(NBA) 0 and 00 on same team

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Rich

No logical reason why this is disallowed in NFHS games, either. We allow 2 and 22, don't we?

Is it not allowed in NFHS?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Is it not allowed in NFHS?

OF course not.

[just another ref]

This is not recent change in NFHS, is it? Hasn't that always been the rule? If that is the case, it has nothing to do with software.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not recent change in NFHS, is it? Hasn't that always been the rule? If that is the case, it has nothing to do with software.

Agreed. Software may or may not be an excuse for leaving it the way it is, but I don't see how software could have affected a rule that has been in place since Bill Gates was a kid.

The problem could easily be remedied by attaching names to stats rather than player number (I assume most do it that way anyway). The player number doesn't have to be a numeric field, even if it's a number, thus allowing for 0 and 00.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not recent change in NFHS, is it? Hasn't that always been the rule? If that is the case, it has nothing to do with software.

It began in 2000 (it was announced in 97-98, to be effective a couple of years later)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It began in 2000 (it was announced in 97-98, to be effective a couple of years later)

So it is Y2K's fault.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

So it is Y2K's fault.

I just knew that it would cause at least one problem. And to think that many laughed at me. Well, just who's laughing now? Anybody want to buy a secure, underground shelter? It comes with a six month supply of canned food. I'll throw in the can opener for free.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is not recent change in NFHS, is it? Hasn't that always been the rule? If that is the case, it has nothing to do with software.

Originally Posted by Adam

Agreed. Software may or may not be an excuse for leaving it the way it is, but I don't see how software could have affected a rule that has been in place since Bill Gates was a kid.

The problem could easily be remedied by attaching names to stats rather than player number (I assume most do it that way anyway). The player number doesn't have to be a numeric field, even if it's a number, thus allowing for 0 and 00.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It began in 2000 (it was announced in 97-98, to be effective a couple of years later)

The prohibition was adopted by both the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's rules committees at the same time. And it was indeed adopted because software for scoring and statistics was finding its way into the marketplace that could be used at courtside and it could NOT distinguish between 0 and 00. So ends today's history lesson.

MTD, Sr.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

OF course not.

Bob,

Of course not "what"? Not allowed at all? Or, allowed, but with penalty?

I recall a thread season before last where this situation was discussed and most of the discussion centered around an 2009/8/7 interpretation that not only allowed both numbers but it also allowed both player to play - with penalty, of course.

Is my memory failing me or am I misunderstanding your post?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

..allowed both numbers but it also allowed both player to play - with penalty.

Duplicate numbers can never play, not even at the expense of a technical foul. Illegal numbers (0 and 00, 6, 79, etc.) can play, but only at the expense of a technical foul.

Illegal numbers being able to play at the expense of a technical foul has been around since time began (when I started officiating). Calling both 0 and 00 illegal numbers has only been around for a little more than ten years (it seems like only yesterday).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Bob,

Of course not "what"? Not allowed at all? Or, allowed, but with penalty?

I recall a thread season before last where this situation was discussed and most of the discussion centered around an 2009/8/7 interpretation that not only allowed both numbers but it also allowed both player to play - with penalty, of course.

Is my memory failing me or am I misunderstanding your post?

I think it's pretty clear if you follow the thread that I mean 0 and 00 are not allowed in HS. Right from the book.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it's pretty clear if you follow the thread that I mean 0 and 00 are not allowed in HS. Right from the book.

Bob,

I always read your posts and probably put more weight on them than anyone's. During that discussion season before last, it was your post that convinced me that the 2008/09 interp Situation 2 allowed both numbers to be on the book without penalty. And, that both could play with penalty for illegal jersey? Not illegal number but illegal jersey.

Has your stance on that interp changed? Or, has that interp been changed?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Bob,

I always read your posts and probably put more weight on them than anyone's. During that discussion season before last, it was your post that convinced me that the 2008/09 interp Situation 2 allowed both numbers to be on the book without penalty. And, that both could play with penalty for illegal jersey? Not illegal number but illegal jersey.

Has your stance on that interp changed? Or, has that interp been changed?

Which thread was this?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Adam

Which thread was this?

Adam,

I'm not very good at finding and copying posts from the past, but I did find the thread and it was in Jan. of 2013. I founf it in the search feature using key word- "2008/09 interpretations".

Mulk

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it's pretty clear if you follow the thread that I mean 0 and 00 are not allowed in HS. Right from the book.

Bob,

I found the thread - Jan. of 2013 - and below is your post:

Neither (to have on the roster), or if only one plays.

Illegal (if they both play).