Persistent ...
 

If this is the case, I'm also being proactive, sounding my whistle, and telling the bench to "knock it off".

But for me, my "first choice" for a penalty (after sounding my whistle, and telling the bench to "knock it off) will be a delayed violation rather than a technical foul, however if this unsporting behavior continues further into the game, I will definitely consider technical fouls.

2001-2002 NFHS Rulebook Points Of Emphasis #2 Disconcertion During Free Throws: ... If persistent, or deemed unsporting, the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul.

There is no definition in rules who is an "opponent" to know the context. If they said player or bench personnel which are defined, then we would have a clearer picture. You are making a leap as to who can do things when the current rules usually define many things by who can or cannot do something. Not sure we need to agree to disagree on anything when you have not shown that your assessment applies to the situation we are discussing. I simply said what we have discussed where I live and how to handle this.

Peace

Funk and Wagnalls ...
 

Agree. Too bad. We could look it up Funk and Wagnalls, but sometimes the NHFS definition isn't the same as the dictionary definition.

https://tse2.explicit.bing.net/th?id...=0&w=179&h=178

Disconcertion we have!
 

I made a disconcertion call prior to C'mas break in a game: did not involve bench personnel, but the opponent players occupying marked lane spaces were yelling "Box Out!" & "I got shooter" above normal audibly prior to the FT shooter on the first FT of 2 shot foul. She missed the shot and I awarded the substitute FT. It would have been disingenuous on my part to ignore that such an occurrence was an orchestrated attempt to distract the FT shooter. I've seen the same thing when opponents who are occupying marked lane spaces all of a sudden have to cough loudly when the FT is attempted. I got no flack from the HC either--ostensibly, she knew the deal:rolleyes:

I had a JV Boys game where the opponents in the bottom lane spaces would stamp their feet in unison similar to your scenario. Naturally, they gave a "Who me?" reaction when I called a violation for disconcerting, but they didn't do it any more after that.


With the addition of the bench conduct warning, I've used that twice to address instances of players on the bench trying to distract the shooter. Each time, the coach put an end to it real quick.

Purpose And Intent ...
 

While certainly within the purpose and intent of the rule, it's not specifically mentioned as a violation that's deemed worthy of a bench warning, however rulebook language such as "unsporting" and "not limited to" should cover this situation:

4-48: A warning to a head coach/bench personnel for misconduct is an administrative procedure by an official, which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach.
ART. 1 For conduct, such as that described in Rule 10-5, Articles 1 (a, b d, e, f), 2 and 4, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed.
NOTE: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.
ART. 2 For the first violation of Rule 10-6-1, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed.
NOTE: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.

10-5-2: The head coach is responsible for his/her own conduct and behavior, as well as substitutes, disqualified team members and all other bench personnel. Bench personnel, including the head coach, must not:
ART. 1 Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
a. Disrespectfully addressing an official.
b. Attempting to influence an official’s decision.
d. Disrespectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an opponent.
e. Objecting to an official’s decision by rising from the bench or using gestures.
f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.
ART. 2 Enter the court unless by permission of an official to attend an injured player.
ART. 4 Stand at the team bench while the clock is running or is stopped, and must remain seated, except:
a. The head coach as in 10-6-1.
b. When a team member is reporting to the scorer’s table.
c. During a charged time-out, as in 5-11, or the intermission between quarters and extra periods.
d. To spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a team member or to acknowledge a replaced player(s), but must immediately return to his/her seat.

10-6-1: The head coach must remain seated on the team bench, except:
a. By state association adoption, the head coach may stand within the designated coaching box described in 1-13-2. The first technical foul charged directly or indirectly to the head coach results in loss of coaching-box privileges and the head coach must remain seated for the remainder of the game, except as stated below in 10-6-1b, c, d and e.
b. The head coach may stand within the coaching box to request a time-out or signal his/her players to request a time-out.
c. The head coach may stand and/or leave the coaching box to confer with personnel at the scorer’s table to request a time-out as in 5-8-4.
d. The head coach may stand within the coaching box to replace or remove a disqualified/injured player or player directed to leave the game.
e. The head coach may stand as in 10-5-4c and 10-5-4d.
NOTE: The head coach may enter the court in the situation where a fight may break out – or has broken out – to prevent the situation from escalating.

