Called Disconcertation Friday night

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
NFHS Rule 9: Violations and Penalties: Section 1: Free-throw provisions: A player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws: Article 5: No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower.

Lets look closer at NFHS R9-S1. Section 1 deals only with the free throw provisions and there are eight Articles in Section 1, and each and every Article in Section 1 starts with the following words: “A player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws.” The word “player” is used, not “player or bench personnel.” In fact, the word “opponent” is used in only two of the Articles in Section 1: 2 and 5. Article 2 states: An opponent of the free thrower shall occupy each lane space adjacent to the end line during the try, unless the resuming of play procedure is in effect and not teammate of the free thrower may occupy either of these lane spaces. There is no doubt in Article 2 that “opponent” means a player on the court and not bench personnel.

Looking at Article 5 (the disconcerting action article), the NFHS Casebook Play and the NCAA Approved Ruling would lead one to believe that “opponent” means a player on the court, and not bench personnel.

Hopefully, Play (2) is a situation that the Rules Committee will review and issue an official interpretation.

We don't need an official interpretation,Mark.Here is the definitive answer from an impeccable source:

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=6750

See the posting from Mark T DeNucci Sr. at 8:28pm on December 29,2002. In this,Mr. DeNucci Sr. is quoted as saying "When opponents on the court or bench personnel from the opponent's bench are yelling during a player's free throw attempt,that is defined as a disconcerting action".

Now,who do we believe? Mark T. DeNucci Sr. or Mark T DeNucci Sr.?

Decisions,decisions!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Now,who do we believe? Mark T. DeNucci Sr. or Mark T DeNucci Sr.?

Decisions,decisions!

In times like this, I like to think of "WWMTDSD?" - "What would Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Do?" This case is quite simple - we just do what . . . . . . . . .


Oh, boy . . . .


Get the tarp --- and not the good tarp!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Now,who do we believe? Mark T. DeNucci Sr. or Mark T DeNucci Sr.?

How about both?

Actually, the time shown on his post depends on your own time zone. Mine says 6:58.

In all fairness to the "other" Mark, although he does say the following: "When opponents on the court or bench personal from the opponents bench are yelling during a player's free throw attempt that is defined as disconcerting action." - he also says in a post earlier that day : "It is my opinion that disconcerting action by bench personal is a unsportsmanlike technical foul and not a violation but that is another thread alltogether.(sic)"

I guess what he means is that disconcerting action in it and of itself can be either a violation or a technical foul depending on who is doing the disconcertion - a player on the court or bench personnel.

Personally, I disagree - I think both groups should be treated the same (as I said earlier in this thread), but I don't think his posts have been inconsistent or contradictory.

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Jul 26th, 2003 at 11:37 PM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

We don't need an official interpretation,Mark.Here is the definitive answer from an impeccable source:

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=6750

See the posting from Mark T DeNucci Sr. at 8:28pm on December 29,2002. In this,Mr. DeNucci Sr. is quoted as saying "When opponents on the court or bench personnel from the opponent's bench are yelling during a player's free throw attempt,that is defined as a disconcerting action".

Now,who do we believe? Mark T. DeNucci Sr. or Mark T DeNucci Sr.?

Decisions,decisions!

You can believe both of us because we are one and the same. Here is the initial posting of that thread referenced above which was made on December 29, 2002:

B1 is awarded two free throws with five seconds left in the fourth quarter and the score is tied. B1 misses the first free throw. As B1 starts to shoot her second free throw, Coach A starts to yell to his players: "Block out, block out." Coach A had not done this during any other free throw attempt by Team B during the entire game. B1 missed the second free throw and I whistled a Coach B for disconcerting action. B1 makes the free throw and Team B wins the game by one point.

Coach A played innocent with me by saying that he did not know he could not yell instructions while B1 was shooting her free throws. It is my opinion that disconcerting action by bench personal is a unsportsmanlike technical foul and not a violation but that is another thread alltogether. I know that there are people out there that are of the opinion that I determined the outcome of the game because this call had not been made all game long, but nobody form Team A's bench had done anything like this all game long, and I can assure you that I would have loved to have this type of violation happen early in the game so that it can be taken care of it before it might effect the outcome of the game. Needless to say, Coach A was not very happy with me.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Rules Interpreter &
Instructional Chairman
Wood Co. Bkb. Off. Assn.
Bowling Green, Ohio

Please pay close attention to the second sentence in the second paragraph: "It is my opinion that disconcerting action by bench personal is a unsportsmanlike technical foul and not a violation but that is another thread alltogether." I guess we are in the other thread now.



to: Mark Padgett

Thank you.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Richard Knox, Deputy Executive Director of the North CarolinaHSAA and past Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee is on record (when he was the Chairman) that the word opponent in Article 5 applies to bench personnel as well as to players on the court. I agree the Chairman is like E.F. Hutton, so when the Chairman makes a statement regarding a rules interpretation, it should be treated as an official ruling. Does that mean the Chairman’s statement is correct? No. Every person who has ever officiated, myself included, has forgotten, from time to time, an obscure casebook play or subsection of a rule when answering a question regarding a rules interpretation. The longer one officiates the easier it is to forget the obscure rules and plays because we know more to forget.

#1, Mr. Knox still officiates.

#2, during NCHSAA Rules Clinics, Mr. Knox does not express to us, his own interpretations. He uses the Powerpoint presentations created by the NFHS. I made my notes based on the information contained in the presentation.

