Defender trying to take a charge starting to fall before contact

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by SC Official

We can disagree all we want on what the rules say this is technically supposed to be treated as. But the expectation at the higher levels is that you do not reward the defense for this type of action (yes, it is flopping). That is the expectation of most coaches and supervisors, whether you think it's fair or not.

I don't think anyone actually disagrees with what this is supposed to be treated as. Most people are suggesting that it should be treated as a block instead because their isn't sufficient support for actually calling the technical.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't think anyone actually disagrees with what this is supposed to be treated as. Most people are suggesting that it should be treated as a block instead because their isn't sufficient support for actually calling the technical.

It's not even that. There are cases that even if you can support your call with the rulebook you won't get much push back. You will just get the label as "that guy". Assignors at the college level (at least the levels I have worked) don't like having to answer coaches consistently about the same guy over and over again. Even if you are right by the rule you are more of a headache for the assignor.

I'm not saying if you do this once or maybe twice it will cost you but if there is a pattern that you are more trouble that you are worth then so be it. That's up to your judgement on how you want to adjudicate certain plays. That dictates the direction, as an official, you will move.

The rules for an official change once they "make it" but that's like a handful of guys in the country. At one point they were in this same spot and there are rules and there are expectations. For the most part (I'd say 95% or more) the rules and expectations walk hand in hand. But there are some areas that they split up.

I used to think "just call it by the book", and I will advise newer officials to do so, however I have tried to be less dogmatic in my approach and deal with the situation based on the level.

The higher up the more "by the book" I work, also taking into account local tradition, expectation, assignors expectation, etc.

If you are starting off or trying to move up and you are faced with a dilemma the safest way to tackle it is by the book.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by deecee

It's not even that. There are cases that even if you can support your call with the rulebook you won't get much push back. You will just get the label as "that guy". Assignors at the college level (at least the levels I have worked) don't like having to answer coaches consistently about the same guy over and over again. Even if you are right by the rule you are more of a headache for the assignor.

I'm not saying if you do this once or maybe twice it will cost you but if there is a pattern that you are more trouble that you are worth then so be it. That's up to your judgement on how you want to adjudicate certain plays. That dictates the direction, as an official, you will move.

The rules for an official change once they "make it" but that's like a handful of guys in the country. At one point they were in this same spot and there are rules and there are expectations. For the most part (I'd say 95% or more) the rules and expectations walk hand in hand. But there are some areas that they split up.

I used to think "just call it by the book", and I will advise newer officials to do so, however I have tried to be less dogmatic in my approach and deal with the situation based on the level.

The higher up the more "by the book" I work, also taking into account local tradition, expectation, assignors expectation, etc.

If you are starting off or trying to move up and you are faced with a dilemma the safest way to tackle it is by the book.

This is why I would propose changing the rules in the book. FIBA allows for a "flop warning" to be issued to a team, with subsequent flops being penalized with a technical foul. This allows for flopping to be initially addressed without having to call a technical foul. NFHS and NCAA would be well-served here in taking a page out of the FIBA book.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is why I would propose changing the rules in the book. FIBA allows for a "flop warning" to be issued to a team, with subsequent flops being penalized with a technical foul. This allows for flopping to be initially addressed without having to call a technical foul. NFHS and NCAA would be well-served here in taking a page out of the FIBA book.

I actually find the flop warning counter productive. I don't often use it but some of my peers regularly use it to curb the sorts of behaviours being talked about on this thread (kids leaning, falling early, bailing out to minimize or avoid contact, etc).Which aren't actually illegal. And I feel like it causes more conversations then it solves problems.

If it's not something you would T up on its own, then you probably shouldn't be bringing it up at all. Imagine warning a coach/player for flopping then the sort of convos we have had on this thread happening in your game (I am allowed to protect myself, she is allowed to move back/down/turn, he doesn't have to get run over, etc). Now you have a disagreement over rules applications that officials can't agree on, and have warned a coach/player if they don't agree with your interp next time they push their luck its a T.

However if you wouldn't have T'd it previously (just waved a kid up, said stay up longer, ignored it) then you have now painted yourself and your partner into a corner of T'ing the next time you see it regardless.