The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #106 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 10:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
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.

Don't take a offense. Just pointing out a small error, when I was probably tired of reading someone else's garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #107 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 10:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Re: Ugh

Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
7 pages and still going strong...this is brilliant.

I suddenly miss the belted pants threads...
Shall I start one, Smitty?
Reply With Quote
  #108 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,847
Re: Re: Ugh

Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
7 pages and still going strong...this is brilliant.

I suddenly miss the belted pants threads...
Shall I start one, Smitty?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #109 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 10:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
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!).
Reply With Quote
  #110 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 11:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Re: Re: Re: Ugh

Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Smitty
7 pages and still going strong...this is brilliant.

I suddenly miss the belted pants threads...
Shall I start one, Smitty?
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.
There are no stupid questions...just stupid people.



btw, I prefer the pleated pants myself. no belt, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #111 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:02pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
[/B]
There are no stupid questions...just stupid people.

[/B][/QUOTE]Wrong thread.

See "Soapbox" above.
Reply With Quote
  #112 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
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
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #113 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 12:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #114 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 149
BitS-

That makes sense to me.

tomegun-

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

Clark
Reply With Quote
  #115 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #116 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 01:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 566
Wow...

20 minutes of my life that I'll never get back..
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"."
- Harry Caray -
Reply With Quote
  #117 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 02:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 149
Not to throw a buddy under a bus or anything...but...

Hey Nevada, get back in here
Reply With Quote
  #118 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 02:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 566
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.
__________________
"Booze, broads, and bullsh!t. If you got all that, what else do you need?"."
- Harry Caray -
Reply With Quote
  #119 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 06:06pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Re: Just my $00000.02

Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those that understand binary, and those that do not.
Huh?












__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #120 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 01, 2005, 07:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 32
Send a message via AIM to robinson31ir
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...
__________________
"Never Let Anyone Define Your Reality"

#31
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1