Flopsey, Mopsey and Cottontail

[Almost Always Right]

The NFHS says that for it to be a flop, we have to deem it as "ACTING".(In so many words)
Also - You can have contact and still have a flop.
AAR

[Adam]

Yep. If you don't think the contact displaced the defender, and that the player displaced himself in an attempt to get a call where one wasn't deserved (the no-call that started this thread is a prime example, although the replay was inconclusive in spite of the ESPN "analyst's" comment that it was clear), then it's a flop even with contact.

[ChrisSportsFan]

The block/charge call is arguably one of the most exciting calls we make. 1/2 the gym will oftentimes disagree. So many factor must be considered. Hate to reward bad D, hate to reward bad O, LGP, O pushing off, angle, had the shooter left his feet and D took away his landing space, not that it should matter but is this consistant with my partner. All this is consider and decided on in a split second because we gotta hit it hard and possibly sell it in order to keep a coach from blowing to many gaskets.

Is there something we can say ALWAYS happens on a block or charge?
I think it's an experience thing. Usually you can tell when a player is "in drama". At every camp I've been to they made it an emphasis that if there's contact where someone hits the floor, we better get something. If they're acting they get the message pretty quick.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right
The NFHS says that for it to be a flop, we have to deem it as "ACTING".(In so many words)
Also - You can have contact and still have a flop.
AAR

How's that again?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

How's that again?

I think Snaq's response is spot on. If the contact displaces the defender, that's one thing. Give him the PC foul. But if the contact didn't displace him, and he flopped to try and elicit a foul call, that's "contact and still have a flop". I have a hard time giving him the PC on this one.

There have been a few responses talking about a player ducking for cover, etc. on this play and implying that he is playing legal defense we shouldn't call a block just because of the flop. IMHO this behavior is/can be a significant game control issue.

The flopper is using deception and coercion attempting to get a call he isn't entitled to. I say coercion because he is trying to put the hapless official in the position of having to call something because there are bodies on the floor. He's trying the use the "rules" against us. We all know how this can incite coaches, players and fans. And the entire brouhaha comes about because the defender flopped.

Don't get me wrong, if the defender flops, but the offender still makes signficant contact, we probably need to have the PC foul on that. But short of that, if you have to have a call on a flop, don't reward the defender. He'll only keep doing it if he feels he's successful.

Some people suggest warning on this. If you can no-call it and warn him and/or his coach, great. However, if you give the defender the call then warn him, even if he doesn't do it again, he's still gotten away with one. He played you and won.

[Dan_ref]

BITS, I'm having a hard time agreeing with your post.

A defensive player is allowed to move to maintain guarding position. He's allowed to lean back, position himself and cover up to absorb contact. There's a heck of a lot he can do legally. If the dribbler makes illegal contact with a defender who's leaning back (what you're calling a flop) I cannot see any call other but a PC foul.

Again, what you're calling a "flop" in this case is perfectly legal. And you should not penalize the defender for doing what he's entitled to do.

OTOH if the defender leans back & hits the floor with no or minimal contact then we have a flop. How we deal with that is another discussion but I have never T'ed a player for flopping.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
BITS, I'm having a hard time agreeing with your post.

A defensive player is allowed to move to maintain guarding position. He's allowed to lean back, position himself and cover up to absorb contact. There's a heck of a lot he can do legally. If the dribbler makes illegal contact with a defender who's leaning back (what you're calling a flop) I cannot see any call other but a PC foul.

Again, what you're calling a "flop" in this case is perfectly legal. And you should not penalize the defender for doing what he's entitled to do.

OTOH if the defender leans back & hits the floor with no or minimal contact then we have a flop. How we deal with that is another discussion but I have never T'ed a player for flopping.

I'm not calling a leaning defender a flop. Or even a legally retreating defender. Those, of course, are legal. It's when he falls back or down partially or entirely under his own power to make it look like contact occurred, that's what I'm labeling as a flop.

There is the obvious case of the defender hitting the deck without any contact. There are more subtle cases where there is some contact but the defender flies backward, acting as if the contact was more severe that it was, trying to get the call.

