Clapping/Yelling

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

[Nevadaref]

OPPONENTS DISCONCERT

9.1.3 SITUATION D:

The ball is at the disposal of free thrower A1. B1, within the visual field of A1: (a) raises his/her arms above the head; or (b) after his/her arms have been extended above the head, alternately opens and closes both hands. RULING: B1 may be penalized in both (a) and (b). The official must judge whether the act distracts the free thrower. If the official judges the act in either (a) or (b) to be disconcerting, it shall be penalized. The free thrower is entitled to protection from being distracted. It is the opponent’s responsibility to avoid disconcerting the free thrower. (9-1-3c Penalty 2)

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.