#3, he wasn't popping off about an obscure case play that he had forgotten about. The information was a POE for the NFHS and had been sufficently discussed during committe meetings.

We all make mistakes, and the NFHS just may decide that I am wrong about this whole thing. But until the NFHS makes an official ruling regarding Play (2) that is my story and I am sticking with it.

They already have, yet you're still too arrogant to admit you're wrong, which surprises no one on this forum.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

They already have, yet you're still too arrogant to admit you're wrong, which surprises no one on this forum.

You seem upset.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

#1, Mr. Knox still officiates.

#2, during NCHSAA Rules Clinics, Mr. Knox does not express to us, his own interpretations. He uses the Powerpoint presentations created by the NFHS. I made my notes based on the information contained in the presentation.

#3, he wasn't popping off about an obscure case play that he had forgotten about. The information was a POE for the NFHS and had been sufficently discussed during committe meetings.

They already have, yet you're still too arrogant to admit you're wrong, which surprises no one on this forum.

#1: Calling people names during what is supposed to be a civilized discussion of the rules and how they should be applied serves no purpose what so ever.

#2: No one has accused Dick Knox of popping off. When the Chairman speaks he is just like E.F. Hutton, people listen, therefore what he says is to be considered an official statement.

#3: Jurassic Referee, printed the NFHS 2001-02 Point of Emphasis concerning disconcerting action during free throws. Which I shall print again: "Disconcertion may occur through hand and arm movements, and verbal outbursts 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".

The rules state that disconcerting action during a free throw is a violation (a delayed dead ball violation, I might add). What we have been discussing is my 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. Is this a violation of the free throw provisions? No. Why? NFHS R9-S1 states that player shall not violate provisions of the free throws listed in Articles 1 thru 8, and Article 5 is disconcerting action. Keeping in mind that NFHS and NCAA Men’s/Women’s rules are the offspring of the NBC, NCAA R9-S1-A2c is even clearer: No player shall disconcert (e.g., taunt, bait, gesture or delay) the free-thrower. Neither NFHS R9-S1 A5 nor NCAA R9-S1-A2c use the word bench personnel.

The NFHS 2001-02 Point of Emphasis is just that a point of emphasis. The NFHS Rules Committee wanted officials to be aware an increase in infractions of R9-S1-A5. Lets break down the bold words of the POE. That last sentence divides the illegal conduct of the non-shooting team into two types: 1) persistent, or 2) unsportsmanlike conduct.

Lets look at my Play (1) first as persistent and second as unsportsmanlike conduct.

1) Keeping in mind that a violation is an infraction of the rules that is only penalized (the penalties for violations are: a) the offended team is awarded possession of the ball for a throw-in; b) the offended team is awarded a substitute free throw; or c) the offended team is awarded one, two, or three points) and not charged against a player or the team, lets look at my Play (1). Every time a player from Team A attempts a free throw, B1 yells “block out.” If the official decides that B1’s actions are persistent, then he can charge B1 with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct under NFHS R10-S3-A8 instead of penalizing the Team B for B1’s infraction of R9-S1-A5. If the official takes this action, continuous motion is the applicable rule regarding A1’s free throw attempt. If A1’s free throw is successful, the score counts; and if A1’s free throw is not successful, no substitute free throw is awarded. Why, B1’s action is not a violation but a foul. A foul is an infraction of the rules, which is charged against a player, team, or bench personnel and is penalized (the penalties for fouls are: a) the offended team is awarded possession of the ball for a throw-in; b) the offended team is awarded one, two, or three free throws; or c) the offended team is awarded both a) and b)).

2) Lets amend my Play (1) slightly, instead of B1 yelling “block out” B1 makes comments to A1 about A1’s mother that are not very nice (this is the first time B1 has done something of this nature, in other words, his actions are not persistent. B1’s actions is not an infraction of R9-S1-A5, but an infraction of R10-S3-A8c. B1’s actions is unsportsmanlike technical foul. Continuous motion is applicable regarding the free throw attempt by A1. If A1’s free throw is successful, the score counts; and if A1’s free throw is not successful, no substitute free throw is awarded.

I will stop here because I have already explained why Play (2) is an unsportsmanlike technical foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

You seem upset.

Nah, not at all. That's why I put the little at the end. But to my knowledge, MTD is the only person on this forum who thinks he's never been wrong. He ignores everyone else's input, because the rest of us are always wrong if we disagree with him. I've been wrong, you've been wrong but he's never been wrong. To me, that's arrogance. If he feels that's name calling, so be it. It's simply my opinion.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

How about both?

Actually, the time shown on his post depends on your own time zone. Mine says 6:58.

In all fairness to the "other" Mark, although he does say the following: "When opponents on the court or bench personal from the opponents bench are yelling during a player's free throw attempt that is defined as disconcerting action." - he also says in a post earlier that day : "It is my opinion that disconcerting action by bench personal is a unsportsmanlike technical foul and not a violation but that is another thread alltogether.(sic)"

I guess what he means is that disconcerting action in it and of itself can be either a violation or a technical foul depending on who is doing the disconcertion - a player on the court or bench personnel.

Personally, I disagree - I think both groups should be treated the same (as I said earlier in this thread), but I don't think his posts have been inconsistent or contradictory.

[Edited by Mark Padgett on Jul 26th, 2003 at 11:37 PM]

Mark:

Thank you for you kind comments and thoughtful insights.

MTD, Sr.