Disconcerting during FTs

[BakoRef]

9-1-3-d: No opponent must distract the free thrower [emphasis added by me]. Does opponent here mean players on the court and substitutes on the bench? What about other bench personnel such as the team manager or an injured team member?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BakoRef

9-1-3-d: No opponent must distract the free thrower [emphasis added by me]. Does opponent here mean players on the court and substitutes on the bench? What about other bench personnel such as the team manager or an injured team member?

All of the above. Try to address the first time so you don't need to call a violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BakoRef

9-1-3-d: No opponent must distract the free thrower [emphasis added by me]. Does opponent here mean players on the court and substitutes on the bench? What about other bench personnel such as the team manager or an injured team member?

Yes, it includes all of those people. There was a case play covering this several years ago.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

All of the above.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, it includes all of those people. There was a case play covering this several years ago.

While I fully agree with bob jenkins' and Nevadaref's replies, I would love to see the case play citation. We've discussed this situation many times on the Forum (with some not agreeing with us), and I don't remember any such caseplay.

[Indianaref]

POE #2 in the 2001/02 rule book---"The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation and may result in a substitute throw. If persistent or deemed unsporting, the TEAM/player may also be penalized with a technical foul."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

POE #2 in the 2001/02 rule book...

Nice detective work Indianaref. I had to actually take out my rule book printed on dead trees, my hard drive only has rule changes and points of emphasis beginning with 2004-05.

I'll save Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. a trip up the stairs to his cold attic library, here's the entire text:

2001-2002 NFHS Points Of Emphasis
2) Disconcertion During Free Throws
Some states have indicated a growing concern with the free throw shooter being disconcerted by a defensive player. Disconcertion may occur through hand and arm movements, and verbal outbursts during the attempt. The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation and may result in a substitute throw. If persistent or deemed unsporting, the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul.

I 100% agree that one can call a violation on the opponent's bench (often in the first half), and this citation may help our cause. However, as the Devil's advocate, this citation, interpreted literally, states that the "team" may be charged with a technical foul, not a violation. And the citation still has the pesky word "player" (not team member) in it, and for some, this may not quite be 100% convincing.

I just need this (below) to form my 100% convincing opinion:

9-12-Penalty: If a violation by the free thrower follows distraction by an
opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.

From my Funk & Wagnalls:

Opponent: A person who is on an opposing side in a game, contest, controversy, or the like; adversary.

[Pantherdreams]

When I read this and what people have posted that all makes sense.

Can I assume the majority (if not all of you) are only concerned with disconcertion if that is clearly the intent? Player/team member yelling, waving, noise, making, gesturing directly at the shooter or during the performance/release of the shot.

ie. You are not concerned with player who's movements are in the regular course of assuming position or regular conversation between the coach and staff/ coach and team members/players.

I've got a an ole sherrif I work with who awards more replacement free throws and throws out techs here than everyone I've ever worked along side combined. Basically if its not Sunday sermon still and quiet by the players on the floor and the team members we are doing it again. He has teched up coaches for instructing bench personnell during an opponents free throw.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

This is disconcerting

Funny.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Can I assume the majority are only concerned with disconcertion if that is clearly the intent? Player/team member yelling, waving, noise, making, gesturing directly at the shooter or during the performance/release of the shot.

While intent may be a big part of it, there may not be intent in some cases, i.e., opponent in a shooter's visual field struggles to stay in a legal position and moves his arms to keep his balance. If one believes that such action and movement distracted the shooter, one has to call the delayed violation and award a substitute free throw if the first one misses (especially if it misses everything).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I) Before we go into an in depth discussion we need to look at NFHS R4-S20-A1 which defines what a FT is:

"A free throw is the opportunity given a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal from within the free-throw semicircle and behind the free-throw line."


II) The correct NFHS Basketball Rule is R9-S1-A3c, not R9-S1-A3d, which says:

"After the ball is placed at the disposal of a free thrower no opponent must distract the free throw shooter."

Prior to 2019-20 the word "must" had been "shall". One of the unannounced Editorial Rule Changes made for 2019-20 was that someone wrote an algorithm which changed every "shall" to "must". This was done to end any confusion as to whether or not it was "optional" or "not optional". Unfortunately, the Rule of Unintended Consequences made some Rules read weirdly as in R9-S1-A3c. We can overlook this weirdness for the sake of this discussion.


III) One can do a search and find a number of threads in the Basketball Forum discussing R9-S1-A3c and the subject of this thread: Is it Disconcerting Action or is it Unsportsmanlike Conduct as it pertains to Bench Personnel. And one will find two philosophies: Philosophy (1): It is Disconcerting Action and Philosophpy (2): It is Unsportsmanlike Conduct.


