Harsh Penalty ...
 

Good example. I wish the NFHS would do the same with purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds. Make it a violation, like intentionally leaving the court for an unauthorized reason, and it would be called more often.

I've made this suggestion for a rule change (up the ladder through proper channels) to the NFHS and was ignored. Can you imagine somebody ignoring BillyMac? Can you imagine?

You can d/l the rule book for free at

https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...retations.aspx

From that d/l (emphasis added):

Section 10. Delay
Art. 1. A delay is any action that impedes the progress or continuity of the game.
Such actions include, but are not limited to:
a. Administrative Delays.
1. Failure to supply scorers with data per Rule 3-4.1 (See Rule 10-2.2);
2. Consuming a full minute by not being ready when it is time to start
either half or any extra period. (See Rule 10-2.5);
3. Team followers entering the playing court before activity has been
terminated, which prevents the ball from promptly being made live or
prevents continuous play. (See Rule 10-2.8.d and A.R. 283).
b. Coach Delays.
1. Bench personnel entering the playing court before player activity has
been terminated, which prevents the ball from promptly being made live
or prevents continuous action. (See Rule 10-4.2.h);
2. Failure to have the court ready for play after the final horn to end any
timeout. (See Rule 10-4.2.g and A.R. 283);
3. Delaying the game by failing to resume play immediately following
the second warning horn indicating the end of a timeout or when
a disqualified/ejected or injured player must be replaced. (See Rule
10-4.2.g).
c. Player Delays.
1. Repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being
promptly put into play, such as delaying the administration of a throwin
or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anywhere on the playing
court. (See Rule 10-4.1.h)
2. Attempting to gain an advantage by interfering with the ball after a goal
or by failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official after a
whistle is blown. (See Rule 10-4.1.l)
3. Failing to provide sufficient space along the out of bounds line for a
throw-in after being warned by an official, per Rule 7-6.8.e.
4. Faking being fouled (flopping) on block/charge plays or attempted tries
for goal or using any other tactics such as a "head bob" which might lead
an official to believe that a foul has been committed.

That is not speculation, that is the rule. Rule 4-10-1c relates to player delays and warnings.

Interestingly, Cincinnati had this called against them in second half of a loss to Iowa on 12/21. Had most watchers puzzled because the official allowed a driving bucket and afterward called the flop (on UC's All-American, I believe), which had occurred out around the 3-point line. No warnings, first occurrence (as far as everyone knew).

The first time it happens it is a warning, unless the team has already received a warning for one of the team delays. In that case, it might be the first flop, but it would be the second delay warning in that category and therefore a class b tech.

The related warning is for a player delay, not a team delay.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

There had to have been some type of previous player delay warning against Cincinnati, which may or may not have been a previous flop.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I know this is a relatively old thread - and perhaps not seen nor visited ...

I'm curious if officials working HS games have feelings one way or another about "flop" and an RA at the HS level and if so, what are they and why?

Flop rules...bring them on, I think that would be a good tool.

RA...I hope not. We have enough trouble getting people to understand the rules relating to block/charge (i.e., LGP and verticality) as it is. No need to double the complexity of the situation.

Official Written Warning ...
 

Like the idea of a NFHS official written warning. Better than an unofficial, "Cut that out".

Double The Complexity ...
 

It would definitely not be case of, "Double Your Pleasure, Double You Fun", especially with two person crews.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.9...=0&w=155&h=155

Similar to the "book warning" to a head coach / team personnel for misconduct, now would be a good time for the NFHS to adopt a "book warning" for embellishment (I'm not a fan of the word "flop.")

RA? No way! A ball handler should be liable for a player-control foul anywhere on the 4,200 (or 4,700) square feet of playing surface. That, and what Camron said about the complexity.

1) Billy, I know that I have joked about Alternating Possession being and abomination upon the game but while I am not a fan of it something Alternation Possession it is something that I can live with for the time being.

2) The real abomination upon the game is the Restricted Arc, Secondary Defender, Lower Defensive Box, and the Defensive Three Seconds Violation, all of which discussions of another day.

3) My position on "flopping". I am sure that you can search this Forum as well as many of the Facebook basketball officiating groups for my position on "flopping". So lets start by looking at: https://forum.officiating.com/basket...o-contact.html and I bring everyone's attention to two of my comments:


Comment #10 on Page 1:

It is not a TF for "flopping", it is a TF for faking being fouled.

If B1 has a LGP against A1 and while in his/her LGP A1, makes contact with any part of B1's body that tells us that A1 encroached B1's Cylinder of Verticality meaning that if a Foul is to be charged it should be charged to A1.

We have all seen videos and have officiated games where B1 has a LGP against A1 and A1 breaches B1's Cylinder of Verticality. The contact looks minimal and yet B1 falls backwards even falling to the Floor sometimes. Many people describe B1 as "flopping". Who knows for sure if B1 over acted from A1's contact? Whether or not B1 is guilty or not of overacting he/she cannot be charged with any type of Foul (Personal or Technical) because B1 was in a LGP when A1 breached B1's Cylinder of Verticality.

When it comes to faking being fouled. I officiated H.S. soccer for 14 years. Basketball players are not the actors that soccer players are.

I officiated basketball for 46 years and have watched Mark, Jr. officiate basketball for another 5 years and I cannot remember ever seeing a basketball player fake being fouled.


Comment #18 on Page 2:

1) Has B1 Obtained (NFHS and NCAA Women's)/Established (NCAA Men's and FIBA) LGP? If YES, go to (2) and if NO, go to (4).

2) Was the contact between A1 and B1 within B1's Cylinder of Verticality? If yes, to (3).

3) PF by A1 against B1.

4) PF by B1 against A1.

It does not get any easier than that.


MTD, Sr.

Flopping includes, as enforced by NCAA Men's rules, head bobbing and jump shooters throwing themselves to the ground. Those don't involve contact. Those are faking being fouled.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

My simple but convoluted 3 cents on flopping:

I find the language faking being fouled awkward phrasing. So it leads me down a path many of you may see as splitting hairs.

A foul is contact the referee judges to meet the level of a foul. A player can't fake a judgement, they can fake contact. So players can't fake being fouled ever only fake being contacted. WIth that in mind IMO we should only be calling technicals for faking being fouled if and when they are faking contact that didn't actually occur.

NOW (before the pitch forks come out) . . .

They can also exaggerate or and overreact to contact. If we want to give a technical for that, for me I would have to have it raise to a theatrical level that was somehow leading to intentionally inciting the crowd or blatantly violating the spirit of the game. Someone choosing to fall over or toss their head back when I wouldn't have fallen over or tossed my head back or I don't think they should doesn't meet that bar for me.

If they want to engage in theatrics or controlled falls that's on them. If after they engage in the theatrics and the respond badly to not getting their desired called I have no problem with Ting up that bad behaviour or complaint.