A1 is shooting a free throw. B1 distracts his by talking and making comments to A1. Our association interpeter told us that this is an unsportsmanlike technical foul. There were mixed views on it as many of our officials thought this was disconcertion and a violation. We were told to call a technical on this. I looked in the case book and all I can find on disconcertion is using the arms to distract the shooter. What abot comments? Is this disconcertion or unsportsmanlike?

It's whatever your association wants it to be. You could find rules support for either, so go with your association interpreter on this.

How about both?

If the comments were unsporting, such as "Miss you stupid muther****er!" then I have disconcertion and a T.

But under normal conditions, I would only have disconcertion.

From a POE on disconcertion in the 2001-02 rule book--"The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation(9-1-5) and may result in a substitute throw. If persistent or deemed unsporting, the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul". They put "team" in there to deal with cases where the bench disconcerts.

From a personal standpoint, I agree with both BktBallRef <b>and</b> Snaqs. You gotta call it if your're being told to, agree with it or not. I think that it's definitely overkill though to call both on a normal disconcertion, imo.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 24th, 2005 at 10:10 AM]

I do not care what a particular local officals association says. The only important ruling is what is correct under NFHS Rules. Depending upon what the defender does it is either disconcertion and therefore a violation, or it is unsportsmanlike conduct and therefore is a technical foul. The defender's actions cannot be deemed both.

MTD, Sr.

Why not? If a defender in one of the lane spots yells out something profane at the shooter while in his shooting motion, and I deem that behavior an unsportsmanlike T, but I also deem that the action disconcerted the free thrower, I would certainly give the free thrower his attempt over again and also penalize the T afterward. Why would you allow the disadvantage to the free thrower?

Got a rules citation that will back that up, Mark?

Easy for you to say, Mark. Not so easy for those of us who may work under associations that want this called like that. Perhaps they have had problems with this and want it dealt with swiftly and severely to stop it.
Personally, I see a violation, but I agree with Smitty. There's nothing that says it can't be a technical foul and a violation.
What happens if B6 comes strolling onto the court and you don't catch it until he steps into a lane space. You signal for a delayed violation just as your brain realizes he was never beckoned in.
I've got both there, too. You?

He doesn't need one. You've already provided it for him..

"The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation(9-1-5) and may result in a substitute throw. If persistent or deemed unsporting, the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul".

It's no different than a defender who commits BI and hangs on the rim. Penalize the violation and award the points. Penalize the hanging on the rim with a technical foul.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 24th, 2005 at 12:39 PM]

Same argument-4 years later,Tony. Back then it was "you can't call disconcertion on the bench" too. Remember that one? :D

Yeppers. :)

Must I must be getting old. It doesn't seem like that long ago.

Mark, I don't think that is right. Look again at the specific wording of the POE.

"The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation"

There is NO DOUBT that the disconcertion certainly IS a violation. No matter what.

In addition, the manner in which the disconcertion takes place could also be considered unsporting conduct.
"If persistent or deemed unsporting, the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul."

It sure looks like the committee is telling us that it CAN be both, if it is warranted.