Penalty With Teeth ...
 

No distraction delayed violation, so no do-over?

No technical foul charged, so no free throws?

The use of a bench conduct warning gives the bench personnel one "free shot" at a last split second startling distraction of the shooter.

Could have implications down the line in a one point loss (especially if the last split second startling distraction happened at the first try of a one and one, even more so in the last seconds of a very close game).

While I'm not a fan of a technical foul at the first instance of a last split second startling distraction, I'd rather see the technical foul than just a bench conduct warning (that doesn't really have a penalty with "teeth").

It's even covered in 4-48, the bench conduct warning rule:

A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul … unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed.

The rulebook tells us that a free throw shooter must get an unhindered try and must not be distracted by an opponent.

If the shooter is not given an unhindered try because he was distracted by a bench personnel opponent, he should either get a do-over (delayed violation), or his team should get two free throws (bench conduct technical foul).

In my mind, one penalty is better than the other (the nuclear option).

If the shooter is obviously distracted (startled) by the bench, there has to be some "real" remedy (penalty).

That's the purpose and intent of rules telling us that the free throw shooter must get an unhindered try and must not be distracted by an opponent.

While I agree that the rulebook does a poor job of defining "opponent", purpose and intent should cover the situation.

I vote for the delayed violation.

Now could somebody please help me down from my soapbox, I'm getting dizzy up here.

Billy,

You always act like you are connected to someone that has rules, why don't you get their clarification (and I am not talking about some IAABO mess) about what should be done or why they do not have an interpretation for this situation you describe.

So if we are all incorrect and you are correct, show us something more than it applies to anyone on the bench. No violation applies to anyone on the bench in our game. Why would this be the exception without some case play or interpretation to make it clear how to proceed?

Peace

Another Fine Mess ...
 

My connections are strictly IAABO related. Regarding this situation, I was actually considering contacting the "Gang Of Four", our IAABO International committee of interpreters, but decided that it would only apply to a small number of Forum members who are associated with IAABO so I didn't bother. My interpretation follows an ancient ruling from our state interpreter but again, that's also IAABO related.

While I 100% understand that IAABO and the NFHS are not the same, not even in the same league, regarding rule interpretations, "mess" is a strong word. We did have an IAABO International interpreter step out of his lane and jump the gun on a controversial rule interpretation regarding boxing out the free throw shooter a few years ago (turned out he was correct, he was just a year early), but he has retired. Calling a very professional organization like IAABO a "mess", while true in the sense that it doesn't mean a hill of beans to many, many basketball officials, is really an overstatement. The NFHS and IAABO usually work very closely and professionally together (except for the box out controversy a few years ago).

Opponent ...
 

The rulebook tells us that a free throw shooter must get an unhindered try and must not be distracted by an opponent.

I've always said that it's difficult to defend my interpretation due to a lack of a NFHS definition for "opponent". However, I can defend it with purpose and intent, and (lacking a NFHS definition) I have a dictionary definition of opponent: one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict).

Likewise, without a NFHS definition saying an opponent must be a player on the court, it's also difficult for JRutledge to defend his position of not calling a delayed violation on such a situation.

I do agree with JRutledge that unsporting bench technical fouls are rule based and are appropriate, but only if the first last split second startling distraction and air ball is immediately followed by the charging of an unsporting technical foul and two free throws and the ball.

Here's where I disagree with both JRutledge and Stat-Man: To allow such unsporting activity with just a, "Knock it off. Don't do it again" (bench warning), is not an appropriate penalty for a missed air ball free throw due to last split second startling distraction unsporting activity that is not allowed by a common sense and purpose and intent reading of the rules. Certainly not on the front end of a one and one in the last seconds of a very close game.

