9-1-3c

[NoFussRef]

Since we're talking disconcertion...

Does it have to verbal?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rsl

I see a typo. I thought Bob was infallible.

It's a slang term referring to the hip hop group De La Soul, who influenced many other artists. When you "dela with" something (or someone), you try to influence them to do what you want without resorting to a rule-based punishment (in this example, ruling disconcertion).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

The other option, of course, is that I'm not, and never claimed to be, infallible or anything close to it.

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

Since we're talking disconcertion...

Does it have to verbal?

:shaking head "no":

[Loudwhistle2]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins;731708]It's a slang term referring to the hip hop group De La Soul, who influenced many other artists. When you "dela with" something (or someone), you try to influence them to do what you want without resorting to a rule-based punishment (in this example, ruling disconcertion).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Man, I have to roll my boots up another level. Great come back!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's a slang term referring to the hip hop group De La Soul, who influenced many other artists. When you "dela with" something (or someone), you try to influence them to do what you want without resorting to a rule-based punishment (in this example, ruling disconcertion).

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I think I saw something about that on PBS last week.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's a slang term referring to the hip hop group De La Soul, who influenced many other artists. When you "dela with" something (or someone), you try to influence them to do what you want without resorting to a rule-based punishment (in this example, ruling disconcertion).

:

Bob listens to hip hop???

And no one ever claimed Bob was infallible. Just that we should always listen to Bob. Even when he's wrong about something, he comes up with the best explanations for his answers!

[NoFussRef]

So the "twinkling fingers" from opponents on the lane, or the "foot stomping" from the defender outside the arc (who is more than just tapping his shoe into place) Etc.... = Disconcertion so you warn and award another free-throw, if it continues whack-ola. ?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

So the "twinkling fingers" from opponents on the lane, or the "foot stomping" from the defender outside the arc (who is more than just tapping his shoe into place) Etc.... = Disconcertion so you warn and award another free-throw, if it continues whack-ola. ?

Does the rule say you should warn? And what do you mean by "whack-ola"?

Do you know what the penalty for disconcertion is?

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Does the rule say you should warn? And what do you mean by "whack-ola"?

Do you know what the penalty for disconcertion is?

I am guessing there is no warning.
9-1-5 disconcertion = Technical Foul.

Just thinking in a rec game, say, 8th grade boys, I could see going with awarding another free throw and warning them any further disconcertion would result in a T.

But if I am getting your point, there is nothing giving me the authority to warn rather than "whack". "Whack-ola" = T-foul.

[APG]

The penalty for disconcertion is awarding another free throw if it is missed. It is ignored if the free throw is made. Could you issue a techincail foul for the specfic action? Sure, but there's no reason to go looking for a reason to whack.

If it's close to disconcertion, you can warn. If they disconcert, enforce.

[APG]

Originally Posted by NoFussRef

Since we're talking disconcertion...

Does it have to verbal?

One can visually and verbally disconcert.