And It almost ended up with a T. I Warned the kid the first shot. 2nd Shot I called the shooter back up to the line for a 3rd shot. He missed the 2nd. Everytime he would goto shoot... Before the ball even left his hand this kid would say MISS! really loud. Like the parentso n the other side of the gym could hear it. So we shot another shot. Coach said his players could talk all they wanted in the lane. During halftime I took my rule book out of my pocket and said Coach your welcome to look up the rule. (he was still goiong on about it) He grabbed th book and said this is NFHS whatever that is. This league is based off of UIL rules. I almost laughed. I happened to have the first page of the UIL rule book printed out for a situation like this. It clearly states that the UIL rulebook for basketball is the NFHS rulebook with the some of the following exceptions (merely administration stuff, coaching, coach box,etc... everything is bigger in texas except our coaches boxes) He said that wasnt good enough and I cant call a disgrace again on his player. My partner finally stopped laughing from the whats this NFHS thing? question corrected to coach. First free throw of the 2nd half my partner called disconcertation on the same kid. Coach said huh, I guess you know what ur talking about kid. : Shrug: one more reason im done with this leauge.

Never carry your rule book in your back pocket. If you want to keep it in your bag and use it during halftime or between games, fine. But don't carry it with you and don't pull it out on a coach.

Like Tony said do not carry your book out on the floor. If you want to quit this league then fine, but don't let the jerks run you out. Learning how to deal with the jerks is on the job training.

There is one rec league that I worked for a couple years, in which there were a lot of jerks -- parents, coaches, players. It was good for me to work it for a while but when my time got full of other games, I didn't feel bad about dropping it. But I learned a lot, and it was valuable experience. I suggest you get one of those more experienced refs that can handle this stuff, I think you said there were a couple, and work only with them. Tell them you want suggestions of how you could be more like them. Absorb. It'll pay huge dividends in the long run, I think.

Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

This thread's been up for a couple of days, and neither one of you has called Ace on unwittingly coming up with a new noun: "disconcertation." I'm disappointed in the both of you.

John

Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

I was going to mention it, but I thought it was a real word meaning "say bad things about a concert".

http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/znaika.gif

Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

John --

I try to get sticky about grammar only when it's really funny, or when I think someone is being an icehole (how's that for a new euphemism?!) and I can use grammar to get snotty back. At least that's what JimNazium thinks I do.

Re: Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

New?!?! NEW?!?!?! Have you never seen the movie "Johnny Dangerously"?!?!?!

Chuck

Re: Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

Speaking of that....

Q. What did Beethoven leave on the piano bench shortly before he died?
A. His final movement

Q. What does Beethoven do now that he's dead?
A. Spends most of his time decomposing.

Re: Re: Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

Frankly, no. How old is it?!?

Re: Re: Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

Did you hear about the constipated accountant?

He's OK now. He penciled it out. :p

Re: Re: Re: Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

I knew we could count on him to work it out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Chuck and Juulie falling down on the job
 

Frankly, no. How old is it?!? [/B][/QUOTE]
Made in 1984.

http://www.fast-rewind.com/johnnydangerously.htm

Hey,Chuck are you at camp or going this weekend?

I'm heading to Orlando tomorrow. NunnBetter starts Friday! I'm pretty stoked.

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. :)

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.

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.

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. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...e/cussing2.gif

I've had this discussion with MTD before and he's still wrong...
 

...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.

Re: I've had this discussion with MTD before and he's still wrong...
 

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.

Re: Re: I've had this discussion with MTD before and he's still wrong...
 

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.

Quote:

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.

Re: Re: Re: I've had this discussion with MTD before and he's still wrong...
 

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.

In Addition....
 

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!

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. ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had this discussion with MTD before and he's still wrong...
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've had this discussion with MTD before and he's still wrong...
 

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.

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!! :D

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]

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.

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.

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! :D

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!

How about both? http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/argue.gif

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]

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.

#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.

Quote:

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. :p

You seem upset. http://www.fun-worlds.com/bilder/grrr.gif

#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.

Nah, not at all. That's why I put the little :p 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:

Thank you for you kind comments and thoughtful insights.

MTD, Sr.