Disconcertlon
 

On our study guide and test this time several questions seemed more like discussion questions than true/false questions. There was no answer key, so we waded through on our own. What say you here?

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

You're right. That's not a question. I assume they are trying to say the officials were correct to let play continue--true or false. Disconcertion means to disturb the shooter. Somebody simply raising their arms up aggressively may or may not disturb a shooter. I'd like to see the shooter to be sure:). i'm assuming they wouldnt ask the question though unless they wanted the answer to be false. (they want it to be called disconcertion.) clear as mud..

That would make it false. B4 would be standing in the 1st lane space.

B4 can be legal in the second spot if it was vacant--assuming two other B players in the first spaces.

Since it's only a study guide, it's probably an old question -- from when the "First" space was vacant, and the second, third and fourth spaces were (or could be) occupied by B, A, B respectively

Disconcertlon
 

I'm not getting hung up over the lane space positioning issue because that's clearly not the focus of the question. I agree that this is a poorly worded question, but I think the answer is false because why even bring up the specifics of how the defender raised his arms if disconcertion wasn't the focus of the question? My two cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are The Officials Correct
 

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.

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.

Intentional
 

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?

Disconcertion ...
 

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.

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

"I GOT SHOOTER! I GOT SHOOTER!" :rolleyes:

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.

There's No Judge In Judgment ...
 

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)

"Miss, You Idiot" ...
 

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.

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.

Citation ???
 

84.6 %? Reference please.

Significant digits can help you in physics class. Not so much in the forum....:D

We've been talking a lot about disconcertion here and it has been a good discussion. That said, I think it's important to point out that we shouldn't go looking for it. Deference is the better part of valor. I've called it once in seven years; an opponent behind the arc decided to overtly clap just as the free-thrower was about to release. Obvious. No one argued. Disconcertion is a call that should pop out at you.

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.: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.

Distraction ...
 

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.

And in the real world, how often does that happen?

I Ignore Quite a Few Other Rules, Too
 

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.
:D

The "screaming" part, never. But the top 2 guys raising their arms to distract the shooter, or repeatedly asking "who's got shooter" as he begins his shooting motion, quite often.

I address it the first time it happens, then don't have to worry about it anymore.

This
 

Or, as I wrote before, yelling, "I'VE GOT SHOOTER!" LOUD, right as they shoot. Yep, I've called it. IMO, they know what they're doing and they're doing it for the specific purpose of throwing the shooter off.

All this discussion I think supports my point that no matter what the officials ruled on this play, it is impossible to sit here and say they were wrong. This "question" should not have been on the test.

A common scenario that I have observed regarding disconcertion of the FT'er is this ( A1 is the FT shooter, B1 is occupying the lane space nearest to A1):

A1 is preparing to shoot the FT, then A1 starts to yak at B1 while A1 is preparing (going thru the normal pre-shot ritual with the ball) to shoot the FT--saying things like "you can't keep up with me", "stop fouling me", or "you my lunch". Then B1 in reply yaks back at A1 saying something like "you lucky the ref bailed you out cos I smacked your shot" or "you could never make a FT".

In my view this was what I'd call "invited disconcertion" that was precipitated by A1's verbal remarks to B1. I do not penalize B1 for this, I rather just tell them both to "knock it off". A1 does not get a substitute FT if shot missed.

Alternatively, I have seen B1, B2 perform a dramatic sneeze sound when A1 is preparing to do the FT's. In this latter case, I have enough common sense to know that B1, B2 are conducting pre-meditated disconcertions. If FT was missed I award a substitute FT to A1.

On topic, but different twist...has anyone ever called or considered calling disconcertion on the opposing coach for loudly calling for a timeout after the ball is at the disposal of the shooter?

I came close one time when the shooter was half way through his pre-shot routine (couple of bounces, hold the ball for a second and one more bounce before shooting) and the coach started yelling for a time out. The catch was that it distracted the shooter enough that he felt that he needed to restart his routine. He stopped, looked at the coach, looked at me and when he realized we weren't stopping play, he restarted his routine. In my opinion, the coach wasn't trying to disconcert him, but he had done so nonetheless. My 10 second count might have been interrupted or slowed by the whole ordeal, but I still came close. Had I made it to 10 or the shooter missed, I was prepared to call disconcertion. Irony is that we would have been able to grant the time out at that point.

How about when a Coach or another personnel on the bench that yell "Box Out" on the 1st of 2 Free Throws? hmmmm

If he's saying this stuff loud enough for me to hear it, that's an easy unsporting T for trash talking. Then he can shoot his FTs with no one on the lane, after which we will go to the other end to shoot the technical.

Once In Thirty-Five Years ...
 

For me once, in a boys high school recreation league game. Screams came from the bench: "Miss".