no such thing as 2.3.

Second, the play has nothing to do with 2-3, if that's what you're referring to. It's clearly defined.

Good officials use common sense.

Facetious and stupid are two different things. I think when we get to the level of name-calling, it's time to pull out of this thread.