Called Disconcertation Friday night

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #26 (**permalink**) Sat Jul 26, 2003, 03:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

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.

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.