(NBA) 0 and 00 on same team
 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5522/...1a0b5b00_o.png
Are 0 and 00 still banned on the same team in the NBA? I know it was banned in 2003, has the rule changed?

APG will be around soon to let you know.

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?

I agree. While 2 and 22 aren't the same actual number, this isn't math class. The distinction on a uniform is just as valid between 0 and 00 as it is between 2 and 22. Not a major issue that needs addressed, though.

I thought I remember reading a long time ago that it had something to do with imputing the numbers in computers, both numbers (0 & 00) together can not be recognized. I could be wrong, hopefully someone will correct us.

Given that we survived Y2K, you would think we could design computers to differentiate between 0 and 00...

If it is software related, it may be because numbers stored as integers (rather that text), assign 00 to be 0. Hence, 0 and 00 both resolve to 0, which normalization won't allow.

Nothing in the rule book against it, though this wouldn't be a concern with NBA referees as league offices knows everyone's number and would have to approve this kind of stuff well before hand.

I also don't think it's every been illegal for 0 and 00 on the same team in the NBA...just rarely seen.

OF course not.

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.

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

So it is Y2K's fault.

Discounted, On Sale Until Y3K ...
 

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.

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?

It'll Cost You ...
 

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).

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.

Somehow I doubt it. ;)

Since I have retired from real work it is only one history lesson a day. :D

MTD, Sr.

I guess he told us. :D

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?

Which thread was this?

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).

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

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

2008-09 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 2: A team has members with No. 0 and No. 00 listed in the scorebook and it is discovered (a) with 14 minutes on the clock prior to the game, (b) with 8 minutes on the clock prior to the game or (c) after the game starts. RULING: In (a), changes can be made without penalty. In (b), if a number is changed in the scorebook, a team technical is charged. The offended team is awarded two free throws and a throw-in at the division line to begin the game. The arrow is toward the offending team. If no changes are made to the scorebook, no infraction has occurred. In (c), after the game starts, there is no infraction if only one of the team members (No. 0 or No. 00) participates. If the second team member wishes to participate, the result is an illegal number when "discovered." The penalty is a direct technical foul on the head coach for an illegal uniform. Two free throws and a division line throw-in for the offended team and loss of coaching box privileges for the offending coach. The second team member (with the illegal uniform number) may participate without further penalty and is NOT required to change his/her number. Another possibility exists after the game starts when one of the team members wants to change his/her number prior to participating. The result is a team technical foul (no loss of coaching box) for changing the scorebook. COMMENT: No team should have both No. 0 and No. 00 on its regular roster. The infraction is likely due to bringing a player up or down a level. Therefore, it is possible the team has access to other legal uniforms to replace a uniform with an illegal number. (3-4-3d; 10-1-2; 10-5-4)

NFHS R3-S4-A3D: Each team member shall be numbered on the front and back of the team jersey with plain Arabic numerals. The following numbers are legal: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 00, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. A team member list shall not have both numbers 0 and 00.

NCAA Men's/Women's R1-S22-A7b(2): The following numbers are legal: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 00, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55. Team rosters can include 0 or 00, but not both.


The Rule in both NFHS and NCAA is quite clear: A team's roster in the Scorebook can have a player listed wearing 0 or 00 but the team cannot have two players listed with one wearing 0 and the second player wearing 00.

What bothers me about the RULING for SITUATION 2(c) of the 2008-09 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations is that it contradicts what is stated in the rules.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

I don't think a rule that states "shall not" or "cannot" actually means that you can't. I think when a rule states "shall not", "cannot", the official should go to the penalties section of the rule? Sometimes, the penalty states "the player/team member cannot participate". Sometimes, it states "if the player participates, the player is charged with a technical foul".

Even more confusing, the 2008/09 interpretation trumped an earlier interpretation in 2000/2001 on the same rule?

The fact that there's a penalty means that they aren't alowed.

You might as well ask" can a player run with the ball?"

No, it's not allowed.

Well, of course the player can -- but there's a penalty involved.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Some things aren't allowed, period (jewelry, illegal undershirts).

Some are not allowed without penalty.

I thought the zeros were in the first category.

Bob,

I do understand your point and that is why I did ask for a clarification. I spent two weeks discussing the clearly written portion of the rule - 0 and 00 are not allowed - with a rules guy a couple of seasons ago. Because the rule states "shall not", he thought there was no need to visit the penalty section. And, he insisted because the rule was so clearly written, there was no need for an interpretation at all.

I do admit that 2008/09 interp is a little contradictory to me.

electronically challenged
 

BillMac,

Thanks for finding and posting.

Indeed. Folx know it as two and twenty-two and yeah, we don't say twenty-two but that's how they see it.

0 and 00 are what? Oh and Oh-Oh? or maybe zero and double zero? Depends on your mechanic. Yeah, we can distinguish the two, but the game includes spectators and competing teams, either of which can easily be confuse by this nothing and double-nothing nonsense.

The math folks will tell us 00, 0, 00000, and 0000000000 are all the same number -- zero.

The only reason 00 exists is Jim Otto had a good thing going when the AFL was looking for anything that would draw some notice. Since then it has been nothing more than bid for cheap attention.

The suggestion that 0 and 00 (zero and zero) are the same as 2 and 22 (two and twenty-two) is patently absurd.

Duplicate Numbers ...
 

Sidebar: Can players with duplicate numbers play after the charging of a technical foul upon discovery? I thought not, but now I'm questioning myself after reading through this thread.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

3.2.2 SITUATION B: Three minutes before the game starts, it is discovered: two Team B team members are wearing the same number. RULING: 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. (10-1-2)

OK. Let's say that you're checking the book, pregame, at the twelve minute mark, and discover duplicate numbers. You approach the coach, and he doesn't have any extra jerseys. Besides erasing one of the numbers before the ten minute mark, what are his other options? Let's say that he refuses to erase one of the numbers, even after the ten minute mark, now what happens after the technical foul is charged? Can either player play?

Who is this "we"?

Umm, I say twenty-two. Why wouldn't I?

OK. Let's say that you're checking the book, pregame, at the twelve minute mark, and discover duplicate numbers. You approach the coach, and he doesn't have any extra jerseys. Besides erasing one of the numbers before the ten minute mark, what are his other options? Let's say that he refuses to erase one of the numbers, even after the ten minute mark, now what happens after the technical foul is charged? Can either player play?[/QUOTE]

After the technical is assessed, then the first team member to play is the ONLY person that gets to play. This is an example of a ruling that actually means "shall not" or "cannot" even at the expense of a technical.

Assume I'm From Missouri ...
 

Sounds good. Got a citation, maybe an interpretation?

I'm assuming that you are looking for something that would allow at least one of them to play????

Hey Coach, There Are Two Twenty-Twos In The Book ...
 

I just wanted to know the options that an official could give the coach.

"No extra uniforms? Since we're still twelve minutes away from tip off, you can erase one of the names from the scorebook with no penalty."

"You want to know what happens if you don't erase one the names in the next two minutes? Well, to start with, your team will be charged with a technical foul. After that ..."

We don't? That is exactly what we teach new officials to say in our training classes. Much less likely to be misunderstood than a non-natural two-two.

I'm not sure I agree that one is more or less likely to be misunderstood, but I'm a reformed "two two" guy. No one taught me one way or the other, for some reason I just started doing it that way.

Making Amends For Past Errors ...
 

Did it take a twelve step program?

Judging from the experience of those on the board here with other issues, those don't work. :)