[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
...with regards to disconcertion by the bench.

Exactly. MTD stated that if the bench disconcerts, it's a T. That's not true. It's a violation and if the FT is missed, another FT is awarded. If it's unsporting, such as "MISS IT YOU SOB!", it would be a T is well.

From what I'm reading now, and from what MTS has mistakenly said in the past, he feels that the term opponent only applies to the 5 defenders on the floor. That's just flat out wrong, as Jurassic's NFHS interp proves. An member of the opposition may disconcert, just like any defensive player on the floor can.

What I am saying with regard to Play (2) in my posting is that with the rules codes do not have a definition for "opponent." There are places in the rules where "opponent" inplies player or bench personal (substitutes, coaches, mangagers, etc.) and there are places in the rules where "opponent" implies players only.

With regard to disconcerting action, every casebook play that I referred to were plays where the illegal activity was committed by players, which would imply that it is only disconcertion when the illegal act is committed by players only. In fact, the NBA/WNBA rules specifically states that disconcertion can only be committed by "an opponent in the game" which would imply that,at least in the NBA/WNBA disconcertion can only be committed by players and not bench personnel.

My argument is that in Play (2) the argument in favor of an unsportsmanlike technical foul over a disconcertion violation is stronger based upon three premises: 1) the fact that all available casebook plays involve players and not bench personnel, 2) there is no definition of "opponent" in the rules codes, and 3) at least the NBA/WNBA says that only opponents on the court (players, not bench personnel) can commit disconcerting action.

If I were to see Play (2) in a NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, or FIBA test, I would rule it a unsportsmanlike technical foul. How would I handle Play (2) in the real world? I have done it both ways, of course, how I handled was dependent upon the situation. And I can tell you that I have charged a head coach with a technical foul only once and that was in a CYO girls' H.S. game. The first time the coach yelled "box out" the shooter made the free throw and play continued. The first chance I had I discretely warned him about yelling while his opponent was shooting free throws. He choose to disregard my advice and did it again the next time his opponent was attempting a free throw. This time the shooter missed and I imposed the disconcerting violation. I guess, he still did not get it, because he did it again about two minutes later. The shooter made the free throw, but I charged the head coach with a technical foul. He finally got it.

Lets face it, as far as non-officials are concerned, disconcertion is a misunderstood violation. And I think that when Play (2) happens, disconcertion is easier to apply than an unsportsmanlike technical foul. But, when I am asked for an interpretation for Play (2), I believe that the correct decision is an unsportsmanlike foul. And my only defense is that the casebook plays do not consider bench personnel, and the NBA/WNBA flat out state that only opponents on the court can commit disconcertion.