Faking being fouled ...

Ignats75

I had this in a BJV game last week except the OTHER coach WANTED the T. V1 flopped on two consecutive trips down the floor only to give up put backs. I told the home HC loudly enough for V1 to hear, "he didn't flop. he's just so uncoordinated, he tripped over the foul line." Home coach was a tool all night, starting at the opening jump. His team was up by 20 and won by 40 and he full court pressed for 28 minutes. He wanted every contact called and his team was bigger and stronger. I thought I was doing an LeBron James game again. (Now thats a flashback as bad as anything LSD could give me.)

packersowner

ga314ref wrote
"22, stop flopping."

I like visiting with that player. However, I might tell the player and the coach, "I'll give you the charge if there is contact, otherwise it's a technical if you are intentionally flopping."

I think this sets the right expectation with the coach and player.

icallfouls

While my initial post may not have stated it, you misunderstood my meaning. So I take the responsibility for that.

Not my deal to just make up stuff that isn't there.

My meaning was along the lines of slight contact, not no contact.

just another ref

icallfouls wrote
While my initial post may not have stated it, you misunderstood my meaning. So I take the responsibility for that.

Not my deal to just make up stuff that isn't there.

My meaning was along the lines of slight contact, not no contact.

The principle is still the same. If it isn't a block, the flop doesn't make it a block.

Camron Rust

just another ref wrote
The principle is still the same. If it isn't a block, the flop doesn't make it a block.

So you're calling the T? If not, why not? That is what it really is.

Adam

Camron Rust wrote
So you're calling the T? If not, why not? That is what it really is.

If there's slight contact, I'll just consider it anticipation rather than faking. Either a no-call or a charge. But anticipation doesn't make it a block.

just another ref

Camron Rust wrote
So you're calling the T? If not, why not? That is what it really is.

Calling a T is an option. Calling a block because of a flop is not.

Camron Rust

just another ref wrote
Calling a T is an option. Calling a block because of a flop is not.

When there is contact (as is the case in the point under discussion) it is always an option.

just another ref

Camron Rust wrote
When there is contact (as is the case in the point under discussion) it is always an option.

It's an option whether there is contact or not. Anything the official chooses to do is an option, but this one is not supported by rule.

Adam

Camron Rust wrote
When there is contact (as is the case in the point under discussion) it is always an option.

I'm not seeing what the defender does wrong here. Slight contact, defender falls back, but maintains LGP. Why a block?

Camron Rust

Snaqwells wrote
I'm not seeing what the defender does wrong here. Slight contact, defender falls back, but maintains LGP. Why a block?

Contact enough to cause that reaction between the bodies and the offense did cause it, then the defender did (or at least that is the way you can sell it).

Adam

Camron Rust wrote
Contact enough to cause that reaction between the bodies and the offense did cause it, then the defender did.

Then we're picturing this differently. I see what would be an obvious charge mitigated by the defender bailing. Bracing or falling backwards in anticipation is expressly allowed, so I don't understand a block call.

« Previous Page