Flop
 

Where in the rulebook does it say anything about a flop situation.
Is it located under contact?
What is the signal?
What is the foul?

Flop
 

You will not find the word “flop” in the rule book. It is fan-speak and announcer-speak (though most officials would admit to informally using the term often as a descriptor).

There is no signal, mainly because 99.99% of the time there is no call to signal. Likewise, there is no special information signal for “I have a flop on that no-call.”

The foul, if there were to be one, would be a player technical for faking being fouled. I’ve never seen this called at either the HS or NCAA level. I think the NBA tried to crack down on flopping a few years back and maybe issued a few Ts (they certainly issued some fines), but I’m not sure this is as much under the microscope lately.

Mostly, I chuckle mockingly at floppers, make no call, and we play on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I *think* NCAAM now has it as one of the (now) 5 "delay warnings."

Many in FED, NCAAW, and previously in NCAAM use the informal "get up" signal to show that they saw the play, but judged not foul.

You are not watching enough NCAAM basketball this season. Although it isn't a player technical, but rather a class B technical, and without going through the whole rule doesn't necessarily cause a technical foul on the first occurrence.

NFHS Player Technical 10-4-6f, "Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to , acts or conduct such as . . . faking being fouled, knowingly attempting a free throw or accepting a foul to which the player was not entitled."

A good article on the topic appeared in Referee magazine several months ago which was repeated in the Referee Preseason Prep publication.

Article on the Topic: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HlO...w?usp=drivesdk

Speak of the devil...this just in:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba...Hfc?li=BBnb7Kz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would not be an accurate statement.

NCAA-M 4-10-1.c

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.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Good reference. I presumed NFHS rules in my response but have not read the NCAA book in a few years.

I wonder if the NFHS committee will ever follow suit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope they do, and that the NBA also follows suit. The flopping is getting ridiculous. I had to warn players last year to tell them to stop, and I hope that a flop warning gets officially adopted.

If you want them to stop faking being fouled, enforcing rule 10-4-6f would work. In fact, it worked all three times it was called in the United States last season. Why wouldn't you want to just do that rather than add something new? Jus' curious. :)

When I suggested to enforce the rule as written, partners have questioned me about whether it is advisable to do so. I don't care. If I see it again, T.

It was speculated earlier that the NCAA includes this as a DOG warning. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I would LOVE to see this added as a DOG warning in NFHS. I think that’s a great idea. Right now there’s nothing between “nothing” and “T,” which is why officials are reluctant to go straight to the T.

Remember when swinging elbows short of contact was a T that nobody ever called? They changed it to a violation and than at least it got called once in a while. Good change. Let’s do something similar with “faking being fouled.” It delays the game because you have to address it, so you get one warning and then after that the penalty is unpalatable enough that the players will likely knock it off.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And The Academy Award For Best Actor Goes To ...
 

The problem with high school players is that they not as savvy, aren't as good actors, and are more timid, compared to college players.

When a high school player sets up to "take a charge" it's very difficult for an official to differentiate between a great acting performance and a kid who's afraid to take the full brunt of the charge and begins to fall backwards, not to fake a foul, but thinking that falling backward will somehow lessen the pain.

Same thing with high school shooters. High school shooters are concentrating on trying to draw contact and/or trying to make the shot. They're not savvy enough to concentrate on a third thing, faking being fouled, the best that they can usually come up with is to complain if officials don't call the foul.

Forty years. Never called a technical foul for faking a foul. Never observed a technical foul for faking a foul. Made a few comments (warnings). Heard a few comments (warnings). But that was the total extent of these situations. It's been several years since I even thought that a high school player was faking being fouled.

Faking being fouled IS a delay of game warning in NCAA men's rules.

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.

It may be awkward phrasing, but NCAA-Men's has put out clear guidance through training videos and rules clinics as to what types of plays and actions fall into that category. It is pretty easy for NCAA-Men's officials to adjudicate.

Always A First Time, But Not Tonight In My Game ...
 

Saw this last night as I was observing my friends officiate a state semifinal game. May be the first time any of us saw a 100% contact-free "flop". Player drove down the lane toward a defensive player legally holding his spot. Driving player pulled up at the last split second to go vertical and shoot a soft jump shot. Absolutely no contact. Defensive player, anticipating the contact, leaned back and then feel backward on his butt. Good basket. No call.

The four of us discussed this play after the game. With our many combined years of playing basketball, watching basketball, and officiating basketball, we all agreed that none of us wanted to be the first official in Connecticut to make a "flop" call.

I agree but it took all that video and explanation of the standard. The NF has not made such a standard for what would result in a T if you were to call one. Most plays involve some kind of contact. The problem is the NF rule does not say the standard involves contact or not. That is one reason I have never called a T for this and probably never will until they give some guidance more than what we have now.

Peace

I agree rule sets and officials/associations do a great job of clarifying what they mean. I just personally don't understand phrasing a rule in a way that makes it an impossibility. We all know what they want.

There are enough rules dealing with unsporting behaviour without me trying to decide if a kid fell because they are un coordinated, have no core strength, are a drama major, are hella soft and fall down to avoid getting knocked hard . . . let them lay there and deal with the fall out if I the contact didn't/shouldn't have caused it.

The L (I assume it was the L that was the primary for this play.) was correct in not accessing a TF for "faking being fouled". For our brothers and sisters who are not familiar with my position, reacting to possible conact is: 1) human nature and 2) not "faking being fouled". If one wants to see athletes who are adept at faking being fouled, watch soccer players, especially professional soccer players.

MTD, Sr.

All the posts in this thread do indicate the high frequency of occurrence, the apparent injury risk, and the fundamentally unsporting-ness of the "flop". It is for these reasons that i predict that the " get up" mechanical coupled with it's documented bench warning will trickle down to implementation at the NF level.

@ MTD: !o! @ soccer players exceptional display of "flops".