Wrong Number In Book ???

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that whoever authored it failed to appreciate the difference between "penalized if discovered while being violated" and "penalized when discovered." ... I think that the committee which met in 2009 screwed up ... It is my opinion that the author erred in writing it.

These are the most important parts of your post. Since neither of us were sitting in the room and listening to the discussion, we don't know what the intent was, or if the intent was different than how the case play ended up being written. We do know, however, that the result is pretty clear - in this case, prior participation or not, we cannot change a number in the book and force a penalty on a team member, only a player.

I believe they wrote the case play to specifically address the confusion between "penalized if discovered while being violated" and "penalized when discovered", and the difference between "player" and "team member". The committee feels it is being consistent by making sure a number should be changed, and the penalty enforced, on players only, not team members. Whether you and I agree with the logic is immaterial, we still have to enforce it as written until it is changed. There are many instances where you or I may feel the rules aren't "fair enough", but we still have to abide by them. Correctable error limitations are one obvious area. No "do-overs" are another. This case is yet another. We can argue over some of the philosophies of specific rules and whether one area is consistent with another, but until we get elected to the committee and get in the room and convince them otherwise, we have to simply abide by what they have given us.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Are you serious? You don't think that the record of the game should be accurate? I suggest a reading of 2-11 for you. That rule clearly states that the scorer shall record these things and, yes, it is understood that this record-keeping should be accurate.

Of course I'm serious. I would never be any other way with you. I would suggest you also read 2-11. Can you point out in there any specific wording that states that the correct number has to be associated with a particular player, other than when the roster is submitted? The purpose of the number is only to identify a player or team member, but it is still the name of the player that's important. The only duties of the scorekeeper I see are to keep track of points by FG's made, FT's made and missed, and a running score (kind of important to the outcome of the game), fouls on individual team members and coaches (to keep track of disqualifications), and TO's (to keep track of when a team has used their allotment). So when "Jones", #24, gets 4 fouls, then has to swap their jersey because of blood with "Smith", #53, who gets disqualified when "Jones" fouls again? Neither the number #24 or #53 jersey gets disqualified; it's "Jones" the team member that gets disqualified, no matter what number they're wearing at that moment, or what number is written in the book. The accuracy has to do with making sure the proper team member is disqualified, not with which number is physically written in the book.

If you feel it their duty to keep track of the correct jersey number because of 2-11-2, submission of roster or substitutions, then they failed to do their job correctly by not notifying us immediately, and the team member has already participated and left, then it's too late to penalize. Just like when it's an official's fault for allowing a sub on the floor illegally, once they're on the floor, it's too late to penalize.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Isn't there already precedence [sic] in the rules

I'm confused - what was the meaning of this?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm confused - what was the meaning of this? ([sic])

From Wikipedia: [Sic] "is used when writing quoted material to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation or meaning in the quote has been reproduced verbatim from the original and is not a transcription error."

In other words, the word you wanted was "precedent," not "precedence."

It was a correct usage of "[sic]", but big, red text, Nevada? That's like giving a coach a technical foul, and telling the crowd, "Hey, everyone! I just T'd up the coach!"

[rockyroad]

I'm really confused as to why there is so much angst about this...if the number in the book has to be changed, it is a T. The only difference that is being discussed here is when it is discovered.

If it is a "player" - someone who is on the court at the time it is discovered - then WE direct the scorer to change the book and administer the T.

If it is a "team member" - someone not on the court - then the Coach has the choice of asking that the book be changed (which is a T) or not playing that kid tonight.

Why is this causing so much confusion?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I'm really confused as to why there is so much angst about this...if the number in the book has to be changed, it is a T. The only difference that is being discussed here is when it is discovered.

If it is a "player" - someone who is on the court at the time it is discovered - then WE direct the scorer to change the book and administer the T.

If it is a "team member" - someone not on the court - then the Coach has the choice of asking that the book be changed (which is a T) or not playing that kid tonight.

Why is this causing so much confusion?

The point being debated is whether a "team member" who was previously a "player" but is currently only a "team member" should be added to the book when it is realized.

Some say that a "team member" who previously was a "player" must be added to the book as soon as it is realized, even if they are currently on the bench. Others maintain that the "team member" need not be added unless they wish to reenter the game.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point being debated is whether a "team member" who was previously a "player" but is currently only a "team member" should be added to the book when it is realized.

