Called Disconcertation Friday night

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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).

[/B]

The POE that I quoted says SPECIFICALLY that if an official deems disconcertion to be persistent OR unsporting,the team/player may be penalized with a technical foul.Therefore,you sureashell ARE T'ing the violation.They also had a play on their website, since taken down,that said that the T and the disconsertion violation are both penalized,even though they were the same act. That's exactly what it said in the 2001-2002 rulebook,Chuck. The NFHS issued and printed that ruling in that rulebook. How can you possibly argue against the printed word of the rules?

You might not think that a coach saying "block out" is an unsporting act.Basically,I don't think that it is either. However,if MTD Sr. happens to think that it is,then the NFHS rulemakers have told him that he CAN call a T.The bottom line is that the NFHS has said that it is a matter of each individual official's judgement-which,come to think of it,is pretty much the case in most technical fouls.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, he's wrong. [/B]

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]

It is not an automatic T, which Mark strongly implied. It's a violation and then a T if they keep it up after being told to cut it out.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ahhhhh, that's a cop-out.

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 can, I did, I will again. OK, it was my rec league but I'd do the same in a like situation during a HS game.

Shooter (A1) has started his motion towards the basket on a 1&1 when B4, standing in the last lane space “yells” box out. I give the signal, blow the whistle when the ball bounces of the rim, and award a second first shot. I tell B4 that he can call box out but not when the shooter starts his motion towards the basket. Well, as soon as A1 starts his move towards the basket the little moron yells box out again. Gave him the T for his stupidity.

[BktBallRef]

...with regards to disconcertion by the bench.

Originally posted by Dan_ref
It is not an automatic T, which Mark strongly implied. It's a violation and then a T if they keep it up after being told to cut it out.

Exactly. MTD stated that if the bench disconcerts, it's a T. That's not true. It's a violation and if the FT is missed, another FT is awarded. If it's unsporting, such as "MISS IT YOU SOB!", it would be a T is well.

From what I'm reading now, and from what MTS has mistakenly said in the past, he feels that the term opponent only applies to the 5 defenders on the floor. That's just flat out wrong, as Jurassic's NFHS interp proves. An member of the opposition may disconcert, just like any defensive player on the floor can.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
...with regards to disconcertion by the bench.

Exactly. MTD stated that if the bench disconcerts, it's a T. That's not true. It's a violation and if the FT is missed, another FT is awarded. If it's unsporting, such as "MISS IT YOU SOB!", it would be a T is well.

From what I'm reading now, and from what MTS has mistakenly said in the past, he feels that the term opponent only applies to the 5 defenders on the floor. That's just flat out wrong, as Jurassic's NFHS interp proves. An member of the opposition may disconcert, just like any defensive player on the floor can.

What I am saying with regard to Play (2) in my posting is that with the rules codes do not have a definition for "opponent." There are places in the rules where "opponent" inplies player or bench personal (substitutes, coaches, mangagers, etc.) and there are places in the rules where "opponent" implies players only.

With regard to disconcerting action, every casebook play that I referred to were plays where the illegal activity was committed by players, which would imply that it is only disconcertion when the illegal act is committed by players only. In fact, the NBA/WNBA rules specifically states that disconcertion can only be committed by "an opponent in the game" which would imply that,at least in the NBA/WNBA disconcertion can only be committed by players and not bench personnel.

My argument is that in Play (2) the argument in favor of an unsportsmanlike technical foul over a disconcertion violation is stronger based upon three premises: 1) the fact that all available casebook plays involve players and not bench personnel, 2) there is no definition of "opponent" in the rules codes, and 3) at least the NBA/WNBA says that only opponents on the court (players, not bench personnel) can commit disconcerting action.

If I were to see Play (2) in a NFHS, NCAA Men's/Women's, or FIBA test, I would rule it a unsportsmanlike technical foul. How would I handle Play (2) in the real world? I have done it both ways, of course, how I handled was dependent upon the situation. And I can tell you that I have charged a head coach with a technical foul only once and that was in a CYO girls' H.S. game. The first time the coach yelled "box out" the shooter made the free throw and play continued. The first chance I had I discretely warned him about yelling while his opponent was shooting free throws. He choose to disregard my advice and did it again the next time his opponent was attempting a free throw. This time the shooter missed and I imposed the disconcerting violation. I guess, he still did not get it, because he did it again about two minutes later. The shooter made the free throw, but I charged the head coach with a technical foul. He finally got it.

Lets face it, as far as non-officials are concerned, disconcertion is a misunderstood violation. And I think that when Play (2) happens, disconcertion is easier to apply than an unsportsmanlike technical foul. But, when I am asked for an interpretation for Play (2), I believe that the correct decision is an unsportsmanlike foul. And my only defense is that the casebook plays do not consider bench personnel, and the NBA/WNBA flat out state that only opponents on the court can commit disconcertion.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
With regard to disconcerting action, every casebook play that I referred to were plays where the illegal activity was committed by players, which would imply that it is only disconcertion when the illegal act is committed by players only.

