[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

He's back!

It has been my observations over the last three or four years, that the rise in disconcerting action has NOT been at the NCAA Men’s/Women’s, FIBA, or NBA/WNBA level of play but at the NFHS level of play. It does not matter whether the game is a jr. H.S. or H.S. game, CYO, AAU, YBOA, AYBTour, NAYB, GBA, USSSA, or any other level of youth basketball that is where the disconcerting action problem is. Therefore I will restrict my comments to how the NFHS rules code, while only referring to the other codes as a reference to how they approach the problem.

Previously, I have quoted all of the relevant rules codes regarding disconcerting action and unsportsmanlike technical fouls, but when I quoted the NFHS rule pertaining to disconcerting action I did not quote it in its entirety. It reads:

NFHS Rule 9: Violations and Penalties: Section 1: Free-throw provisions: A player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws: Article 5: No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.

Lets look closer at NFHS R9-S1. Section 1 deals only with the free throw provisions and there are eight Articles in Section 1, and each and every Article in Section 1 starts with the following words: “A player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws.” The word “player” is used, not “player or bench personnel.” In fact, the word “opponent” is used in only two of the Articles in Section 1: 2 and 5. Article 2 states: An opponent of the free thrower shall occupy each lane space adjacent to the end line during the try, unless the resuming of play procedure is in effect and not teammate of the free thrower may occupy either of these lane spaces. There is no doubt in Article 2 that “opponent” means a player on the court and not bench personnel.

Looking at Article 5 (the disconcerting action article), the NFHS Casebook Play and the NCAA Approved Ruling would lead one to believe that “opponent” means a player on the court, and not bench personnel. (Remember, from a historical standpoint, the NFHS and NCAA rules codes are the offspring of the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (NBCUSC or NBC)).

With regard to my Play (2), my interpretation of unsportsmanlike technical foul as opposed to violation, is based upon the following words at the beginning of Section 1: “A player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws.” Bench personnel are not players.

As I have said in the past Play (1) is simple. B1 has committed a free throw violation by disconcerting the free thrower. But Play (2) is not so simple. The word “opponent” has no clear definition. What is an “opponent” varies among the various times it appears in the rules. The definition of a false double foul is a good example of how the word “opponent” means both player and bench personnel. There are many Casebook Plays that bear this out. But the Casebook Plays that pertain to disconcerting action only show players committing the violation. While this is not a very convincing argument for Play (2) being an unsportsmanlike technical foul, the only help that the rule itself provides is that “a player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws” and Article 5 is one of the provisions of NFHS R9-S1. This leaves an official with only NFHS R10-S4-A1, which states that: “Bench personnel shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as: Article 1d: Disrespectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an opponent.”

Richard Knox, Deputy Executive Director of the North CarolinaHSAA and past Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee is on record (when he was the Chairman) that the word opponent in Article 5 applies to bench personnel as well as to players on the court. I agree the Chairman is like E.F. Hutton, so when the Chairman makes a statement regarding a rules interpretation, it should be treated as an official ruling. Does that mean the Chairman’s statement is correct? No. Every person who has ever officiated, myself included, has forgotten, from time to time, an obscure casebook play or subsection of a rule when answering a question regarding a rules interpretation. The longer one officiates the easier it is to forget the obscure rules and plays because we know more to forget.

I do not want to get off on a rant here (my apologies to Dennis Miller; actually this whole posting has probably been a rant), but even Rules Committee Chairman and Rules Editors can make mistakes. The NFHS issued a rules interpretation at the beginning of the 2001-02 season that was in direct conflict of the rules and an existing Casebook Play. When I first emailed Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox questioning the ruling, their first reply to me was that the ruling was correct. It was not until several days after I emailed them again with the Rules and Casebook Play that they reversed their original decision and issued a correct interpretation.

We all make mistakes, and the NFHS just may decide that I am wrong about this whole thing. But until the NFHS makes an official ruling regarding Play (2) that is my story and I am sticking with it.

Hopefully, Play (2) is a situation that the Rules Committee will review and issue an official interpretation.