Some say that a "team member" who previously was a "player" must be added to the book as soon as it is realized, even if they are currently on the bench. Others maintain that the "team member" need not be added unless they wish to reenter the game.

And that would've been a good discussion to have, prior to the new case play coming out last season. However, 3.2.2 Sit C (b) pretty much spells it out for us.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point being debated is whether a "team member" who was previously a "player" but is currently only a "team member" should be added to the book when it is realized.

Some say that a "team member" who previously was a "player" must be added to the book as soon as it is realized, even if they are currently on the bench. Others maintain that the "team member" need not be added unless they wish to reenter the game.

But that's not much of a debate either...the only time we direct the scorer to change a number is if the kid is a "player". The Coach can request that we have the scorer change the book at any time for someone who is not on the court, but that is his/her choice. The rules seem pretty clear to me.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

From Wikipedia: [Sic] "is used when writing quoted material to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation or meaning in the quote has been reproduced verbatim from the original and is not a transcription error."

In other words, the word you wanted was "precedent," not "precedence."

It was a correct usage of "[sic]", but big, red text, Nevada? That's like giving a coach a technical foul, and telling the crowd, "Hey, everyone! I just T'd up the coach!"

Actually, I knew the meaning of "[sic]", I just didn't know how it pertained to precedence, because I was pretty sure I spelled it correctly. It doesn't surprise me though that he picked up on the wrong usage. That's one of his strong points - focusing up on details. In many cases, that's a good thing, because fully knowing and understanding basketball rules requires an attention to detail. However, it's also one of his most annoying traits, in that he tends to sometimes focus on unnecessary details rather than the big picture. For example, notice I didn't point out:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that whoever [sic] authored it failed to appreciate the difference between "penalized if discovered while being violated" and "penalized when discovered."

The reason I didn't point it out hte difference between "whoever" and "whomever" was because it wasn't really a part of this semi-serious discussion. It can sometimes be fun to point out various mistakes other posters make, and I'm hoping he did it in that vein. (Lord knows I've done my share.) However, my impression is he did it to help bolster his arguments and thereby lowering my credibility in pointing out the many so-called flaws in my post. That's too bad, because it does distract from his overall rules knowledge.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The reason I didn't point it out hte difference between "whoever" and "whomever" was because it wasn't really a part of this semi-serious discussion.

I'm glad you didn't point out the difference. "Whoever" was the subject of its clause, and thus correctly in the nominative case. "Whomever" would have been wrong.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm glad you didn't point out the difference. "Whoever" was the subject of its clause, and thus correctly in the nominative case. "Whomever" would have been wrong.

Hmm, that's not the way I learned it. "Whomever" should be the subject of a clause, while "whoever" is the subject of the verb.

Whoever and Whomever | Grammar Rules

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hmm, that's not the way I learned it. "Whomever" should be the subject of a clause, while "whoever" is the subject of the verb.

Is that why the book wasn't called "Horton Hears A Whom"?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Is that why the book wasn't called "Horton Hears A Whom"?

Yep, my mom used to read that book to me all the time. My fondest memories were when she would read it to me outside while camping; I could hear the owls off in the distance, "...whom...whom..."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hmm, that's not the way I learned it. "Whomever" should be the subject of a clause, while "whoever" is the subject of the verb.

Whoever and Whomever | Grammar Rules

It's just like the use of "who" and "whom." "Who" is used for the subject, and "whom" for the object.

example:

"Who gave the carrot to whom?"
answer:
"Whoever gave it to whomever."

At least that's how I learned it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm glad you didn't point out the difference. "Whoever" was the subject of its clause, and thus correctly in the nominative case. "Whomever" would have been wrong.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hmm, that's not the way I learned it. "Whomever" should be the subject of a clause, while "whoever" is the subject of the verb.

Whoever and Whomever | Grammar Rules

I'm with byron on this one. "Whoever" is the subject of the verb "authored". In fact, "Whoever" is also the subject of the verb "failed".

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm with byron on this one. "Whoever" is the subject of the verb "authored".

Whomever brought this subject up should be shot. "Whomever brought this subject up" is the clause, and the clause is the subject of the verb. (Even though the word subject is used within the clause.)

I'm cleaning my shotgun now. Who (or is it whom?!?) wants the first shot?

[Adam]

Well, as long as M&M feels better....