No it doesn't. That's simply a supposition on your part. The Case Book isn't meant to address every single possibility that could occur in basketball. Jurassic referenced the situation where, if a T were called for disconcertion on the bench, a FT would result if the shooter had missed the FT and the penalty for the unsporting act would also be administered. His interp came from a NFHS website interp a couple of years ago.

In fact, the NBA/WNBA rules specifically states that disconcertion can only be committed by "an opponent in the game" which would imply that,at least in the NBA/WNBA disconcertion can only be committed by players and not bench personnel.

And? You know that that doesn't mean a thing. There are dozens of differences in NBA and NFHS. Just because the NBA addresses this as illegal doesn't mean it's illegal in NFHS. Is it illegal to catch your own airball in NBA? Yes. In high school? No.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

No it doesn't. That's simply a supposition on your part. The Case Book isn't meant to address every single possibility that could occur in basketball. Jurassic referenced the situation where, if a T were called for disconcertion on the bench, a FT would result if the shooter had missed the FT and the penalty for the unsporting act would also be administered. His interp came from a NFHS website interp a couple of years ago.

Lah me,Mark:
1)About 3 years ago,over on the McGriff board,we had this exact same discussion.You stated at that time that you couldn't call disconcertion as a violation on the bench.You also used the same argument about opponents only being those players on the floor.BktBallRef,myself and others disagreed vehemently with you.To settle the argument,you e-mailed someone that you knew that was on the FED rules committee at that time to get a ruling.After having to be prodded,you sheepishly reported back to us a coupla days later,that-yes,indeed-you sureashell could call disconcertion on the bench-as per the response to your e-mail.If I remember right,the person that you e-mailed was Mary Struckhoff.
2)The NFHS posted on their website,the same year that the disconcertion POE was issued,a caseplay stating that disconcertion violation applied to all opponents,including those on the bench(subs,coaches,trainers,etc.).

BktBallRef is right. You are wrong. I also see that I was agreeing with you before for the wrong reasons.I thought that you were now aware of the proper rulings- i.e.-disconcertion can be a violation on a coach. It can also additionally be a T,if an official deems it unsportsmanlike.

[Jurassic Referee]

Just keyed in "disconcertion",and ran a little search.Here's an interesting little thread from a coupla years ago. Note the comment on POE #2- Disconsertion. The Mr. Knox that BktBallRef is talking about was a member of the NFHS rules committee at that time.

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...?threadid=3153

Now,do we believe MTD Sr. or a member of the FED rules committee? Hmmmmm!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In fact, the NBA/WNBA rules specifically states that disconcertion can only be committed by "an opponent in the game" which would imply that,at least in the NBA/WNBA disconcertion can only be committed by players and not bench personnel.

Or maybe they wrote it this way to exclude the fans!
I don't see what is the difference between a coach and his bench yelling at a shooter and the fans sitting three feet behind them.
Chuck and JR, you may wish to reconsider your position on this, since I am in agreement with you.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Lah me,Mark:
1)About 3 years ago,over on the McGriff board,we had this exact same discussion.You stated at that time that you couldn't call disconcertion as a violation on the bench.You also used the same argument about opponents only being those players on the floor.BktBallRef,myself and others disagreed vehemently with you.To settle the argument,you e-mailed someone that you knew that was on the FED rules committee at that time to get a ruling.After having to be prodded,you sheepishly reported back to us a coupla days later,that-yes,indeed-you sureashell could call disconcertion on the bench-as per the response to your e-mail.If I remember right,the person that you e-mailed was Mary Struckhoff.
2)The NFHS posted on their website,the same year that the disconcertion POE was issued,a caseplay stating that disconcertion violation applied to all opponents,including those on the bench(subs,coaches,trainers,etc.).

BktBallRef is right. You are wrong. I also see that I was agreeing with you before for the wrong reasons.I thought that you were now aware of the proper rulings- i.e.-disconcertion can be a violation on a coach. It can also additionally be a T,if an official deems it unsportsmanlike.

JUST A GOL DARN MINUTE HERE! You are making a completely FALSE statement concerning me sending an email to Mary Struckhoff. I did a very methodical and complete search of all my correspondence, both email and snail-mail, AND I have never corresponded with Mary Struckhoff or anyother person affiliated with either the NFHS or the NCAA concerning disconcerting action.

I have discussed disconcerting action in the past, and I still think that disconcerting action applies only to players on the court only. The thread mentioned above is from 2001, and refers to statements made by Dick Knox who was Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee at the time. Mr. Knox's statements were in his capacity as Executive Director of the North CarolinaHSAA. I will agree that Mr. Knox's position as the Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee lends considerable weight to his statements concerning disconcerting action.

The NFHS and NCAA has never made an official ruling regarding disconcerting action and if it applies to bench personnel. Mr. Knox's statements in 2001 lead us to believe that the NFHS would favor the position that bench personnel can be charged with disconcerting action.

Since I have promised to take my two sons to the driving range I am going to have to leave right now and come back to it later tonight.

