You are assuming the shooter wasn't disconcerted. If it hits the rim 4 times on the way through , or the kid drills the square, and the kid is a 90% FT shooter, then is he disconcerted because it didn't swish? You want it both ways. Then call it both ways, blow your whistle, count the basket, and call disconcertion.

For the delay of game, you can't have it both ways either. The rule is contact with the shooter....

In regard to the huddling, you are not given the option of getting the kids to move, it is a warning. Be consistent if you are going to apply every thing.

I expect to hear from you during the season after every game, because you will have to have called a disconcertion violation on either the offense or the defense.

No, I'm judging that the kid wasn't disconcerted if he makes the free throw. Once again, it's a matter of cause and effect, or no effect in this case. I really don't see what you're getting at with the whole want it both ways baloney. Apparently this is a very emotional topic for you. Take a deep breath, count to 10, find your happy place.

This is obviously not true. A bomb could go off, and the shooter could scream, throw the ball in the air, and drop to the floor, and it still could go into the basket. The result of the shot does not prove/disprove disconcertion.

Man, you must work games in some pretty rough neighborhoods! :eek:

You are correct, the outcome of the shot does not prove anything. But proof is irrelevant. Only our judgment is relevant. And on those rare occasions where no incendiary devices are involved, how can you reasonably argue that a kid who makes a free throw was disconcerted? Like I said earlier, "I'm judging that the kid wasn't disconcerted if he makes the free throw. Once again, it's a matter of cause and effect, or no effect in this case." To judge otherwise is not only unreasonable, it is also irrelevant. Because if the kid makes the throw, disconcertion is ignored. So why would you judge otherwise?

Which leaves us with only one interesting judgment. If the kid misses, was he disconcerted? I still assert this judgment is entirely based on cause and effect, the opponent's intent is irrelevant.

It is obviously true that if the shot is good, disconcertion is irrelevant. BUT, by this logic, B1 does whatever on the first shot, which is good, which you say means no disconcertion. So now, on the second shot, B1 does exactly the same thing, but the shot misses, you would say that it is disconcertion? I say that if the violator is judged to have bad intentions, it makes this violation easier to call. But mainly I say the decision to make the call should already have been made before the result of the shot is known.

If B1 does whatever, but A1 makes the free throw, can you realistically argue that "whatever" really disconcerted A1? If B1 "does exactly the same thing" a second time, but this time has an effect on A1, can you realistically argue that A1 was NOT disconcerted just because he wasn't disconcerted the first time? That is not a logical argument. Just because an opponent tries to get in your head does not mean that you will let him. And just because he didn't succeed the first time does not mean he will not succeed the next time.

This does not mean that B1 did not try to disconcert the thrower both times. But there is no violation for trying to disconcert; only for actually disconcerting.

I have made some very definite assertions in this discussion. But there are also some things I have most definitely NOT said, NOR implied.

• I have NOT said don't address potentially disconcerting behavior, intentional or not.
• I have NOT said don't take note of an obvious attempt to disconcert.
• I have NOT said don't use that observation to inform your judgment of whether the shooter IS disconcerted.
• I have NOT said don't prefer to make this call based on an obvious act and an obvious reaction from the thrower.
• I have NOT said don't decide at the time the potentially disconcerting act is observed to make the disconcertion call -- IF the shooter actually IS disconcerted.

My point -- aimed at the false notion that intent is required -- is that we do not need to judge whether the opponent intended to disconcert. We do not need to judge whether the act was directed at the thrower. If an opponent's potentially disconcerting act, intentional or unintentional, directed at the thrower or not, DID disconcert the thrower, it IS a violation and a replacement throw shall be awarded.

I'll Give You A Topic, Is A Delayed Violation A Violation? Talk Amongst Yourselves
 

Good points, but don't forget about the delayed violation fist. If the official believes that a disconcerting act has taken place, they should signal the delayed violation fist before the free throw is made, or missed, wait for the outcome, and then ignore the violation if made, call the violation if missed.

You make a good point. Violations by the defense should be flagged with the delayed dead ball signal. If you observe a potentially disconcerting act, and you form the intent to make the call, and you have time to signal it (based on timing, we don't always have time to signal before the whistle), then do it.

But, unlike stepping into the lane early or leaving a marked lane space, I assert that what you're really signaling here is your intent to render a judgment of disconcertion IF the thrower misses. But this argument is splitting hairs because the result is the same either way. If you judge that the thrower was actually disconcerted (and you could certainly make that judgment based on an observed reaction before the throw is released), and the free throw is made, the violation is ignored and the signal is dropped. If the free throw is made, and you therefore judge the potentially disconcerting act did not disconcert the thrower, no violation has occured. Same result.

PS, to address the question in your "title", generally the violation has occurred but the rule says it is ignored. But in this one case I argue that disconcerting requires judging the effect of the act on the thrower. Normally we won't know if a violation has occurred until we observe outcome of the free throw. Many will argue that it is sufficient to judge that the act "probably will" or "probably did" affect the thrower, and will judge a violation occurred without waiting to observe the outcome. They are safe in doing so because if they are wrong, they can simply drop the delayed dead ball signal and no harm is done.

For those refereeing FIBA, it is a warning and then an unsportsmanslike technical foul. This is to be enforced strictly. I have watched officials do it in games already this year and I called one yesterday after giving a warning during a dead ball. FIBA has added many new unsportsmanlike foul situations and we have been instructed to call them.

I am a south american guy living in Britain.

I realised that quite a few guys around here have the habit of shouting ' SHOT ' at the opponent's face in the act of shooting.


Of course with the disguise of an attemp to 'warn' his team mates of the shot ( as if they couldn't see with their eyes the person is shooting).

I am sorry to say I called so many Tech Fouls in this situations what is costing me some life threats...


Actually guys I would like to hear your opinions on the matter


thanks a lot


Chris

If B leans into A's face and yells shot, then I can see having a T. If just part of normal defensive action, I have nothing.

Sometimes this behavoir will cause the other team to start yelling "shot", and the actions can get out of hand. When this happens, a quick word to the coaches will deflate the situation.

It would have to be a very egregious act to call a T in this situation. The very fact that "quite a few guys" do it should let you know that it's generally "allowed" in the league you are working.

Officiating in Great Britain, I would guess that you're using FIBA rules. Under FIBA rules this year, it is a technical foul to employ "distracting tactics" without attempting to play defense. I would normally think of this call when a player is beat and simply yells or claps behind the offensive player. But I suppose it's possible to apply it even when the shouting is done in front of the player.

Thanks for your help guys

I never seen such thing of shouting SHOT and unfortunatelly it is quite a norm around here.

This guys must be reeducated :)

The rules here are FIBA

I'd better trying and warn coaches about my interpretations of this SHOT thing before the match starts.