All right you guys, time to get back on track here and discuss disconcerting action.

The committing of acts that are an attempt to cause a free throw shooter is miss his/her free throw attempt has been on the rise over the last couple of years. The most common act occurs in two different ways:

Play (1): B1, who is on the court during the free throw attempt, yells “block out” just as A1 is releasing the ball on a free throw attempt. More often than not the player who yells “block out” is on the free throw lane, but it is not uncommon for a player who is not in one of the free throw lane spaces to also yell it.

Play (2): A member of the Team B's bench personal (Head Coach, Assistant Coach, or Substitute) will yell “block out” just as A1 is releasing the ball on the free throw attempt.

Play (1) is obvious. This is a clear example of disconcerting action. But is Play (2) an example of disconcerting action or an unsportsmanlike technical foul?

To get the discussion rolling I will start out by stating that I believe that Play (2) is an unsportsmanlike technical foul.

I will let the free-for-all get started before I start to defend my position.

Mark, if yelling at the shooter on a breakaway lay-up is not a T, then I don't see how yelling a free thrower can be a T. Just the first thought off the top of my head.

Start camp yet?

Below are the definitions for (a) free throw, (b) disconcerting action, and (c) unsportsmanlike conduct. One sees that the definitions for (a), (b), and (c) in all of the rules codes are essentially identical. BUT, one will also find is that there is no definition of opponent in any of the rules codes. And not too surprisingly, the word opponent is not used in a consistent manner in the rules codes either. One will find instances where opponents refer to players on the court and in other instances it is refers to bench personal.


Definition of a free throw:

NFHS Rule 4, Section 20, Article 1: A free throw is an opportunity for a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal from within the free-throw semi-circle and behind the free-throw line.


NCAA Men’s/Women’s Rule 4, Section 27, Article 1: A free throw is the privilege given a player to score one point by an unhindered try for goal from within the free-throw semi-circle and behind the free-throw line.


FIBA Rule 10, Article 59: A free throw is an opportunity given to a player to score one (1) point, uncontested, from a position behind the free-throw line and inside the semicircle.


NBA/WNBA Rule 4, Section V: A free throw is the privilege given a player to score one point by an unhindered attempt for the goal from a position directly behind the free-throw line. The attempt must be made within 10 seconds.



Definition of the disconcertion violation:

NFHS Rule 9, Section 1, Article 5: No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.

Casebook Play 9.1.3 Situation B: As A1 starts the free-throwing motion. B1 hurriedly raises his/her arms. In the judgment of the official, the action of B1 disconcerts A1 and causes the attempt to miss the basket ring. RULING: As soon as the ball misses the ring, it becomes dead. Since free thrower A1 violated following disconcertion, a substitute free throw is awarded. (R9-S1-A5, Penalty 4c.)

Casebook Play 9.1.5 Situation A: The ball is at the disposal of the 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. (R9-S1-A5, Penalty 2.)


NCAA Men’s/Women’s Rule 9, Section 1, Article 2c: No player shall disconcert (e.g., taunt, bait, gesture or delay) the free-thrower.

Approved Ruling 2: The ball is at the disposal of the free-thrower A1. B1, within the visual field of A1: (a) raises the arms above the head, or (b) after the arms have been extended above the head, alternately opens and closes both hands. RULING: When the official judges the act in either (a) or (b) to be disconcerting, the official shall assess a penalty. The burden not to disconcert shall be that of the free-thrower’s opponents.

Casebook Play 9.1.5 Situation A and A.R. 2 are the same play but
the wording used by the author of the NCAA Approved Ruling is
some what confusing.


FIBA Rule 10, Article 59.4.2. The players in the lane places: Rule 10, Article 59.4.2.7.2: An opponent of the free-throw shooter shall not disconcert the free-throw shooter by his actions.

FIBA Casebook Play 59-12: B-4 disconcerts free thrower A-4. The free throw attempt is not successful. Shall A-4 be awarded a substitute throw? (Answer) Yes. If the act by B-4 were considered unsportsmanlike, the officials have the option of either warning B-4 and the Team B captain or charging B-4 with a technical foul. (See Rule 9, Article51.)

Allen G. Rae, FIBA Casebook Play 59-28: A-4 on a free throw starts the throwing motion when B-2 in a lane place next to A-4 waves the arms in such a manner that in the opinion of the official the action disconcerts A-4. The free throw is not successful. Ruling – Violation, A-4 is awarded a substitute free throw. (Rule 10, Articles 59.4.2.7.2 and 59.4.3.2.2.)


NBA/WNBA Rule 10, Section Ig: An opponent in the game shall not disconcert the free thrower in any way, once the ball has been placed at the disposal of the shooter.



Definition of unsportsmanlike conduct as it might apply to free throws:

NFHS Rule 10, Section 3, Article 8: A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
Article 8b: Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures and
Article 8c: Baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

NFHS Rule 10, Section 4, Article 1: Bench personnel shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
Article 1c: Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures and
Article 1d: Disrespectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.


NCAA Men’s/Women’s Rule 10, Section 5: Unsporting acts of players include, but are not limited to the following:
Article 2: Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene gestures toward another player or bench personnel.
Article 3: Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his or her eyes.

