Who is writing this stuff?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But doesn't everything on this subject under rule 10 deal with having to change a number?

Neither number is illegal by itself, so rule 10-5-4 doesn't apply. It is the combination of the two that is prohibited.

Originally Posted by just another ref

If only one participates, why must one be changed?

Neither one has to change. The rules don't mandate that. The rule simply says that the team member list cannot contain both 0 and 00. That is the infraction here. It has nothing to do with who plays. That's the point.

This is just a poor interpretation by the NFHS.

[Adam]

So, does 3-4-3d have a penalty associated with it?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Neither number is illegal by itself, so rule 10-5-4 doesn't apply. It is the combination of the two that is prohibited.


Neither one has to change. The rules don't mandate that. The rule simply says that the team member list cannot contain both 0 and 00. That is the infraction here. It has nothing to do with who plays. That's the point.

This is just a poor interpretation by the NFHS.

So what exactly is your problem with this interpretation? It is a given that having both numbers on the same list is not allowed, but the fact that the numbers are there is not in and of itself an infraction. Perhaps the whole point of this interp is not to call a technical in this situation.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Here is the question that should be asked: Why is it illegal to have both a player with the number "0" and a player with the number "00" suit up for the same game?

At one time until the recent past a team could have a player wearing the number "0" and a player wearing the number "00" and this was legal. But when computerized statistics programs came into being the programs could not distingish between a "0" and a "00." Don't you just love technology.

So ends tonight's history lesson. Good night all.

MTD, Sr.

[OHBBREF]

Basically what it is saying is that in (C) the Referee completely blew it when he checked the book "team list" etc, and allowed both numbers to be there and now the game has started and since you approved the book, there is nothing that you can do until both players were to participate in the game.

seems pretty simple.

[closetotheedge]

and it's easy to correct. There's no reason any team needs to have either a 0 or 00. They should just outlaw them both.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by closetotheedge

There's no reason any team needs to have either a 0 or 00. They should just outlaw them both.

I almost agree. We don't allow 01, 02, 03, 04, or 05. Why do we allow 00? When computers at the table became common, and the NFHS changed the rule, not allow both 0, and 00, they should have just said, no 00, instead of this one, or the other, nonsense. Maybe give the schools a year, or two, to get rid of the jerseys with the number 00.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

States: "Three minutes before the game starts, it is discovered: (b) two Team B team members are wearing the same number. RULING: In (b), a technical foul is charged to Team B upon discovery of the identical numbers. Only one team member may wear a given number; the other must change to a number not already in use before participating. (R10-S1-A2)"

Therefore, the RULING in 2008-09 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretation SITUATION 2(b) and (c) is incorrect. The Casebook Play has been in effect since before the NFHS and NCAA adopted the either "0" or "00" but not both rule. When the NFHS and NCAA adopted the either "0" or "00" but not both rule, "0" and "00" were to be considered the same number because, as I stated in my earlier history lesson regarding reason for the rule's adoption computers could and I suppose they still cannot tell the difference between "0" and "00".

So ends tonight history lesson.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

States: "Three minutes before the game starts, it is discovered: (b) two Team B team members are wearing the same number. RULING: In (b), a technical foul is charged to Team B upon discovery of the identical numbers. Only one team member may wear a given number; the other must change to a number not already in use before participating. (R10-S1-A2)"

Therefore, the RULING in 2008-09 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretation SITUATION 2(b) and (c) is incorrect. The Casebook Play has been in effect since before the NFHS and NCAA adopted the either "0" or "00" but not both rule. When the NFHS and NCAA adopted the either "0" or "00" but not both rule, "0" and "00" were to be considered the same number because, as I stated in my earlier history lesson regarding reason for the rule's adoption computers could and I suppose they still cannot tell the difference between "0" and "00".

So ends tonight history lesson.

MTD, Sr.

I don't quite agree. 0 and 00 may be the same mathematical number but they are "different". So, there is some wiggle room for both items to be correct.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

States: "Three minutes before the game starts, it is discovered: (b) two Team B team members are wearing the same number. RULING: In (b), a technical foul is charged to Team B upon discovery of the identical numbers. Only one team member may wear a given number; the other must change to a number not already in use before participating. (R10-S1-A2)"

I don't have my books on me but why is it a T for 2 members to wear the same number 3 minutes before the game starts...or before both players participate in the game for that matter? It doesn't necessarily mean that identical numbers are in the book for those players.

What is the wording of rule 10-1-2?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is a given that having both numbers on the same list is not allowed, but the fact that the numbers are there is not in and of itself an infraction.

What bothers me about this interpretation is precisely that I disagree with that statement. The NFHS ruling is tantamount to telling the team, "We know that you just broke one of the rules, but we aren't going to penalize you unless you also do something else." To me, that's not proper.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, does 3-4-3d have a penalty associated with it?

That's a solid point, Adam. Of course, there isn't a penalty listed with that rule. This leaves us in the same situation as with another rule which we have previously discussed on this forum, namely, "The official scorebook shall remain at the scorer’s table throughout the game, including all intermissions," from 2-11-11.
Since there is no specified penalty for either rule, I would invoke 2-3 and charge a team technical foul in both cases.

[cdaref]

You realize there is a question about 0 and 00 on this year's test, right? Is that what led you to post this?

[BillyMac]

Now you guys know why I left the 0, 00, issue out of my recent Administrative Technical Foul Penalty study guide. It was too confusing, are they treated as illegal, or identical, or both. I just left this part out.

Administrative Technical Foul Penalties ...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Now you guys know why I left the 0, 00, issue out of my recent Administrative Technical Foul Penalty study guide. It was too confusing, are they treated as illegal, or identical, or both. I just left this part out.

Administrative Technical Foul Penalties ...

Billy:

Think of it this way:

1) Team A has a player listed in the book wearing the number "0"; that is legal.

2) Team A has a player listed in the book wearing the number "00"; that is legal.

3) Team A has a player listed in the book wearing the number "0" and another player listed in the book wearing hte number "00"; these considered identical numbers. The first player listed is legal and the second player listed must change his number. The penalty is one (1) technical foul charged to the team.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The first player listed is legal and the second player listed must change his number.

Couldn't the first player listed be illegal and the second one be legal?