Disconcertlon

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A1 is attempting the last free throw. B4, standing in the 2nd lane space, abruptly brings their arms up aggressively over their head as A1 is bringing the ball up to shoot. The try is missed, and the ball is rebounded. Officials allow play to continue. True or False

Of course the answer is true. All of this happened, including the officials allowing the play to continue. If the play was videotaped, I'm pretty sure that we would observe all of this. What could be false about it? Is the question writer known to lie in describing situations that occur on the court?

Who wrote this very poorly worked true/false question?

B4, a singular player, yet the question describes "their" arms, instead of "his", or "her", arms".

Better question:

A1 is attempting the last free throw. B4, standing in a marked lane space, abruptly brings his arms up aggressively over his head, and disconcerts A1, who is bringing the ball up to shoot. The try is missed, and the ball is rebounded. Officials allow play to continue. Are the officials correct? Yes or no.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A1 is attempting the last free throw. B4, standing in a marked lane space, abruptly brings his arms up aggressively over his head, and disconcerts A1, who is bringing the ball up to shoot. The try is missed, and the ball is rebounded. Officials allow play to continue. Are the officials correct? Yes or no.

This is the key. If disconcertion is a given, the answer is obvious. But disconcertion is a judgment call. From here, I can't tell if the arm movement amounts to disconcertion or not. So there is no way one can say from reading this question that the officials are not correct.

Having said all that, I probably missed the question on the test.

[rbruno]

A better question is "Does disconsertion have to be intentional". Players in marked lane spaces routinely lose their balance and stumble around without crossing the lines and violating. Should this still be considered disconsertion if it messes up the shooter while they are in their shooting motion?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rbruno

A better question is "Does disconsertion have to be intentional". Players in marked lane spaces routinely lose their balance and stumble around without crossing the lines and violating. Should this still be considered disconsertion if it messes up the shooter while they are in their shooting motion?

Yes, it's still disconcertion. Nothing is stated regarding intent in the written rule.

9-1-3-C: No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.

[grunewar]

"I GOT SHOOTER! I GOT SHOOTER!"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by grunewar

"I GOT SHOOTER! I GOT SHOOTER!"

99% of the time this is well before the shooter begins the try (and 84.6 % of the time it's before s/he even has the ball). It's nothing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

...84.6 % of the time it's before s/he even has the ball.

84.6 %? Reference please.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by grunewar

"I GOT SHOOTER! I GOT SHOOTER!"

If you are playing HS basketball and this affects your ability to shoot a free throw, you should really think about taking up another sport.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

"I GOT SHOOTER! I GOT SHOOTER!"

Originally Posted by johnny d

If you are playing HS basketball and this affects your ability to shoot a free throw, you should really think about taking up another sport.

In my high school game, if an opponent is screaming this from a marked lane space, or from behind the arc, or, possibly, even from the bench, while the free throw shooter is in the act of shooting, and if I feel that this is a distraction to the free throw shooter, I will call the delayed violation every time. If the free throw misses, we're shooting again.

9.1.3 SITUATION D: ... The free thrower is entitled to protection from being distracted. It is the opponent’s responsibility to avoid disconcerting the free thrower.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by johnny d

If you are playing HS basketball and this affects your ability to shoot a free throw, you should really think about taking up another sport.

That's why, whenever a defender appears to disconcert a free thrower I NEVER CALL IT.
Instead, I kill the play and ask the free thrower if he was disconcerted. If he says "No", I go to the AP arrow. If he says "Yes", I ask the coach for a sub and counsel the player to go straight to the locker room and quit.
Happens maybe three or four times a year.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by rbruno

A better question is ...

...since the rule says, "No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower", can a player not on the floor commit a disconcertion violation?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

...since the rule says, "No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower", can a player not on the floor commit a disconcertion violation?

From the bench? Absolutely. An opponent not on the floor can commit a disconcertion violation. The rule states, "opponent", not, "player".

9.1.3 SITUATION D: ... The free thrower is entitled to protection from being distracted. It is the opponent’s responsibility to avoid disconcerting
the free thrower.

In thirty-five years, I've never called this in an interscholastic game, but I have called it once, in a recreation game, and I was confident that my call had the full support of the NFHS rule, as written.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Freddy

...since the rule says, "No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower", can a player not on the floor commit a disconcertion violation?

If they aren't on the floor, they aren't a player, they are a team member or substitute. I assume you are talking about a team member of the opposing team sitting on the bench.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rbruno

A better question is "Does disconsertion have to be intentional". Players in marked lane spaces routinely lose their balance and stumble around without crossing the lines and violating. Should this still be considered disconsertion if it messes up the shooter while they are in their shooting motion?

Nothing in the rule book states whether intent is or isn't an element of disconcertion.

9.1.3 SITUATION D tells us " If the official judges the act in either (a) or (b) to be disconcerting, it shall be penalized."

Based on this, I say it is entirely up to the judgment of the official.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is the key. If disconcertion is a given, the answer is obvious. But disconcertion is a judgment call.

9.1.3 SITUATION D: The ball is at the disposal of free thrower A1. B1, within
the visual field of A1: (a) raises his/her arms above the head; or (b) after his/her
arms have been extended above the head, alternately opens and closes both
hands. RULING: B1 may be penalized in both (a) and (b). The official must judge
whether the act distracts the free thrower. If the official judges the act in either (a)
or (b) to be disconcerting, it shall be penalized. The free thrower is entitled to
protection from being distracted. It is the opponent’s responsibility to avoid disconcerting
the free thrower. (9-1-3c Penalty 2)

9.1.3 SITUATION E: After A1 starts the free-throw motion, B1 commits a
common foul on A2 along the lane before the bonus rule is in effect. RULING: Even if
the foul occurs before the ball is in flight, the throw counts if successful. No
substitute try is awarded if the throw is missed. In either case, whether the throw
is made or missed, the ball is awarded to Team A at the out-of-bounds spot
nearest to where the foul occurred. If, in the opinion of the official, A1 has been
disconcerted, a substitute throw shall be awarded if the try is unsuccessful. (4-
11; 9-1-3c Penalty 2)

9.1.3 SITUATION G: As A1 starts the free-throwing motion, B1 hurriedly raises
his/her arms. In the judgment of the official, the action of B1 disconcerts A1
and causes the attempt to miss the basket ring. RULING: As soon as the ball
misses the ring, it becomes dead. Since free thrower A1 violated following disconcertion,
a substitute free throw is awarded. (9-1-3a Penalty 4c)