Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... show us something more than it applies to anyone on the bench. No violation applies to anyone on the bench in our game. Why would this be the exception without some case play or interpretation to make it clear how to proceed?
|
The rulebook tells us that a free throw shooter must get an unhindered try and must not be distracted by an opponent.
I've always said that it's difficult to defend my interpretation due to a lack of a NFHS definition for "opponent". However, I can defend it with purpose and intent, and (lacking a NFHS definition) I have a dictionary definition of opponent: one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict).
Likewise,
without a NFHS definition saying an opponent must be a player on the court, it's also difficult for JRutledge to defend his position of not calling a delayed violation on such a situation.
I do agree with JRutledge that unsporting bench technical fouls are rule based and are appropriate, but
only if the first last split second startling distraction and air ball is immediately followed by the charging of an unsporting technical foul and two free throws and the ball.
Here's where I disagree with both JRutledge and Stat-Man: To allow such unsporting activity with just a, "Knock it off. Don't do it again" (bench warning), is not an appropriate penalty for a missed air ball free throw due to last split second startling distraction unsporting activity that is not allowed by a common sense and purpose and intent reading of the rules. Certainly not on the front end of a one and one in the last seconds of a very close game.
There is no rule, casebook interpretation, annual interpretation, or point of emphasis that states that one
can't call a distracting delayed violation on bench personnel.
Of course, if there was a written list of everything that an official can't do, it would be longer than War and Peace.