There is no rule, casebook interpretation, annual interpretation, or point of emphasis that states that one can't call a distracting delayed violation on bench personnel.

Of course, if there was a written list of everything that an official can't do, it would be longer than War and Peace.

I am of the opinion that the term opponent includes all members of the opposing team. That includes the head coach, any assistant coaches, all rostered substitutes, team managers, and trainers. Basically, anyone who is sitting in the team bench area is part of that team and the team will be penalized if such an individual infringes the rules.

I would call a violation for bench personnel yelling at an opposing FT shooter.
I can also understand a technical foul when such behavior is repeated or grossly unsportsmanlike.

Upon what basis do I believe that? The manner in which the numerous and frequent appearances of the terms opponent and opposing are used throughout the NFHS rules book.

While I agree with your conclusion (that disconcertion applies to bench personnel), I don't agree with your reasoning.

Using a quick search on a PDF copy of the 2017-18 rule book I have, there are 35 uses of the word opponent or opponents. Many of the references are in regard to awarding a throwin to the opponents after an infraction or free throws for technical foul, where the team is the beneficiary of the award, but it is always a player that must execute the awarded throw-in or free throw. The next most frequent use is as a synonym for opposing players where it refers to live ball situations...contact fouls, free-throw space requirements, jump/held ball. It is rare that the word opponent, in the rule book, refers to anyone on the bench.

Fair Play ...
 

Agree. I did the same search as Camron Rust and found the same references to players (as Camron Rust stated so eloquently).

Good citations for JRutledge and Stat-Man to defend their positions.

However, there is still no citation (rule, casebook interpretation, annual interpretation, or point of emphasis) that states that an opponent can't be bench personnel and that one can't call a distracting delayed violation on bench personnel.

The rulebook tells us that a free throw shooter must get an unhindered try and must not be distracted by an opponent.

Without a rule definition, casebook interpretation, annual interpretation, or point of emphasis that states otherwise; common sense, purpose and intent, fair play, and a Funk and Wagnalls dictionary tells me that one can call a distracting delayed violation on bench personnel.

The guys on the bench did something obviously unsporting. They should be made to pay with a delayed violation do-over, or a technical foul (two free throws by the team's best free throw shooter, and the ball.

A, "Knock it off. Don't do it again"(bench warning), just doesn't cut the mustard, certainly not for an obvious pre-planned last split second startling obvious distraction by the opposing bench followed by an air ball on the front end of a one and one in the last seconds of a very close game.

I'm convinced that we can, by rule, penalize with a bench unsporting technical foul.

I'm convinced that we can charge a bench warning in some cases when the bench starts distracting a little early and the officials can sound the whistle to stop the free throw.

I'm not convinced that we can't call a delayed violation if officials can't stop the free throw in the above situation.

Rule 4 defines everything else short of the kitchen sink. I wonder why they didn't define opponent?

Again this is not hard and if the rules committee wants everyone on the bench to be apart of a violation, then why not put that in your rules and interpretations. And yes it is "mess" when we hear one thing from IAABO and people act as it applies to everyone. It does not and honestly, I do not care what IAABO does because there is no such stronghold where I live. If the NF puts something out there, that is another thing as they are what most of us can reference.

Peace

When In Rome ...
 

Of course it doesn't.

Not me. I don't act like that. When there has (rarely) been some type of rule interpretation difference between IAABO and the NFHS (i.e., boxing out free throw shooter), I have always identified the interpretation as an only IAABO interpretation that only works with IAABO officials.

When I bring up questions and/or answers from the IAABO Refresher Exam (or any other IAABO source), I clearly identify the exam (or any other IAABO source) as an IAABO Refresher Exam and the questions and/or answers as IAABO questions and/or answers.

And I honestly do not recall any other Forum IAABO members acting in this holier-than-thou manner either.

Same thing for IAABO mechanics. I clearly identify them as IAABO only mechanics, and often title my posts "For IAABO Eyes Only". Some Forum members don't heed my warning. Curiosity killed the cat.

http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movie...overs/fyeo.jpg