Free throw administration for NFHS California

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

When I address this at all (usually only in youth leagues, etc.) all I say is, "Let it hit."

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

All of the above is too much verbiage for me. I just say "one" or "two" or "three" or "one-and-one."

The players aren't listening to the rest anyway, and it's not as if sometimes they can enter on the release and sometime they have to wait for the hit.

(Exception: some summer tournaments / leagues play by FED rules and some by NCAA rules, so I do mention "wait" here, especially in the first couple of games.)

Agree with both. When I do say something, it's "let it hit." Anything involving schools or high school aged players, the only words I use are numbers.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Anything involving schools or high school aged players, the only words I use are numbers.

I have ontological objections to this claim.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I have ontological objections to this claim.

Overruled.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Overruled.

You didn't even ask what they were.

[Adam]

I have to admit I wondered what it had to do with the existence of God. Then I realized, "It's Monday. Never mind."

I am curious, though.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have to admit I wondered what it had to do with the existence of God. Then I realized, "It's Monday. Never mind."

I am curious, though.

Numbers can't be words, though we do have words that refer to numbers (such as 'one' and 'seventy-two').

I thought about ignoring your category error and realized, "it's Monday, I'd better not."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agree with both. When I do say something, it's "let it hit." Anything involving schools or high school aged players, the only words I use are those that symbolize numbers plus the occasional "and" when required.

Originally Posted by mbyron

I have ontological objections to this claim.

Better?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Better?

I'm gratified that you're working so hard just to please me, so it seems a little bit petty to say no. Words don't symbolize numbers, numerals do. But you're getting warmer!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm gratified that you're working so hard just to please me, so it seems a little bit petty to say no. Words don't symbolize numbers, numerals do. But you're getting warmer!

Words are vocal symbols of ideas, entities, events, etc. I disagree.

I thought about correcting that to "refer to" rather than "symbolize," but where's the rhetorical fun in that?

[Back In The Saddle]

Hmmm, so I get that two is an abstract mathematical concept. I get that "2" is a numeral, that represents the abstract concept of two.

But "two" is, in my tiny little mind, "two" is the English language written representation of either "2" or two. Or both. Which makes it, in a word, a word.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Hmmm, so I get that two is an abstract mathematical concept. I get that "2" is a numeral, that represents the abstract concept of two.

But "two" is, in my tiny little mind, "two" is the English language written representation of either "2" or two. Or both. Which makes it, in a word, a word.

Hey, that's good!

The word 'two' is the English word that refers to the number two, which is an abstract object. The concept is the meaning of the word, and is also distinct from the object. (To see why, imagine that there had never been any humans at all, and so no languages -- the number two would still exist, so it must be distinct from any concept.)

We can talk about the object -- the number -- in different languages, referring to it as 'deux' or 'zwei' or 'dos', etc. But it's one and the same object, no matter which word we use. The unity of the object explains why all of the different words can share the same meaning.

Is that enough semantics for one day?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I have ontological objections to this claim.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Numbers can't be words, though we do have words that refer to numbers (such as 'one' and 'seventy-two').

I thought about ignoring your category error and realized, "it's Monday, I'd better not."

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm gratified that you're working so hard just to please me, so it seems a little bit petty to say no. Words don't symbolize numbers, numerals do. But you're getting warmer!

Originally Posted by mbyron

Hey, that's good!

The word 'two' is the English word that refers to the number two, which is an abstract object. The concept is the meaning of the word, and is also distinct from the object. (To see why, imagine that there had never been any humans at all, and so no languages -- the number two would still exist, so it must be distinct from any concept.)

We can talk about the object -- the number -- in different languages, referring to it as 'deux' or 'zwei' or 'dos', etc. But it's one and the same object, no matter which word we use. The unity of the object explains why all of the different words can share the same meaning.

Is that enough semantics for one day?

You are my hero.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The word 'two' is the English word that refers to the number two, which is an abstract object. The concept is the meaning of the word, and is also distinct from the object. (To see why, imagine that there had never been any humans at all, and so no languages -- the number two would still exist, so it must be distinct from any concept.) We can talk about the object -- the number -- in different languages, referring to it as 'deux' or 'zwei' or 'dos', etc. But it's one and the same object, no matter which word we use. The unity of the object explains why all of the different words can share the same meaning.

Will this be on the test? God, I hope not.