Clapping/Yelling

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Freddy,
First of all, there really is no hard and fast definition for disconcertion, it is up to the officials to make that determination. So if you are looking for some sort of written/verbal definition there isn't one.

More than llikely the intent was to distract the shooter, but the original post did not include some things that I would use to help make that determination. As an example, if B is looking at the shooter and clapping and hollering in the direction of the shooter that is extremely obvious. If the player is bent over, its hard to say for certain that the action was directed at the shooter, so that is a time when I will make sure that player B and I have an understanding of what happens next if it is determined that the intent is to disconcert.

I think that we all know what disconcertion is when we see it, but if there is doubt, I have a way of dealing with it that works.

Hmmm, where in the rule does it say the opponent must deliberately disconcert the free thrower, or that he must intend to do so?

NFHS 9-1-3-c "No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower."
NCAA 9-1-2-f "No opponent shall disconcert (e.g., taunt, bait, gesture or delay) the free-thrower.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Hmmm, where in the rule does it say the opponent must deliberately disconcert the free thrower, or that he must intend to do so?

NFHS 9-1-3-c "No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower."
NCAA 9-1-2-f "No opponent shall disconcert (e.g., taunt, bait, gesture or delay) the free-thrower.

I will agree with you in principle, but I would like the act to be deliberate if I am going to call this a violation. I do not see this too often where a disconcertion is not intentional.

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will agree with you in principle, but I would like the act to be deliberate if I am going to call this a violation. I do not see this too often where a disconcertion is not intentional.

Peace

I, in turn, agree with your response in principle. However, in icallfouls' scenario, he's got a player clapping and shouting during a free throw and he is concerning himself with trying to determine whether or not it was directed at the thrower. That is the wrong question to ask, IMHO. The right question to ask is, "Did the clapping and shouting distract, or disconcert, the thrower?" If the answer to that question is yes, then award a replacement throw. There really is no need to judge intent.

However, I'm just cynical enough to believe that any distracting and unusual behavior by an opponent during a free throw, especially an opponent along the lane, IS an attempt to disconcert the thrower. No matter what the lying little **** says in protest when I call it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

However, I'm just cynical enough to believe that any distracting and unusual behavior by an opponent during a free throw, especially an opponent along the lane, IS an attempt to disconcert the thrower. No matter what the lying little **** says in protest when I call it.

There is a difference between talking to a teammate not very loudly and clapping your hands only when the opponent is just about the release the ball. And if they are close or doing something that is borderline I would usually warn before I award another shot (if the shot misses of course). As said before, usually a “knock it off” stops a lot of that crap.

Peace

[icallfouls]

OK BITS, so the shooter makes the first one what are you suggesting?

Here's another, after the shooter makes the first one and his teammates step into the lane to slap hands are you calling the delay of game? You are taking judgment out of the game.

I believe that common sense in both cases is to apply judgement that fits the situation, which is what I am saying.

Do what you want for your games.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

OK BITS, so the shooter makes the first one what are you suggesting?

Here's another, after the shooter makes the first one and his teammates step into the lane to slap hands are you calling the delay of game? You are taking judgment out of the game.

I believe that common sense in both cases is to apply judgement that fits the situation, which is what I am saying.

Do what you want for your games.

Well, if the shooter makes the first one, obviously he was NOT disconcerted. Disconcerting necessarily implies an action by an opponent that produces a reaction in the shooter. In this case, there was an action that did not produce a negative reaction.

And yes, in this case, I would tell the kid to knock it off.

However, if the thrower misses the first shot because of, in my judgment, the clapping and hollering, I will not be trying to divine the opponent's intent. I will simply be awarding a replacement throw because the thrower WAS disconcerted (opponent's action caused a reaction from the thrower).

As for the kids delaying the game, no, I'm not very likely to call that. In fact, I had one game today where both teams seemed intent on huddling in the lane after every shot. We simply pestered them until they got back to playing. But if I do choose to call this, that call will be based on the fact that the game was actually delayed, and I will not give consideration to whether they intended to delay the game.

I'm not taking judgment out of the game, except judgments that don't belong there.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Well, if the shooter makes the first one, obviously he was NOT disconcerted. Disconcerting necessarily implies an action by an opponent that produces a reaction in the shooter. In this case, there was an action that did not produce a negative reaction.

And yes, in this case, I would tell the kid to knock it off.

However, if he misses the first shot because of, in my judgment, the clapping and hollering, I will not be trying to determine the kid's intent. I will simply be awarding a replacement throw because the kid WAS disconcerted (again, action and reaction).

As for the kids delaying the game, no, I'm not very likely to call that. In fact, I had one game today where both teams seemed intent on huddling in the lane after every shot. We simply pestered them until they got back to playing. But if I do call it, the call will be based on the fact that the game was delayed, and I won't worry about whether they, in fact, intended to delay the game.

I'm not taking any judgment out of the game, except the judgments that don't belong there.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Well, if the shooter makes the first one, obviously he was NOT disconcerted.

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.

[christianH]

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

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Hmmm, where in the rule does it say the opponent must deliberately disconcert the free thrower, or that he must intend to do so?

NFHS 9-1-3-c "No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower."
NCAA 9-1-2-f "No opponent shall disconcert (e.g., taunt, bait, gesture or delay) the free-thrower.

Then you can be the guy that calls the violation every time someone moves their head or adjusts their shirt or tells their teammates to get after it while awaiting a FT because that is what you are implying. It is up to the official to determine what is disconcertion.

What is taunting, baiting or gesturing that you are going to use for your determination?

Without enough information, I gave an option and a way to handle it.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Then you can be the guy that calls the violation every time someone moves their head or adjusts their shirt or tells their teammates to get after it while awaiting a FT because that is what you are implying. It is up to the official to determine what is disconcertion.

What is taunting, baiting or gesturing that you are going to use for your determination?

Without enough information, I gave an option and a way to handle it.

Where did I imply that any little movement or talking should be called a violation? My point was, is, and remains simply this: If an opponent DOES disconcert a free thrower, a violation has occurred, without regard or consideration of the opponent's intent.

It's still a judgment as to whether or not the shooter was disconcerted. I cannot imagine a scenario where "someone mov[ing] their head or adjust[ing] their shirt or tell[ing] their teammates to get after it while awaiting a FT" would disconcert a free thrower. However clapping and hollering during a free throw...