Clapping/Yelling

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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!

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.

[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

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by christianH

I am a south american guys 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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by christianH

I am a south american guys 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

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.