I'm definitely not arguing that we tag a defender who is playing legal defense. But if he's acting or acentuating the contact, in other words deliberatly trying to trick or coerce you into giving him the call, that I have a problem with.

I may be out in left field on this, but I have a problem with a flop even if the defender is playing legal defense in every other regard. Just an example, a defender has LGP, he's moving backward while guarding (and still legal), but at the point of contact he intentionally flops--whether he goes to the floor or just flies back a step or two--to make the contact appear more severe than it actually was. If I can tell he's flopping, I do not want to give him the call on that.

[Almost Always Right]

"OTOH if the defender leans back & hits the floor with no or MINIMAL CONTACT then we have a flop. How we deal with that is another discussion but I have never T'ed a player for flopping."
This is your quote to BITS after you asked me how is that so.
So you agree with me? You can have contact(however minimal) and still have a flop.
The other points you made are absolutely correct.
AAR

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by justacoach

Rule 4
SECTION 23 GUARDING

ART. 3 . . . After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:

a. The guard is not required to have either or both feet on the floor or continue facing the opponent.
b. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
c. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
d. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Falling backwards isn't turning or ducking.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right
"OTOH if the defender leans back & hits the floor with no or MINIMAL CONTACT then we have a flop. How we deal with that is another discussion but I have never T'ed a player for flopping."
This is your quote to BITS after you asked me how is that so.
So you agree with me? You can have contact(however minimal) and still have a flop.
The other points you made are absolutely correct.
AAR

I don't think I'm agreeing with you, but that's why I asked to begin with.

My view is a player leaning/falling backwards (a flop) doesn't remove the posibility of the PC. If there's no contact or minimal contact then I don't have a PC, flop or not.

It seemed to me that you were saying a player leaning/falling backwards (a flop) completely removes the possibility of a PC. IOW if the defensive player leans back he could get squished into a bloody stain under the basket but you're not gonna give him the PC.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
I may be out in left field on this, but I have a problem with a flop even if the defender is playing legal defense in every other regard. Just an example, a defender has LGP, he's moving backward while guarding (and still legal), but at the point of contact he intentionally flops--whether he goes to the floor or just flies back a step or two--to make the contact appear more severe than it actually was. If I can tell he's flopping, I do not want to give him the call on that.

This is exactly what I disagree with.

If the contact is worthy of a whistle on the dribbler you cannot take it away because you suspect the defender's "motives". I don't care if he launches himself backwards over your head doing the Dean-scream and lands in the 19th row. Give him the call.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Falling backwards isn't turning or ducking.

Is it movement towards the opponent?

[Almost Always Right]

JUST leaning back or starting to fall early is of course not a flop, they have to be "acting" in order to coerce a call.
That's my point.
AAR

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right
JUST leaning back or starting to fall early is of course not a flop, they have to be "acting" in order to coerce a call.
That's my point.
AAR

I guess I still don't get it.

If you decide a player is "acting" then you won't give him the call?

[Rick82358]

We all know a flop when we see one. 50 out of 100 times there is no contact at all the player just bales out. the other 50% of the time they fall too early.
I use the measure that you have to stand and take the contact to get the call. If you bale out so sorry it is going to be incedental contact and NC.

I have never in my 18 plus years used the T in this situation, I will have a comment for the player about the flop and warn them of the consequenses of doing it again. It always seems to work. A prudent word to the coah if he/she complains about the lack of a call in that situation that the player floped helps set the guidelines if it happens again.

Remember there has to be contact for it to be a foul. So if they go down without contact it is a flop, if there is contact there is the possiblity of a call.

I had a partner early in the year who called a blocking foul on kid who had position, but started to fall before there was contact, which put him in a position where he upended the airborn shooter.
The fall to the floor took the player out of the legal guarding position.

The B/C call is not difficult, there are specific criteria that must occur for it to be either to be called, I think the reason that people think it is the hardest call to make is that noone other than the officials understand the rule.

Back to the flop.
you make that call you deal with the consequences, your choice.