Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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.
|
No it doesn't. That's simply a supposition on your part. The Case Book isn't meant to address every single possibility that could occur in basketball. Jurassic referenced the situation where, if a T were called for disconcertion on the bench, a FT would result if the shooter had missed the FT and the penalty for the unsporting act would also be administered. His interp came from a NFHS website interp a couple of years ago.
|
Lah me,Mark:
1)About 3 years ago,over on the McGriff board,we had this exact same discussion.You stated at that time that you couldn't call disconcertion as a violation on the bench.You also used the same argument about opponents only being those players on the floor.BktBallRef,myself and others disagreed vehemently with you.To settle the argument,you e-mailed someone that you knew that was on the FED rules committee at that time to get a ruling.After having to be prodded,you sheepishly reported back to us a coupla days later,that-yes,indeed-you sureashell could call disconcertion on the bench-as per the response to your e-mail.If I remember right,the person that you e-mailed was Mary Struckhoff.
2)The NFHS posted on their website,the same year that the disconcertion POE was issued,a caseplay stating that disconcertion violation applied to all opponents,including those on the bench(subs,coaches,trainers,etc.).
BktBallRef is right. You are wrong. I also see that I was agreeing with you before for the wrong reasons.I thought that you were now aware of the proper rulings- i.e.-disconcertion can be a violation on a coach. It can also additionally be a T,if an official deems it unsportsmanlike.