Clapping/Yelling
 

During A1s shot, B1 yells or claps to try to distract A1. What do you have? Nothing? Technical? This has happened in a few games recently I have done. I have done nothing, but I thought it was wrong. What would you all do if this happened?

If you mean a regular shot, I have nothing.

Peace

Good point Rut. In case the reference is to shooting FT's:

First one is a warning as I have to determine the intent.

Usually a simple "the next one is a violation" sends the message.

If I think the player really doesn't know the rule, then I'll go to the player and let them know that if I think that they are doing it to distract/disconcert the shooter, then they will be called for a violation if the shooter misses. I'll also let the player know that when the coach wants to know what happened, that the player and I talked about it, they did it a second time, that is the reason the shooter got another try at it.

ajs8207,
Nothing illegal. Put it out of your mind.
If you let it get to you, you may start rolling your eyes or shaking your head, and someone may pick up on that.

What?
 

Icallfouls - -
What's the rule basis for your determinations? I'm anxious to learn what I've been missing on this situation.

Nevermind . . . I see you just edited your post.

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.

If you mean a "regular" shot, since there's no contact involved, the only type of foul this could possibly be is a technical. But really, you're going to call a technical for someone shouting at a shooter? Hey - this isn't golf.

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

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.

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. ;)

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...

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

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. ;)

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.

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!

Will do it


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


will keep you posted


thanks a lot

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.

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?

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.

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).

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?

Much.

Hey, wait a minute....

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. :p

Disconcerting From The Bench ...
 

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.

Yep. Especially the chaplain. I always tell the teams in pre-game to have their chaplain keep his prayer beads quiet during free throws. ;)

disconcersion
 

NCAA case play on disconcertion
A.R. 187. The ball is at the disposal of free thrower A1. B1, within the
visual field of A1:
(1) Raises the arms above the head; or
(2) After the arms have been extended above the head, alternately
opens and closes both hands.
RULING: When the official judges the act in either (1) or (2) to be
disconcerting, the official shall assess a penalty. The burden not to
disconcert shall be that of the free thrower’s opponents.(Rule 9-1.2.f and 9-2.2)

This is an extract of from the FIBA Official Interpretations 2008

Statement 3
While a player is in the act of shooting, opponents shall not be permitted to disconcert that player
by actions such as waving a hand(s) to obstruct the shooter’s field of vision, shouting loudly,
stamping feet heavily or clapping hands near the shooter. To do so may result in a technical foul if
the shooter is disadvantaged by the action, or a warning if the shooter is not disadvantaged.
Example:
A4 is in the act of shooting for a goal when B4 attempts to distract A4 by shouting loudly or
stamping feet heavily of the floor. The shot for goal is:
(a) Successful.
(b) Unsuccessful.
Interpretation:
(a) A warning shall be given to B4 and shall be communicated to coach B. This warning shall
apply to all players of team B for the remainder of the game for similar behaviour.
(b) A technical foul shall be charged to B4.

This was a point of emphasis for FIBA referees about 8 years ago (don't have my books handy). We were instructed to stop the game and give a warning to all players on the first occurance and then issue technical fouls for subsequent occurances.

IMHO players that do this are cheating. Even if it is not sepcifically mentioned in the rule book that you use, I believe that is certainly against the spirit of competition.


Edit: woops should have read all the responses before posting, ChristianH beat me to it :D

It's Just So Easy To Click Submit Reply ...
 

Been there. Done that. Many times. Perhaps you haven't checked out the Forum in a while, meaning that there are probably quite a few threads, including many multi-post threads, to check out. As you're catching up, you spot a post that you absolutely must respond to right away, and after doing so, continue to read some more recent posts in the same thread, to find out that another member has basically posted the same response as you.

Thats me to a T (no, not that sort Padge). After probably 12 months of not looking at the forums, there is a lot of stuff to catch up on :cool:

Hi guys,

so that is when I don't know what to do after a succesful shot. Shall I stop the clock before the throw-in at the endline?

And if the shot is not sucessful, unfortunately I will have to give a T straight away, causing a bit of commotion when the players and the coaches will all ask about my mother and relatives

Yes Christian you are correct on both points!

I still can't believe FIBA is making this a T.

why not? it is clearly unsportsmanlike behaviour, certainly against the spirit of fair competition. As a caoch of mine used to tell his players - how about you actually play defence?

Maybe we have two different things in mind. I'm thinking of Christian's initial post here, where the defender is shouting "shot" to let his teammates know it's time to box out. We were always told to communicate on defense, and this was one way.
You gonna call a T on a player for shouting "Help" when he gets beat?

Get Ready, Come Here It Comes ...
 

Oh, Oh.

I can't figure out which side of this issue I'm on. I guess that I'm sitting on de fence.

Must be a metric fence that you are sitting on :D

I am quite happy to overlook if a defender B5 who is away from the shooter A1 shouts 'shot' or 'help' even if this is done right at the time of shooting :eek:providing not too loudly and again the defender is not too close to the shooter...


However what I see in the local league and some national division 3 games is a man-on-man defence when the defender B1 yells SHOAAAAAAAT in the face of the shooter A1 spiting that nice and warm slobber at the shooter's face right at the time of shooting.

Would like to see your views guys.

SHOAAAAAAAT

Is that like BOAAAAAAAAAT?? LOL :)

Yikes
 

I don't think I'd ever call that on a defender. Obstructing the field of vision??? Now you can't put a hand in the face...Jeekies.

The one I hate the most is the disconcertion of the dribbler/passer in mostly 7th/8th grade girls. Girls though....seems to always be girls for some reason. The defender runs up on the girl with the ball and starts screaming as loud as possible "BALL,BALL,BALL,BALL....". After about four or five trips down the floor I'm hoping the girl she's defending never touches the ball again.

It is more like a SHO-O-O-O-OT an it is a long shout that way so the defender makes sure he doen't miss to be shouting exactly at the time of the shot.:D

If he spits on him on purpose, I'll call it. If he's just yelling "shot," I'm not calling it. I'm not officiating golf.

Careful, rule 10-3-7d has been there for a long time.
Annoying as hell, but not illegal.

Miss Annoying Ball Ball Ball Ball Ball Girl ???
 

Amen.

This is a quick reply to the ball, ball, ball, post.

I wonder what this yelling in someone's ear has to do with fair play, sportsmanship.

I do not remember if I ever called it or will call it if it happens this year (I do think it is unsporting)

Ron

Why?

I call it communication. The more they yell, the less I have to.

How is it unsporting? The idea is it's yelling to their teammates to communicate what's happening with the ball.

Perhaps I am missing the picture of yelling in someone's ear.

Seems to me that such action would put the player in close enough proximity to make a basketball play.
If the player, that close, does not attempt a basketball play, then why is *yelling in an opponents ear* not unsporting ?