Double Whistles

[Valley Man]

A1 drives to the basket on the T side of the floor. A1 is headed toward the free throw line area where the C/T coverage intersects. A1 lowers her shoulder and B1 falls back in response. a) The T "falls" for it and calls an offensive foul on A1 at the same time the C, given a clear look at the play, signals faking being fouled b) the T calls a blocking foul on B1 and the C signals faking being fouled.

Looking for clarification if both can be called. I didnt see a case play.

[bob jenkins]

You can't have both, because you can't have a foul and a flop on the same play / contact.

In NCAAW, the officials should get together and (generally) give it to the official in who's primary it happened. I haven't seen any specific guidance from FED.

[JRutledge]

You should not be blowing a whistle on a flop the moment of "contact." You really cannot have both (you probably could since people want to be rule hawks on everything) but it is not a good practice. Pick one if you signal both. But the idea that a flop and a foul are called immediately does not seem to understand the process of how you call a flop in the first place.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... you can't have a foul and a flop on the same ... contact.

Agree with bob jenkins 100%.

I'm not sure if I heard it from my local interpreter, or from one of our IAABO Make the Call videos, or from some of our rule experts here on the Forum?

But I'm certain that I did hear it.

Can anybody guess where I heard it?

Does anybody have any type of a NFHS reference or citation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Does anybody have any type of a NFHS reference or citation?

The definition of flopping is something like "overt embellishment of INCIDENTAL contact"

Contact that is incidental cannot be a foul; contact which rises to the level of a foul cannot be incidental.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...from one of our IAABO Make the Call videos ...

IAABO, in a recent Make The Call Video Summary, issued the following interesting statement:

It should also be noted, that if indeed illegal contact occurred by the defender on this play, the only infraction that can be ruled would be the foul by the defender. So in this case, if the shooter "embellishes" the illegal contact after the fact, even though he may be faking, the NFHS is only requiring the officials to make one ruling on the play.

Nice to see in writing that no matter how much the player (in this case a shooter) "embellishes" or “fakes”, if the “embellishing” or “faking” was subsequent to actual illegal contact, no matter how slight, officials are to only charge the illegal contact foul and are to ignore the “faking”.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The definition of flopping is something like "overt embellishment of INCIDENTAL contact" Contact that is incidental cannot be a foul; contact which rises to the level of a foul cannot be incidental.

From NFHS:

NFHS 2024-25: 4-49: Faking being fouled as when a player simulates being fouled or makes theatrical or exaggerated movements when there is no illegal contact. Examples include, but are not limited to, embellishing the impact of incidental contact on block/charge plays or field goal attempts, using a “head bob” to simulate illegal contact and using any tactic to create an opinion of being fouled to gain an advantage.

Faking being fouled is defined in Rule 4-49-1 as when a player simulates being fouled or makes theatrical or exaggerated movements when there is no illegal contact. Examples include, but are not limited to, embellishing the impact of incidental contact on block/charge plays or field goal attempts, using a “head bob” to simulate illegal contact and using any tactic to create an opinion of being fouled to gain an advantage. The new language also establishes a procedure for officials to issue a team warning on the first instance of faking being fouled. The warning is recorded in the scorebook and reported to the head coach. Any additional instances will result in a team technical foul and not a player technical foul, which was previously the case.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The definition of flopping is something like "overt embellishment of INCIDENTAL contact"

Contact that is incidental cannot be a foul; contact which rises to the level of a foul cannot be incidental.

4-49-1 Faking begin fouled (flopping) occurs when a player simulates being fouled or makes theatrical or exaggerated movements when there is no illegal contact by committing such acts as, but not limited to:

a. Overtly embellishing the impact of incidental contact on block/charge plays or attempted tries for goal

b. Using a "head bob" to simulate illegal contact; or

c. Using any other tactics in order to create an opinion of being fouled and therefore gaining an advantage

Emphasis added -- all of which means that you can't be fouled and flop on the same action.

(Note that A could, for example, fall back with no contact (flop) and then commit a foul by having B trip over A. That's a fould and a flop on the same player -- not BEING fouled and a flop on the same player.)

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nice to see in writing that no matter how much the player (in this case a shooter) "embellishes" or “fakes”, if the “embellishing” or “faking” was subsequent to actual illegal contact, no matter how slight, officials are to only charge the illegal contact foul and are to ignore the “faking”.

This was discussed three months ago (Aug. 2024) with you and I discussing the likelihood of using preventative officiating to talk to players if they were embellishing contact to the point it might be judged a flop had a foul not been called.


I know FIBA allows for both a flop and foul to be called on the same play. I can't speak for Pro/NCAA.