Author Topic: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired  (Read 2240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2018, 01:10:08 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37114
  • Tommy Points: 6055
I don't understand the being easy on the refs. They could simply change their SOP to using two hand signals with two flashes of numbers. 6 fingers first flash then 8 fingers second flash, 68. Zero first then 7 second, 07. It would take a whole one second more. No big deal. I can't believe that simplifying things for the refs is an excuse when it would literally mean one extra second of finger flashes to convey fouls to the scorekeeper.

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2018, 02:53:09 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17617
  • Tommy Points: 1622
Who cares about the refs?

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2018, 03:14:32 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28826
  • Tommy Points: 3519
  • Feeling Stronger Every Day
I don't understand the being easy on the refs. They could simply change their SOP to using two hand signals with two flashes of numbers. 6 fingers first flash then 8 fingers second flash, 68. Zero first then 7 second, 07. It would take a whole one second more. No big deal. I can't believe that simplifying things for the refs is an excuse when it would literally mean one extra second of finger flashes to convey fouls to the scorekeeper.

Maybe do some sort of synchronized routine utilizing two refs for numbers greater than 55

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Celtics numbers that should be un-retired
« Reply #48 on: September 22, 2018, 11:44:19 AM »

Online bellerephon

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 426
  • Tommy Points: 32
I don't understand the being easy on the refs. They could simply change their SOP to using two hand signals with two flashes of numbers. 6 fingers first flash then 8 fingers second flash, 68. Zero first then 7 second, 07. It would take a whole one second more. No big deal. I can't believe that simplifying things for the refs is an excuse when it would literally mean one extra second of finger flashes to convey fouls to the scorekeeper.
It's not about making it easier on the refs, it's about accuracy and efficiency. The refs are able to handle numbers using the higher digits. There are players that use those numbers. But it makes it more likely that a mistake can occur, and the league, understandably wants to avoid mistakes.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required