Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
It is obviously true that if the shot is good, disconcertion is irrelevant. BUT, by this logic, B1 does whatever on the first shot, which is good, which you say means no disconcertion. So now, on the second shot, B1 does exactly the same thing, but the shot misses, you would say that it is disconcertion? I say that if the violator is judged to have bad intentions, it makes this violation easier to call. But mainly I say the decision to make the call should already have been made before the result of the shot is known.
|
If B1 does whatever, but A1 makes the free throw, can you realistically argue that "whatever" really disconcerted A1? If B1 "does exactly the same thing" a second time, but this time has an effect on A1, can you realistically argue that A1 was NOT disconcerted just because he wasn't disconcerted the first time? That is not a logical argument. Just because an opponent tries to get in your head does not mean that you will let him. And just because he didn't succeed the first time does not mean he will not succeed the next time.
This does not mean that B1 did not try to disconcert the thrower both times. But there is no violation for
trying to disconcert; only for
actually disconcerting.
I have made some very definite assertions in this discussion. But there are also some things I have most definitely NOT said, NOR implied.
- I have NOT said don't address potentially disconcerting behavior, intentional or not.
- I have NOT said don't take note of an obvious attempt to disconcert.
- I have NOT said don't use that observation to inform your judgment of whether the shooter IS disconcerted.
- I have NOT said don't prefer to make this call based on an obvious act and an obvious reaction from the thrower.
- I have NOT said don't decide at the time the potentially disconcerting act is observed to make the disconcertion call -- IF the shooter actually IS disconcerted.
My point -- aimed at the false notion that intent is required -- is that we do not need to judge whether the opponent intended to disconcert. We do not need to judge whether the act was directed at the thrower. If an opponent's potentially disconcerting act, intentional or unintentional, directed at the thrower or not, DID disconcert the thrower, it IS a violation and a replacement throw shall be awarded.