Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Good points, but don't forget about the delayed violation fist. If the official believes that a disconcerting act has taken place, they should signal the delayed violation fist before the free throw is made, or missed, wait for the outcome, and then ignore the violation if made, call the violation if missed.
|
You make a good point. Violations by the defense should be flagged with the delayed dead ball signal. If you observe a potentially disconcerting act, and you form the intent to make the call, and you have time to signal it (based on timing, we don't always have time to signal before the whistle), then do it.
But, unlike stepping into the lane early or leaving a marked lane space, I assert that what you're really signaling here is your intent to render a judgment of disconcertion IF the thrower misses. But this argument is splitting hairs because the result is the same either way. If you judge that the thrower was actually disconcerted (and you could certainly make that judgment based on an observed reaction before the throw is released), and the free throw is made, the violation is ignored and the signal is dropped. If the free throw is made, and you therefore judge the potentially disconcerting act did not disconcert the thrower, no violation has occured. Same result.
PS, to address the question in your "title", generally the violation has occurred but the rule says it is ignored. But in this one case I argue that disconcerting requires judging the effect of the act on the thrower. Normally we won't know if a violation has occurred until we observe outcome of the free throw. Many will argue that it is sufficient to judge that the act "probably will" or "probably did" affect the thrower, and will judge a violation occurred without waiting to observe the outcome. They are safe in doing so because if they are wrong, they can simply drop the delayed dead ball signal and no harm is done.