Disconcerting ?

[cozzmokramer]

Does disconcerting only apply to free throws? Just wondering because...

A recent varsity basketball game where one team's bench spent most of the game (but most often when the opponent had the ball in front of their bench) in loud unison rhythm clapping. They were obviously coached to do this. I asked someone from their crowd and they said they do it every game.

Even this fan said they didn't like that their team does it. It just seemed unsportsmanlike to me.

Is this just bush league antics or is there any type of action a referee should take?

[crosscountry55]

Assuming all bench personnel remained seated, and this action wasn’t specifically directed at a free-thrower, I’ve got nothing more than perhaps a whimsical smirk.

Injecting oneself here is a solution in search of a problem.

By the way, the modern term is “distracting” instead of “disconcerting.” That edit in the rule book language was made a couple of seasons ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

There is no such rule to prevent a bench from clapping or chanting. Unless they say something offensive or taunts the opponent, then nothing you should do about this. And certainly not in this day and age with little to no fans in many cases. The rule for disconcertion only addresses this during a free throw and honestly has nothing to do with the bench either by interpretation.

I would not call a thing on this and now would have to address every game with the number of fans at games.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule for disconcertion only addresses this during a free throw and honestly has nothing to do with the bench either by interpretation.

Disagree.

Please cite the interpretation.

Opponents can be players or bench personnel.

9-1-3-C: No opponent must distract the free thrower.

4-2-1: 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.

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 F: A1 steps on the free-throw line before releasing the ball in an attempt, after which B1 disconcerts. RULING: The ball became dead when A1 violated by stepping on the line, therefore, the action of B1 is not a violation. The ball is awarded to Team B out of bounds at the spot nearest the violation. (7-5-2; 9-1-3e Penalty 1)

2002-03 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 15: On a final free-throw attempt by A1, B1 commits a lane violation. A1's free throw misses the ring and flange. RULING: Double violation, unless the officials deem B1's act to be disconcerting to the shooter. If this was the last of multiple free throws, play will be resumed by the alternating-possession procedure. (9-1-3, 9-1-5, 9-1-9 Penalty 3)

Revised 1996 Interps SITUATION #17: Al is preparing to attempt the first of two free throws. Bi, who’ is occupying a marked ‘lane space, fakes as if to enter, the lane, prematurely. Al releases the ball but it does not strike the ring or enter the basket. RULING: The violation for faking applies only to players along the lane and only if an opponent enters the lane early because’ of the fake. However, in this .situation, the administering official may judge that the fake disconcerted Al. If disconcertion is called, the violation by, Al is disregarded and a substitute throw is awarded. If disconcertion is not, ruled, Al’s violation cancels the first attempt and the second attempt is awarded. (9-l-3,4,Pen. 3)

2001-2002 NFHS Rulebook- Points Of Emphasis #2 Disconcertion During Free Throws: Disconcertion may occur through hand and arm movements,and verbal outbursts during 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.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post994853

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post994853

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...oncertlon.html

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree.

Please cite the interpretation.

Opponents can be players or bench personal.

[I]9-1-3-C: No opponent must distract the free thrower.

There are many places throughout the rules where opponent is used in a context where it is clearly only an opposing player on the court. So, I am not sure you can use the word opponent to infer anything about whether disconcertion applies.

It could be argued that the word opponent is used to indicate that a teammate can't disconcert...as opposed to all of the other elements of the rule that mention players because those elements apply to players on both teams.


That said, it is long been held here on the forum and locally, before I was in a position that mattered, that it applies to bench personnel too.

Here is an old thread discussing the issue:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tion-whom.html

[Raymond]

Billy, you may be right about 9-1-3c applying to bench personnel, but none of the other citations you posted directly support or address what you are asserting. Do you have anything on point in regards to bench personnel?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Billy, you may be right about 9-1-3c applying to bench personnel, but none of the other citations you posted directly support or address what you are asserting. Do you have anything on point in regards to bench personnel?

No.

As you pointed out, I threw all the spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck and what didn't stick. None of my citations state that one can't call a distracting violation on bench personnel, and I liked the red highlighted wording in 9.1.3 SITUATION D.

I'll leave it up the other Forum members to find the citations and interpretations that back up JRutledge's assertion that one can't call a distracting violation on bench personnel. I've already done my due diligence as an esteemed Forum member.

The proper interpretation hinges on the NFHS definition of "opponent" (found 152 times in the rulebook but no specific definition).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'll leave it up the other Forum members to find the citations and interpretations that back up JRutledge's assertion that one can't call a distracting violation on bench personal. I've already done my due diligence as an esteemed Forum member.

The proper interpretation hinges on the NFHS definition of "opponent" (found 152 times in the rulebook but no specific definition).

I will put it this way, we have never had anyone in my area assert that you should penalize a bench for disconcertion. This has been addressed multiple ways over the years and basically tells the bench to "knock it off" based on a free throw situation and then if they do not comply use the tools you have to stop it. This OP situation was not about a free throw, but saying something from the bench to players playing on the floor. And if that was the case we would have issues every single game and Ts if we always addressed some situation with the bench for simply being active. There is nothing especially illegal about clapping. Now if they are taunting that is different, but not what I am reading.

I am watching college basketball and see players in the first half of games shoot the ball in front of the defensive team bench and the bench might raise up or yell something. That is very typical. Just do not interfere with the game or come onto the court where we have to see someone avoid you or alter their paths because you are in the way.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... we have never had anyone in my area assert that you should penalize a bench for disconcertion. This has been addressed multiple ways over the years and basically tells the bench to "knock it off" based on a free throw situation and then if they do not comply use the tools you have to stop it ...

When in Rome ...

One problem in Rome: You give bench personnel (especially in the first half) one free "pass". Free throw shooter is going through his routine preparing to shoot (only one, or first of multiple shots) and at the exact point of release everybody on the opposing bench yells "MISS" at the top of their lungs which obviously startles and distracts the shooter who throws an airball. After that the Roman official tells the bench to "knock it off", but the shot still missed, he and his team still didn't get the point, and he still doesn't get a "do-over" for the missed airball (as he would with a delayed violation for a distraction from an opponent).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

When in Rome ...

One problem in Rome: You give bench personnel (especially in the first half) one free "pass". Free throw shooter is going through his routine preparing to shoot (only one, or first of multiple shots) and at the exact point of release everybody on the opposing bench yells "MISS" at the top of their lungs which obviously startles and distracts the shooter who throws an airball. After that the Roman official tells the bench to "knock it off", but the shot still missed, he and his team still didn't get the point, and he still doesn't get a "do-over" for the missed airball (as he would with a delayed violation for a distraction from an opponent).

I did not say a thing about giving someone a "pass" I said that it would not be addressed as a violation. And depending on the half they are on the other end of the court. As stated this is not specifically addressed in the rules or interpretation as to who is under the rules. All FT violations are based on the players on the court, I think if bench personnel was to be included in this then they could easily say so. No such interpretation at any level exists.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This OP situation was not about a free throw, but saying something from the bench to players playing on the floor ...

Agree, but JRutledge was one of the posters who broached the situation of a free throw and it having nothing to do with bench personnel.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rule for disconcertion only addresses this during a free throw and honestly has nothing to do with the bench ...