NCAA Men’s/Women’s Rule 10, Section 7: Any bench personnel or followers of a team shall be assessed a direct technical foul for unsporting conduct that includes but is not limited to the following:
Article 3: Using profanity or language that is abusive, vulgar, or obscene.
Article 4: Taunting or baiting an opponent.


FIBA: For all of you who like to refer to FIBA as “FEEBLE” I tend to agree with you in this case. The FIBA definition is divided up between Rules 8 and 9 and can be either a personal foul or a technical foul. With regard to technical fouls an unsportsmanlike foul is no different in FIBA than in the other rules codes.


NBA/WNBA Rule 12, Section Vd: A technical foul shall be assessed for unsportsmanlike tactics such as:
(4) Use of profanity.
(7) Taunting.


The underlying principal in awarding a free throw is that it is an "unhindred or uncontested" attempt to score one point. The real question is Play (2) disconcerting action or an unsportsmanlike foul. That hinges on whom is considered an opponent at the time the free throws are being attempted. Under all of the rules codes except the NBA/WNBA the definition is ambiguous. NBA/WNBA rules are less ambiguous concerning disconcerting action, by stating that it is a violation committed by an opponent that is in the game. This would imply that disconcerting action can be charged only against one of the five players of the non-shooting team.

Mark, that's great research and it's certainly worth knowing that stuff, but none of it addresses the point I brought up above.

We, on this forum, have come to the concensus that it's NOT a technical foul for a defender who has been beaten on a play to yell at the shooter as the shooter makes his/her try. If that's not a technical foul, how could it be a T to yell during a free throw? Saying that a FT is supposed to be "unhindered" doesn't seem to me to make a difference in whether it's unsporting or not. It's just disconcerting.

For Dan, registration is at 4 pm. First meeting, at 7:30 tonight. I'm guessing we don't get on the court till tomorrow, unless we work games at 10 tonight :eek:

Section VD? Sounds like it should be dealing with penicillin!

From the 2001-2002 NFHS rulebook- Points of Emphasis--#2-on page 68--Disconcertion During Free Throws"-- "Disconcertion may occur through hand and arm movements,and verbal outbursts during during the attempt. The committee emphasizes that disconcertion is a violation(9-1-5) and may result in a substitute throw. IF PERSISTENT,OR DEEMED UNSPORTING,THE TEAM/PLAYER MAY BE PENALIZED WITH A TECHNICAL FOUL".

Also,see thread:
http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=6750

In less than 10 million words, Mark Sr. is correct in this case.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 25th, 2003 at 02:06 PM]

Huh? Mark said that yelling "box out" during a FT is a technical foul. But the POE that you just quoted says that "verbal outbursts" are disconcertion; and disconcertion is a violation. How does this make Mark correct? Nothing in Mark's play says that the outburst was persistent, nor was profanity mentioned (making the outburst itself unsportsmanlike).

So, in all honesty, JR, I think your post proves that Mark is not correct. No T is warranted for yelling "BOX OUT" as the free thrower is about shoot.

Nope, he's wrong.

Chick,if MTD Sr. deemed what the coach said above unsporting,then that citation above says that MTD Sr. can call a T on that coach if he wants to.The play that was on the NFHS website also said that the T was on top of a disconcertion call,so that you ended up with a repeat FT plus the T. Note that I AM saying that MTD Sr. CAN call a T on this play. The citation above backs that up.I am NOT saying that MTD Sr. SHOULD call a T on this play. I sureashell wouldn't!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 25th, 2003 at 02:53 PM]

Nope, he's wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]He's wrong that he can't call a T by rule,or he shouldn't call a T in this particular case?

He's wrong that he can't call a T by rule,or he shouldn't call a T in this particular case? [/B][/QUOTE]


I am confused. Who's wrong, me or Dan_Ref?

Ahhhhh, that's a cop-out. :p

And anyway, that's still not right, b/c there's no way anybody can say that the words "block out" are unsporting. Just my two cents.

I am confused. Who's wrong, me or Dan_Ref? [/B][/QUOTE]Mark,I wasn't sure whether Dan was disagreeing with you being able to call a T for disconcertion-by rule,or whether he disagreed about whether you should call a T in your particular case. I was just asking him to clarify that from his reply posted above.

To clarify my position,I agree that an official,by rule,can call a T for disconcertion.He can if he thinks that the disconcertion also happens to be unsportsmanlike behaviour,in his opinion. That's basically what the POE that I cited above states.Personally,I wouldn't T a coach up for yelling "block out" when the shooter is making the foul try.Now,if if the coach hollers something like "miss it,a$$hole",then you got a different story.

Uh,Chuck,MTD Sr. has already said that he thought that those words were unsporting.That's his judgement.Maybe neither of us agrees with that judgement,but are you telling me that he can't call a T for disconcertion,by rule?

To get very technical, yes, that's what I'm saying. If the "verbal outburst" is disconcerting, then it's a violation, period. If the content of the verbal outburst is unsporting, then you can T it up.

The POE that you quoted states emphatically (it is a point of emphasis after all :) ) that disconcertion is a violation. You don't give T's for violations.

If you can honestly say that the words "block out" are unsportsmanlike, then bang 'im. But you can't bang 'im just b/c he says it during a FT (unless it's done "repeatedly". But even then, you're not T'ing the violation; you're T'ing the guy for being a jerk).

I think I'm up to about 6 cents on this one. :)