Flopsey, Mopsey and Cottontail

[blindzebra]

Man you all are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

Did contact occur that was THROUGH THE DEFENDER? If not than B, to varying degrees, is flopping.

How you deal with it is the question. T? No-call? Block? PC with a warning to stop trying to sell it? I have used all of those but the T over the years.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by blindzebra
Man you all are making this a lot harder than it needs to be.

Did contact occur that was THROUGH THE DEFENDER? If not than B, to varying degrees, is flopping.

How you deal with it is the question. T? No-call? Block? PC with a warning to stop trying to sell it? I have used all of those but the T over the years.

Geeze, imagine that. We got the nerve to be discussing basketball officiating on the basketball official's discussion forum. Whatever could we be thinking...

(Still got that bug I see...)

[Rick82358]

I do not see the difficulty;
no contact = flop (no contact no foul)
Your decision of what to do with the player that flops.

Contact = possibility of a foul based on the criteria set forth in the rules.

The flop like so many other issues we see needs to be handled with descretion. I think that the Nc and a word of advise is probaly how we all choose to handle the first one, I have not seen the second one after that.

[M&M Guy]

I believe what the rules committee is trying to accomplish by making this a POE is to avoid more injuries. Taking a charge is a hard thing to do, and for those of us who have played, it can hurt when done right. So, it seems as though I see a larger number of players trying to take the easy way out - trying to "draw the call" instead of trying to "draw the charge". This leads to more players on the floor, and more chances for turned ankles and other problems. And, as mentioned before, the flop is nothing more than deception, which the committee feels has no part in the game. So, that said, I haven't called one this year, even though I've seen some examples. One that seems obvious to me is where the offensive player is coming straight down the lane, from 12:00 position to 6:00 position, and the defender falls back towards 4:00. (Does that make sense?) If the contact actually caused the defender to go down, they would fall towards 6:00 as well. It seems like a T is a harsh call to make in this instance, but maybe we do need to make it more often to clean up this aspect. I remember a rec league game I did where a defender grabbed the shirt of the offensive player and pulled him down on top of him to make it look like a charge. I happened to be in just the right spot to see it and called the T. This is obviously deception - why should flopping be any different?

[Rich]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

In a perfect world, this may be true. But in my world it's a game management nightmare to call the PC foul on the play where the defender "helps himself" to the floor. First, the offensive player and coach will think they can buy that call and people will be "helping themselves to the floor" the whole game. And the other coach will think you got fooled on the play.

No call, block, T, choose one. But when the defender helps himself to the floor or tries to embellish the contact, I'll NEVER call it a PC foul.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Is it movement towards the opponent?

POE pg 71 "The "actor" falls to the court as though he or she were knocked down by the force of the contact."

[ChrisSportsFan]

I remember my HS Coach teaching us to take a charge. He would set us up with LGP and then have our teammates just mow us over. You know how most really good basketball fights occur in practice once everyone gets to know each other and competes daily in practice. Plus, teammates will foul each other harder then they foul opponents. We would just crunch each other. Coach always said we would get used to standing in there and taking it so we wouldn't fear contact in the games. I don't think any of us ever got used to the bruising.

[drothamel]

I understand what the rules committee is trying to do i.e. keeping players off the floor, avoiding injuries, etc.; but I do think that the T is too harsh. Everyone on this board knows that calling T's doesn't help to make a game pretty, that is why they are only assessed as a means of cleaning up that which is already, or becoming ugly. I don't think that the flop falls into this category. Usually, you can clean it up with some verbal communication, or calling a block. I agree with what some have said that it falls along the same line as the old elbow swinging T. The T was just too harsh, once they added the violation, it was easy to clean it up. Also, I haven't seen many games where "flopping" is as real problem. I have done many games where it never happens, and in extreme cases, it may happen twice in a game. This is one POE that I just don't see, at least where I am.

[Almost Always Right]

"I guess I still don't get it.
If you decide a player is "acting" then you won't give him the call?"

Absolutely Not - That is why the Fed. put it in. Their "acting" has been proven to cause safety concerns and affect the integrity of the game so therefore if they try it, it should be penalized accordingly. Block with a warning or T. NFHS says T and I have called it both ways.
However, I did not get as much support from my association when I've called the T as I did when I called the block and warned the player and the bench. I am rambling, sorry.
AAR

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

POE pg 71 "The "actor" falls to the court as though he or she were knocked down by the force of the contact."

Snake,

A defender who leans backward before or during contact is not acting.

He's taking a charge.

If there's obviously no contact the POE says to T him up.

You T him up?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Almost Always Right
"I guess I still don't get it.
If you decide a player is "acting" then you won't give him the call?"

Absolutely Not - That is why the Fed. put it in. Their "acting" has been proven to cause safety concerns and affect the integrity of the game so therefore if they try it, it should be penalized accordingly. Block with a warning or T. NFHS says T and I have called it both ways.
However, I did not get as much support from my association when I've called the T as I did when I called the block and warned the player and the bench. I am rambling, sorry.
AAR

Well, maybe you're smart enough to know that a defender is "acting" when he gets squashed by the dribbler going to the basket.

I'm not. Not even the fed POE can make me that smart.

[justacoach]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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.

Amen, Dan...
My patience is sorely tested every time one of my players, who have been taught extensively all the prerogatives they gain by first ESTABLISHING LGP, are called for blocks or no calls by officials who do not have a thorough knowledge of the actions allowed to MAINTAIN LGP. Do you think my 5'6 PG is not gonna use every nuance of the rules to avoid full contact from a driving 6'2 forward???
Sorry some of you guys are so insecure that you have to defend your honor and not let a 9th grader 'get over on you'.

What happened to the concept of rewarding good defense??

I think we all know a dead-up flop when we see it but any contact that displaces the defender in this sitch warrants a PC call even if you have the psychic powers to divine the defender started moving backwards prior to contact. Don't let a mere POE jaundice your judgement.

[Rich]

Originally posted by justacoach

Amen, Dan...
My patience is sorely tested every time one of my players, who have been taught extensively all the prerogatives they gain by first ESTABLISHING LGP, are called for blocks or no calls by officials who do not have a thorough knowledge of the actions allowed to MAINTAIN LGP. Do you think my 5'6 PG is not gonna use every nuance of the rules to avoid full contact from a driving 6'2 forward???
Sorry some of you guys are so insecure that you have to defend your honor and not let a 9th grader 'get over on you'.

What happened to the concept of rewarding good defense??

I think we all know a dead-up flop when we see it but any contact that displaces the defender in this sitch warrants a PC call even if you have the psychic powers to divine the defender started moving backwards prior to contact. Don't let a mere POE jaundice your judgement.

He's allowed to move backwards. We're all talking about the situation where the defender helps himself to the floor or adds a little emphasis to the contact to try to buy a call. That you're not going to get, not from me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

He's allowed to move backwards. We're all talking about the situation where the defender helps himself to the floor or adds a little emphasis to the contact to try to buy a call. That you're not going to get, not from me.

I'll still call the PC....

...if the dribble still plows him over.

Just because he flops doesn't absolve the offense from actual contact.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

I'll still call the PC....

...if the dribble still plows him over.

Just because he flops doesn't absolve the offense from actual contact.

I guess we disagree on this then. No biggy.