Clapping/Yelling

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by christianH

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

I'd suggest maybe checking with your assignor/supervisor and/or some other officials in the area, as well. If it's happening a lot it means they aren't being called on it in other games. Maybe that's because others are ignoring the rule, but it may also be because your association doesn't want it called the way you've interpreted.

Good luck!

[christianH]

Will do it


Actually we have a meeting next Saturday and I will raise this question.


will keep you posted


thanks a lot

[mick]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

Then it seems that yelling "shot" while attempting to play defense, even if it is not good defense, is not a technical foul.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mick

Then it seems that yelling "shot" while attempting to play defense, even if it is not good defense, is not a technical foul.

Quite possibly. I don't know the exact wording of the rule. I was only going by what was posted in a previous thread.

[Adam]

I've done this forever while playing. When there are four other defenders, they need to know when to start boxing out. And yes, it's quite possible they weren't looking at the shooter if they're doing their jobs defensively.

This isn't a technical foul. Basketball ain't golf.

That's completely different, however, than yelling to distract the shooter from behind when you're beat on a break.

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've done this forever while playing. When there are four other defenders, they need to know when to start boxing out. And yes, it's quite possible they weren't looking at the shooter if they're doing their jobs defensively.

This isn't a technical foul. Basketball ain't golf.

That's completely different, however, than yelling to distract the shooter from behind when you're beat on a break.

So would you call a technical foul on that?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajs8207

So would you call a technical foul on that?

Not unless I thought it was loud enough to risk ear damage to the shooter; or unless I get told by my assigners to call it. But I ain't asking them.

Guess it's not "completely" different. Just a little bit different.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not unless I thought it was loud enough to risk ear damage to the shooter; or unless I get told by my assigners to call it. But I ain't asking them.

Guess it's not "completely" different. Just a little bit different.

Hey, good backtrack.

You would make a decent politician.

[fiasco]

What about disconcerting from the bench on a FT?

Would you call that a TF?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

What about disconcerting from the bench on a FT?

Would you call that a TF?

No, but I might call it a violation (I have quietly "warned" the bench not to do that).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hey, good backtrack.

You would make a decent politician.

That's just the sort of mean-spirited back-stabbing that made Dan go away.

You take that back.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's just the sort of mean-spirited back-stabbing that made Dan go away.

You take that back.

Well, ok.

You would make an indecent politican.

Better?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Well, ok.

You would make an indecent politican.

Better?

Much.

Hey, wait a minute....

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Yes that decision could be made, by the delayed violation signal, however because the ball went in does not mean the shooter was not the victim of diconcerstion, as you so accurately noted from you game in Beruit with bombs going off. But if the shot goes in you can not punnish the violation all you can do is tell little Johnny not to try to blow up the gym again while the other team is shooting free throws. Or you will call in an air strike to stop them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by fiasco

What about disconcerting from the bench on a FT?

NFHS 9-1-3-c: No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.
Penalty: If the violation is by the free-thrower's opponent only:
a.) If the try is successful, the goal counts and the violation is disregarded.
b.) If the try is not successful, the ball becomes dead when the free throw ends, and a substitute throw shall be attempted by the same free thrower under conditions the same as for the free throw for which it is substituted.
c.) If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.

I believe that opponents would include the opposing players, team members, and bench personnel, even the team chaplain on the end of the Catholic school team bench.