BUT, quoting from the NFHS Rules Book:

"Rule 9: Violations and Penalties, Section 1: Free-Throw Provitions: A player shall not violate the following provisions governing the free throws: Article 5: No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower."

I will be back for further discussions later.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
BUT, quoting from the NFHS Rules Book:

"Rule 9: Violations and Penalties, Section 1: Free-Throw Provitions: A player shall not violate the following provisions governing the free throws: Article 5: No opponent shall disconcert the free thrower."

It seems to me we are hung up on whether the term "opponent" includes bench personnel or just the players on the court. While there is no specific definition of "opponent" in the NF rule book, there is an indication that the term includes bench personnel.

In NF 10-4-1-d, the section under bench technicals says that bench personnel shall not disrespectfully address, bait or taunt an "opponent". If "opponent" did not include the other team's bench personnel, you could not (under this rule) give a technical to a bench player for taunting a bench player on the other team, only for taunting a player of the other team who was on the court. We all know you can issue this T under this rule.

To me, that's enough to conclude that "opponent" includes bench personnel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

I have discussed disconcerting action in the past, and I still think that disconcerting action applies only to players on the court only.

The thread mentioned above is from 2001, and refers to statements made by Dick Knox who was Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee at the time. Mr. Knox's statements were in his capacity as Executive Director of the North CarolinaHSAA. I will agree that Mr. Knox's position as the Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee lends considerable weight to his statements concerning disconcerting action.
The NFHS and NCAA has never made an official ruling regarding disconcerting action and if it applies to bench personnel. Mr. Knox's statements in 2001 lead us to believe that the NFHS would favor the position that bench personnel can be charged with disconcerting action.
[/B][/QUOTE]MTD Sr. says that disconcertion applies only to players on the court.

The Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee(who write the rulebook)says that disconcertion applies to bench personnel too.

Decisions,decisions!!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
MTD Sr. says that disconcertion applies only to players on the court.

The Chairman of the NFHS Rules Committee(who write the rulebook)says that disconcertion applies to bench personnel too.

Decisions,decisions!!

Isn't it also intertesting that I posted in that thread that the long switch would return? The change was made in the Officials Manual for 2001, and was changed back this year, the first time the manual has been printed since then.

Seems Mr. Knox, the DEPUTY executive director (not the exectuive director) of the NCHSAA knows what he's talking about. More importantly, even though he was at an NCHSAA,rules clinic, he was still the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee Chairman. I don't see how one can separate the two.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jul 26th, 2003 at 07:06 PM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

He's back!

It has been my observations over the last three or four years, that the rise in disconcerting action has NOT been at the NCAA Men’s/Women’s, FIBA, or NBA/WNBA level of play but at the NFHS level of play. It does not matter whether the game is a jr. H.S. or H.S. game, CYO, AAU, YBOA, AYBTour, NAYB, GBA, USSSA, or any other level of youth basketball that is where the disconcerting action problem is. Therefore I will restrict my comments to how the NFHS rules code, while only referring to the other codes as a reference to how they approach the problem.

Previously, I have quoted all of the relevant rules codes regarding disconcerting action and unsportsmanlike technical fouls, but when I quoted the NFHS rule pertaining to disconcerting action I did not quote it in its entirety. It reads:

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. (Remember, from a historical standpoint, the NFHS and NCAA rules codes are the offspring of the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada (NBCUSC or NBC)).

With regard to my Play (2), my interpretation of unsportsmanlike technical foul as opposed to violation, is based upon the following words at the beginning of Section 1: “A player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws.” Bench personnel are not players.

As I have said in the past Play (1) is simple. B1 has committed a free throw violation by disconcerting the free thrower. But Play (2) is not so simple. The word “opponent” has no clear definition. What is an “opponent” varies among the various times it appears in the rules. The definition of a false double foul is a good example of how the word “opponent” means both player and bench personnel. There are many Casebook Plays that bear this out. But the Casebook Plays that pertain to disconcerting action only show players committing the violation. While this is not a very convincing argument for Play (2) being an unsportsmanlike technical foul, the only help that the rule itself provides is that “a player shall not violate the following provisions governing free throws” and Article 5 is one of the provisions of NFHS R9-S1. This leaves an official with only NFHS R10-S4-A1, which states that: “Bench personnel shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as: Article 1d: Disrespectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an opponent.”

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.

I do not want to get off on a rant here (my apologies to Dennis Miller; actually this whole posting has probably been a rant), but even Rules Committee Chairman and Rules Editors can make mistakes. The NFHS issued a rules interpretation at the beginning of the 2001-02 season that was in direct conflict of the rules and an existing Casebook Play. When I first emailed Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox questioning the ruling, their first reply to me was that the ruling was correct. It was not until several days after I emailed them again with the Rules and Casebook Play that they reversed their original decision and issued a correct interpretation.

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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have to face facts, since my knee injury has put my on the disabled list again, I just have way too much time on my hands.

I hope that everybody is enjoying their summer.