Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
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 Chairmans 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.
|
#1, Mr. Knox still officiates.
#2, during NCHSAA Rules Clinics, Mr. Knox does not express to us, his own interpretations. He uses the Powerpoint presentations created by the NFHS. I made my notes based on the information contained in the presentation.
#3, he wasn't popping off about an obscure case play that he had forgotten about. The information was a POE for the NFHS and had been sufficently discussed during committe meetings.
Quote:
|
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.
|
They already have, yet you're still too arrogant to admit you're wrong, which surprises no one on this forum. 
|
#1: Calling people names during what is supposed to be a civilized discussion of the rules and how they should be applied serves no purpose what so ever.
#2: No one has accused Dick Knox of popping off. When the Chairman speaks he is just like E.F. Hutton, people listen, therefore what he says is to be considered an official statement.
#3: Jurassic Referee, printed the NFHS 2001-02 Point of Emphasis concerning disconcerting action during free throws. Which I shall print again: "Disconcertion may occur through hand and arm movements, and verbal outbursts during the attempt. The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation (9-1-5) and may result in a substitute throw. IF PERSISTENT, OR DEEMED UNSPORTING, THE TEAM/PLAYER MAY BE PENALIZED WITH A TECHNICAL FOUL".
The rules state that disconcerting action during a free throw is a violation (a delayed dead ball violation, I might add). What we have been discussing is my Play (2): A member of the Team B's bench personal (Head Coach, Assistant Coach, or Substitute) will yell block out just as A1 is releasing the ball on the free throw attempt. Is this a violation of the free throw provisions? No. Why? NFHS R9-S1 states that player shall not violate provisions of the free throws listed in Articles 1 thru 8, and Article 5 is disconcerting action. Keeping in mind that NFHS and NCAA Mens/Womens rules are the offspring of the NBC, NCAA R9-S1-A2c is even clearer: No player shall disconcert (e.g., taunt, bait, gesture or delay) the free-thrower. Neither NFHS R9-S1 A5 nor NCAA R9-S1-A2c use the word bench personnel.
The NFHS 2001-02 Point of Emphasis is just that a point of emphasis. The NFHS Rules Committee wanted officials to be aware an increase in infractions of R9-S1-A5. Lets break down the bold words of the POE. That last sentence divides the illegal conduct of the non-shooting team into two types: 1) persistent, or 2) unsportsmanlike conduct.
Lets look at my Play (1) first as persistent and second as unsportsmanlike conduct.
1) Keeping in mind that a violation is an infraction of the rules that is only penalized (the penalties for violations are: a) the offended team is awarded possession of the ball for a throw-in; b) the offended team is awarded a substitute free throw; or c) the offended team is awarded one, two, or three points) and not charged against a player or the team, lets look at my Play (1). Every time a player from Team A attempts a free throw, B1 yells block out. If the official decides that B1s actions are persistent, then he can charge B1 with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct under NFHS R10-S3-A8 instead of penalizing the Team B for B1s infraction of R9-S1-A5. If the official takes this action, continuous motion is the applicable rule regarding A1s free throw attempt. If A1s free throw is successful, the score counts; and if A1s free throw is not successful, no substitute free throw is awarded. Why, B1s action is not a violation but a foul. A foul is an infraction of the rules, which is charged against a player, team, or bench personnel and is penalized (the penalties for fouls are: a) the offended team is awarded possession of the ball for a throw-in; b) the offended team is awarded one, two, or three free throws; or c) the offended team is awarded both a) and b)).
2) Lets amend my Play (1) slightly, instead of B1 yelling block out B1 makes comments to A1 about A1s mother that are not very nice (this is the first time B1 has done something of this nature, in other words, his actions are not persistent. B1s actions is not an infraction of R9-S1-A5, but an infraction of R10-S3-A8c. B1s actions is unsportsmanlike technical foul. Continuous motion is applicable regarding the free throw attempt by A1. If A1s free throw is successful, the score counts; and if A1s free throw is not successful, no substitute free throw is awarded.
I will stop here because I have already explained why Play (2) is an unsportsmanlike technical foul.