Disconcerting ?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How are you going to tell a team to "knock it off" if they haven't done it yet?

Sounds like your "knock it off" will occur after the first instance of bench personnel yelling, distracting, and startling; all leading to an airball.

Your statement seems to indicate that they will do it once and then you will tell them to "knock it off", and at that point in time you will describe to them any penalties that they may be charged with if they do "not comply" and the improper behavior continues.

You read way too much into stuff. I simply said that if the bench is doing something during an FT that might seem out of the ordinary, you just tell them to knock it off. And I felt they were doing something and did not stop, I would only consider a technical foul, not a violation. But during live play, better man up if that bothers you, and all they are doing is making noise.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... if the bench is doing something during an FT that might seem out of the ordinary, you just tell them to knock it off.

While I now see your point (because you took the time to word it better), if the yelling "MISS", and the startling came at the split second of the release, it's too late yell "knock it off" to have it be effective for that specific shot attempt (too late to be proactive, can only be reactive).

I believe that you are referring to the bench yelling "Miss", etc., for a few seconds after the ball is at the disposal of the free throw shooter (allowing one to be proactive rather than reactive).

I was talking about a last split second, startling, surprising, heart stopping, adrenaline pumping, "MISS" yell. In my case I believe that the shooter deserves the same delayed violation do-over for a bench distraction that that is allowed for a player distraction.

You define "opponent" different than me, and define "unhindered" different than me. Until the NFHS does a better job defining these two concepts, we have to politely and professionally agree to disagree.

[JRutledge]

I have never heard players on or off the court say "miss" during a free throw. They usually do other things that could cause noise and just making noise is not enough for me. You keep focusing on this as if I have to agree with you the problem here (what is with people on this site sometimes with that?). I am saying that if they are doing something that might be annoying or vocal to get some attention, then I will address the behavior if I see the need. Usually, this is never an issue with anyone. I do not go around looking for these kinds of things to worry about. Apparently, you do.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... the bench yelling "Miss", etc., for a few seconds after the ball is at the disposal of the free throw shooter (allowing one to be proactive rather than reactive) ...

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You define "opponent" different than me, and define "unhindered" different than me. Until the NFHS does a better job defining these two concepts, we have to politely and professionally agree to disagree.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is no definition in rules who is an "opponent" to know the context.

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

[Kansas Ref]

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

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

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.

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.