Disconcertion by a mascot???

[walter]

I agree with Rut. If anything, just have the mascot move. If there was a section of stands in that area, and the mascot was in the section jumping up and down, I would bet you wouldn't have thought twice about ignoring it. I feel the same way if the cheerleaders started waving their pom-poms and yelling and screaming. If they are interfering with play, move 'em. I've had some upset cheerleader coaches when I told them the squad couldn't stand on the baseline because there wasn't enough room for safety purposes since the area at the baseline wasn't deep enough to accommodate play.

[rockchalk jhawk]

And you guys would feel the same way even if the mascot jumped into the area beyond the paint, right under the basket and started doing the hokey pokey while the shooter was attemping a FT?

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by rockchalk jhawk

And you guys would feel the same way even if the mascot jumped into the area beyond the paint, right under the basket and started doing the hokey pokey while the shooter was attemping a FT?

Yes, tell him to knock it off or just shaw him away if it really bothers you.

[walter]

Yep. Tell him to knock it off or get game management to take care of him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockchalk jhawk

And you guys would feel the same way even if the mascot jumped into the area beyond the paint, right under the basket and started doing the hokey pokey while the shooter was attemping a FT?

You mean if they came onto the court? As I said before, if it is a problem either throw them out of the game (Ask Curtis Shaw) or remove them from the spot. If you think I am giving another shot for something that did not have the mascot coming onto the court and grabbing the FT shooter, then you are mistaken. Disconcertion is about the participants. Mascots are not a participant. I just would not allow a mascot to come onto the court or close to the court that directly interfered with play. Jumping up and down near the sideline is not disconcertion in my opinion.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockchalk jhawk

And you guys would feel the same way even if the mascot jumped into the area beyond the paint, right under the basket and started doing the hokey pokey while the shooter was attemping a FT?

Depends. If the mascot's doing the correct version, in keeping with the appropriate tradition, then I don't have a problem. If he's throwing a bunch of his own interpretations and making a mockery of the hallowed Hokey Pokey, then by all means, throw his a$$ out.

Seriously, how would you treat that different than fans behind the basket yelling and waving pictures of bricks? Or, what about the 3-year-old who gets away from mom while walking back from the concession stand and starts a temper tantrum in the same area because mom didn't buy the Skittles? 9-1-5 says no opponent shall disconcert the free thrower. So, while I understand the thought, there is no rules backing awarding another FT due to disconcertion. Ask for the ball back, tell him to stop, move him to a different spot, and start over. But there's no rule that says the player is allowed another attempt because someone's dancing funny.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by rockchalk jhawk

And you guys would feel the same way even if the mascot jumped into the area beyond the paint, right under the basket and started doing the hokey pokey while the shooter was attemping a FT?

What you describe is not disconcertion, but would fall under the proviso where and official can charge a team with a TF because its followers act in a inappropriate manner, i.e., throwing rolls of toilet paper onto the court after the team scores its first basket of the game.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Throwing rolls of toilet paper onto the court after the team scores its first basket of the game.

To me, this would be worth the technical foul. Even if I lost the game by one point.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What you describe is not disconcertion, but would fall under the proviso where and official can charge a team with a TF because its followers act in a inappropriate manner, i.e., throwing rolls of toilet paper onto the court after the team scores its first basket of the game.

MTD, Sr.

That is correct. The mascot is a team follower and his actions could result in a team technical foul, but he is not an opponent and therefore cannot commit disconcertion.

The result of the attempted FT should have stood.

[budjones05]

Just wondering, didn't Curtis Shaw kick a Mascot out of a game a month or two ago?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by budjones05

Just wondering, didn't Curtis Shaw kick a Mascot out of a game a month or two ago?

Curtis Shaw ejects Rice Owl Mascot

[rockchalk jhawk]

thanks guys. fair enough. it has been fun that i've been able to say that i 'kicked' a mascot out though, even if it was the AD... it's actually pretty funny in retrospect.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is correct. The mascot is a team follower and his actions could result in a team technical foul, but he is not an opponent and therefore cannot commit disconcertion.

The result of the attempted FT should have stood.

This is also my position. HOWEVER. . .

This exact scenario happened in a women's NCAA D2 game locally (I had the men's game following, that's how I know about it) and the officials called disconcertion. Their assignor backed them, and they apparently even got a ruling from the NCAA rules editor to support the call. I don't know if it will get published, but I personally think it's a bad ruling.

Only "opponents" can disconcert. Hard to see the mascot as an opponent.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is also my position. HOWEVER. . .

This exact scenario happened in a women's NCAA D2 game locally (I had the men's game following, that's how I know about it) and the officials called disconcertion. Their assignor backed them, and they apparently even got a ruling from the NCAA rules editor to support the call. I don't know if it will get published, but I personally think it's a bad ruling.

Only "opponents" can disconcert. Hard to see the mascot as an opponent.

Scrapper1:

If that is the NCAA Women's ruling then the NCAA Women's Committee must have asked Barb Jacobs to come out of retirement to make the ruling because I agree with you 100% that it not only a bad ruling but a ruling that can not be defended by rule.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is also my position. HOWEVER. . .

This exact scenario happened in a women's NCAA D2 game locally (I had the men's game following, that's how I know about it) and the officials called disconcertion. Their assignor backed them, and they apparently even got a ruling from the NCAA rules editor to support the call. I don't know if it will get published, but I personally think it's a bad ruling.

Only "opponents" can disconcert. Hard to see the mascot as an opponent.

It's really sad that someone from the NCAAW side thinks that.