IV) NevadaRef as alluded to a Casebook Play stating that it is Philosophy (1). Normally, I would climb up into my attic and rummage through 49 years of Casebooks, but that ain't happening today, but I do not ever remembering such a Casebook Play. And I think that NevadaRef was actually alluding to:

2001-02 NFHS Points of Emphasis:

2) Disconcertion During Freethrows: Some states have indicated a growing concern with the free throw shooter being disconcerted by a defensive player. Disconcertion may occur through hand and arm movements, and verbal outbursts during the attempt. The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation and may result in a substitute throw. If persistent or deemed unsporting, the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul.

I have italicized the word "team" because it is the basis for the debate between Philosophy (1) and Philosophy (2).

Those who know me, know that I am a firm believer that the NFHS Basketball publications: Rules Book, Case Book, Officials Manual, Handbook, as well as Points of Emphasis and (Preseason) Rules Interpretations govern how the game is officiated and how the rules are interpreted and are to be considered the infallible words of the "Gods of Basketball". Except when they are either incorrect or ambiguous. The 2001-02 Points of Emphasis on Disconcertion During Freethrows is ambiguous. And those who know me and those who have done a search here know where I am going.


V) "Opponent": "Player" or "Team"?

Guess what? The Rules are quite ambiguous. If one goes to the NFHS Central Hub and open the Rules Book and then do a search for: i) "opponent" one will find 93 entries; ii) "player" one will find 212 entries; and iii) "team" one will find 161 entries. One will also find 24 entries for "substitute, 56 entries for "coach", and 21 entries for "bench personnel".

The definitions of "Player", "Team", and "Substitute" are easily found in Rules 3 and 4 and are quite specific and the word "opponent" is not found in any of the definitions for the three.

A cursory review of the search for "opponent" shows that word is used to identify a Team Member on the Court, in other words, a Player and not a Substitute or Bench Personnel. Which takes us to the discussion at hand.


VI) Disconcertion During a Freethrow: Philosophy (1) or Philosophy (2).

It is my learned opinion that actions by Team B's Bench Personnel during A1's FTAs which distract him are not a FT Violation as postulated by Philosophy (1) but, instead, falls under Philosophy (2).

As one can guess I am a advocate of Philosophy (2). That said, a search of the discussions mentioned in Part III above will find that while I do not always practice what I preach.

Situation #1: During A1's unsuccessful FTA, B3, in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!" Ruling: a) This is a FT Violation for Disconcerting Action by B3 and A1 is awarded a substitute FT. b) This is not a FT Violation for Disconcerting Action but a TF by B3 for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and A1 is not awarded a substitute FT.

Situation #1 is an example where what some consider the same same infraction of the rules but they really are two different types of infractions with two different types of penalties.

Let us now look at the Situation being discussed:

Situation #2A: Team A: 22, Team B: 20, with 0:38 in the 2nd QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

Situation #2B: Team A: 45, Team B: 10, with 0:38 in the 2nd QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

Situation #2C: Team A: 62, Team B: 60, with 0:38 in the 4th QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

Situation #2D: Team A: 65, Team B: 35, with 0:38 in the 4th QT, when during A1's unsuccessful FTA, B10 (sitting on the Bench), in a loud voice says: a) "Miss it!" or b) "Miss it a$$hole!"

How would one, who advocate for Philosophy (1), rule in these four Situations? Yes, I advocate for Philosophy (2), but I experienced enough based upon the ambiguity of the Rules and the 2001-02 POE, I submit that Game Awareness guides us how we rule in these four situations.

That is my $50 lecture for the day.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The 2001-02 Points of Emphasis on Disconcertion During Freethrows is ambiguous.

Agree (see my earlier post #7).

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

A cursory review of the search for "opponent" shows that word is used to identify a Team Member on the Court, in other words, a Player and not a Substitute or Bench Personnel.

You've lost me here. Please explain.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It is my learned opinion that actions by Team B's Bench Personnel during A1's FTAs which distract him are not a FT Violation

Respectfully disagree. From my Funk & Wagnalls: Opponent: A person who is on an opposing side in a game, contest, controversy, or the like; adversary.

Any opponent (player or bench personnel) that says, "Miss it a$$hole!", will lead to a delayed violation, a substitute free throw if missed, and an unsporting technical foul, and if it's from the bench the coach will sit down.

Any opponent (player or bench personnel) that says, "Miss it!", will lead to a delayed violation, and a substitute free throw if missed.