[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I) Before we go into an in depth discussion we need to look at NFHS R4-S20-A1 which defines what a FT is:

"A free throw is the opportunity given a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal from within the free-throw semicircle and behind the free-throw line."


II) The correct NFHS Basketball Rule is R9-S1-A3c, not R9-S1-A3d, which says:

"After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower no opponent must distract the free throw shooter."

Prior to 2019-20 the word "must" had been "shall". One of the unannounced Editorial Rule Changes made for 2019-20 was that someone wrote an algorithm which changed every "shall" to "must". This was done to end any confusion as to whether or not it was "optional" or "not optional". Unfortunately, the Rule of Unintended Consequences made some Rules read weirdly as in R9-S1-A3c. We can overlook this weirdness for the sake of this discussion.


III) One can do a search and find a number of threads in the Basketball Forum discussing R9-S1-A3c and the subject of this thread: Is it Disconcerting Action or is it Unsportsmanlike Conduct as it pertains to Bench Personnel. And one will find two philosophies: Philosophy (1): It is Disconcerting Action and Philosophpy (2): It is Unsportsmanlike Conduct.


IV) NevadaRef as alluded to a Casebook Play stating that it is Philosophy (1). Normally, I would climb up into my attic and rummage through 49 years of Casebooks, but that ain't happening today, but I do not ever remembering such a Casebook Play. And I think that NevadaRef was actually alluding to:

2001-02 NFHS Points of Emphasis:

2) Disconcertion During Freethrows: Some states have indicated a growing concern with the free throw shooter being disconcerted by a defensive player. Disconcertion may occur through hand and arm movements, and verbal outbursts during the attempt. The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation and may result in a substitute throw. If persistent or deemed unsporting, the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul.

I have italicized the word "team" because it is the basis for the debate between Philosophy (1) and Philosophy (2).

Those who know me, know that I am a firm believer that the NFHS Basketball publications: Rules Book, Case Book, Officials Manual, Handbook, as well as Points of Emphasis and (Preseason) Rules Interpretations govern how the game is officiated and how the rules are interpreted and are to be considered the infallible words of the "Gods of Basketball". Except when they are either incorrect or ambiguous. The 2001-02 Points of Emphasis on Disconcertion During Freethrows is ambiguous. And those who know me and those who have done a search here know where I am going.


V) "Opponent": "Player" or "Team"?

Guess what? The Rules are quite ambiguous. If one goes to the NFHS Central Hub and open the Rules Book and then do a search for: i) "opponent" one will find 93 entries; ii) "player" one will find 212 entries; and iii) "team" one will find 161 entries. One will also find 24 entries for "substitute, 56 entries for "coach", and 21 entries for "bench personnel".

The definitions of "Player", "Team", and "Substitute" are easily found in Rules 3 and 4 and are quite specific and the word "opponent" is not found in any of the definitions for the three.

A cursory review of the search for "opponent" shows that word is used to identify a Team Member on the Court, in other words, a Player and not a Substitute or Bench Personnel. Which takes us to the discussion at hand.


VI) Disconcertion During a Freethrow: Philosophy (1) or Philosophy (2).

It is my learned opinion that actions by Team B's Bench Personnel during A1's FTAs which distract him are not a FT Violation as postulated by Philosophy (1) but, instead, falls under Philosophy (2).

As one can guess I am a advocate of Philosophy (2). That said, a search of the discussions mentioned in Part III above will find that while I do not always practice what I preach.

Situation #1: During A1's unsuccessful FTA, B3, in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!" Ruling: a) This is a FT Violation for Disconcerting Action by B3 and A1 is awarded a substitute FT. b) This is not a FT Violation for Disconcerting Action but a TF by B3 for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and A1 is not awarded a substitute FT.

Situation #1 is an example where what some consider the same same infraction of the rules but they really are two different types of infractions with two different types of penalties.

Let us now look at the Situation being discussed:

Situation #2A: Team A: 22, Team B: 20, with 0:38 in the 2nd QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

Situation #2B: Team A: 45, Team B: 10, with 0:38 in the 2nd QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

Situation #2C: Team A: 62, Team B: 60, with 0:38 in the 4th QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

Situation #2D: Team A: 65, Team B: 35, with 0:38 in the 4th QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

How would one, who advocate for Philosophy (1), rule in these four Situations? Yes, I advocate for Philosophy (2), but I experienced enough based upon the ambiguity of the Rules and the 2001-02 POE, I submit that Game Awareness guides us how we rule in these four situations.

That is my $50 lecture for the day.

MTD, Sr.