Disconcertion on the crowd?

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by BK
I'd clear the section or the entire gym before I t'd the crowd!

Thats funny.

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef


I would have followed the interpretation that is directly on point for this play. How can you ask people what they would do and not expect them to refer to the rule book and case book? That doesn't make any sense. The case book says "visiting team" but in real situations, you'll never know for sure where the supporter is from. But that doesn't mean we ignore the case play. Using your interp. the case play shouldn't even eixst.

If you read case 2.8.1, you'll realize that it's not as cut and dried as you're making it sound.
Here's a quote: "While officials do have the authority to penalize a team whose spectators interfere with the proper conduct of the game, this authority must be used with extreme caution and discretion. While the authority is there, the official must rarely use it, because experience has demonstrated thta calling hasty technical fouls on the crowd rarely solves the problem and may, in fact, result in penalizing the wrong team because the official may not have proper knowledge as to which team's supporters were responsible for the unsporting act." Yep, that pretty much describes the situation.


No, I wouldn't call technical foul either for one occurrence. But if it happened again and again, game management didn't take care of it, and I'm sure it's the same person sounding the horn every time a team shoots, I would be forced to issue the T.

It happened twice. That isn't "again and again." I respect your opinion and judgment based on many of your posts here. What would you have done?

What you did was fine for your game and you got away with it. But make no mistake, it was wrong by rule.

Exactly. And it was the best I could think of at that time and I was hoping someone else could think of a better way to handle it. It isn't as black and white as you make it sound and I think you know that.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Jan 19th, 2004 at 11:11 AM]

[TPS2859]

Why punish the mass for the actions of one? Give the "redo" on the free throw,UNLESS you know exact person making the noise and what team they are rooting for.

[Bart Tyson]

Lets seeee, A1 shooting FT, noise makers going off. HHHmmmmm, yep, I can't be sure what team they would be rooting for.

[TPS2859]

Dido, sooo lets shoot again ....right!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I referenced a Casebook Play that can be applied to the play in the original post. The Casebook Play allows for a technical foul to be assesed. I agree 110% with all those have taken the position that a technical foul should be a very very rarely invoked penalty. And even in the play of the original post I would be very hesitant to assess a technical foul. I would have game management deal with the problem fan. BUT, while the word opponent was used in the Casebook Play RULING, I cannot support awarding a substitute free throw for disconcerting action. And, this is not a case where NFHS R2-S3 can or should be applied.

[batreferee]

Had this happen several years ago. Kept having someone in the crowd blow an air horn during play. Had the section located but not the person. After a couple of times, we had the administration request over the P.A. that further use would not be tolerated. Also informed the crowd that the entire section would be cleared from the gym if the culprit could not be located. The people in the section quickly gave the culprit up and he was quickly removed from the gym. Guess the other people wanted to continue watching the game.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebraman
It happened twice. That isn't "again and again." I respect your opinion and judgment based on many of your posts here. What would you have done?

I don't think anyone here is beating you up for how you handled it. And I haven't read a post where anyone has advocated calling a technical foul based on what happened.

What we're saying is that by rule, you cannot give the shooter another FT. If the case book play didn't exist, you could could invoke 2-3. But that's only used when the rules do not cover a situation. This case play is clearly meant to cover situations where a supporter uses an artificial noisemaker to disrupt the FT shooter. That's clearly what the case play addressees and that's clearly what happened in this play.

What would I have done? I would have asked game management to address the situation, just as you did. But I would not have given the player a replacement FT. You set a precedent. For example:

Let's say later in the game the score is tied at 65 with 2 seconds left. A1 is at the FT line. A team A fan sounds an air horn just as the FT is released. He knows that if the shot is missed, you're going to give him another FT. If he makes it, no harm, because you aren't going to wave it off.

Point is that if you do this once, you now have to do it every time this happens. Then you're also faced with how much noise is too much noise? What if it's rocks in a coffee can? That's just as illegal as the air horn. Are you going to give another FT if someone violately shakes a coffe can of rocks? I realize this is all hypothetical but not following the rule will get you in trouble eventually. The case play does not allow you to give a replacement FT.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

I agree with Tony. It can be dangerous as he stated to award a substitute throw. As then both coaches could have fuel for wanting a new throw when a critical one was missed later in the game because someone yelled "airball". I'm not saying what you did in your sitch was wrong but it is my suspision that the rules do not warrent a replacement throw for exactly this reason. Find the culprit and get them removed.

[zebraman]

I appreciate those responses guys. I might not give the "do-over" free throw if this was to happen again. That's gone to one pissed-off visiting coach, but I'll deal with that one. :-)

Z