Who is writing this stuff?

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Camron:

In all of the rules clinics that I attended when the rule was first adopted, the reason given was that since a computer cannot tell the difference between "0" and "00" the rules committees considered them the same number just like the computer does. Either way, the RULING in the Rules Interpretations is incorrect and the Casebook Play RULING is correct.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

I was going to comment in the OP that I believe that the 0, 00 situation on the same member list should be treated in the same manner as identical numbers even though they are not.

Of course, now that I know that MTD holds this position, I'll have to reconsider.