Disconcerting ?
 

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?

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

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

Opponents Distract Free Throw Shooter ...
 

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

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

Due Diligence ...
 

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).

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.K...=0&w=528&h=178

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

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

Disconcertion ...
 

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).

Free Throw ...
 

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.

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

Knock It Off ...
 

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.

Even if you gave them an "oral" warning of future unsporting technical fouls, the air ball still doesn't count, and there's still no "do-over", as many here on the Forum advocate based based on the word "opponent" and "unhindered".

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

Adrenaline Pumping ...
 

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.

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

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

It Would Certainly Help ...
 

Agree 100%.

In a perfect world, looking through rose colored glasses, the NFHS would always be perfect and would never do anything stupid (backcourt team control on throwin exception; points of emphasis never making it into the rulebook or casebook (swinging elbows contact); changing jump ball to alternating possession forgetting about many jump ball rules that are still needed with designated jumpers).

Don't hold your breath waiting.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.d...=0&w=254&h=166

NFHS Grand Poobah ...
 

Some Forum member should be able to contact a NFHS Grand Poobah who can help us out.

You Could Look It Up (Casey Stengel) ...
 

Just found this: ... to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play ...

Nigerian Prince ...
 

I was using this same NFHS 2017-18 Rulebook Word Document to do searches and copy citations for a few years until I recently came across a NFHS 2019-20 Rulebook Word Document.

If anybody wants it, send me a private message with your "real" email address and I'll send it to you.

Per chance, anybody got a NFHS 2020-21 Rulebook Word Document or PDF?

I'm dealing with a NFHS 2016-17 Casebook Word Document to do searches and copy citations.

Anybody got a newer version of the casebook (PDF or Word)?

I already told you what my state people told us what to do. That is the only stance I will look for unless the NF wants to address this. Not many I know are trying to call a violation on the bench. IJS.

Peace

He's A Rebel (The Crystals, 1962) ...
 

I have never espoused any philosophy other than "When in Rome ...".

We do things here in Connecticut that aren't 100% kosher by either NFHS or IAABO International standards.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...7s_a_rebel.jpg