Calling the flop - Page 4

lmeadski · #46 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 30, 2005, 11:04pm

this is a touchy crowd tonight. I thought only coaches got emotional about basketball.

wwcfoa43 · #47 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 12:16am

I believe as the POE tried to convey that flopping has no place on a basketball court. Officials rely on visual evidence in order to determine what fouls and violations to call. If the players begin to purposely create fake visual evidence in order to unduly influence the officials decision then the sport will go down a road we do not want it to go.

Most seasoned officials will not be fooled with most flops. But what about less experienced ones? Their job is difficult enough without allowing the players to actively try and gain an undue advantage by creating a false impression.

So IMO, I try to eliminate flops by telling the flopper or their coach to never do that again or if the act warrants it in my opinion to call the T.

rainmaker · #48 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 01:26am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by lmeadski
Take a pamprin! My original post never mentioned a degree at impact. I later posted this:

Dont mean to cut this so thin, but, if the defender has not hit the floor yet, but is virtually down (15 degrees from the floor, lets say), and A runs into him and goes to the floor, it is a foul on A? Really?

Couldn't you infer that that was meant to be an example? And, by the way, we don't mind being called Trolls (if you were trying to hurt my feelings or something...). [/B][/QUOTE]

Ahhh...the royal we. Nice touch.

By the way Your Higness, I didn't mean to insult you by calling you a troll. If I meant to insult you I would have called you an @sshole. But you're entirely too dull to be an @sshole. You're merely a troll.

Anyway, have a good life. Your Highness. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sheez, Dan,and Jurassic, how does he rate? When I push a question to the point of absurdity, you just tell me to quit thinking so much. This guy gets the insult, the squirrel, and all the flame war preliminaries except Jeff saying he's being mis-quoted. What do I have to do to climb into these exalted ranks?

JRutledge · #49 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 02:15am

This very question (debate) is the reason this place is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Officiating is not always about rules and the letter of the rules. Officiating is also about philosophy and the practices of the people you officiate around. I personally do not care what anyone else here does about this or many other officiating issues. I do not have to answer to anyone here.

Peace

Jurassic Referee · #50 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 04:24am

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

Sheez, Dan,and Jurassic, how does he rate? When I push a question to the point of absurdity, you just tell me to quit thinking so much. This guy gets the insult, the squirrel, and all the flame war preliminaries except Jeff saying he's being mis-quoted. What do I have to do to climb into these exalted ranks? [/B][/QUOTE]Sorry, it's a "guy" thing. You flunked the physical.

lmeadski · #51 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 09:36am

if i pushed this past the point of absurdity. I just was looking for an answer to a simple question (I should have stated it better when I first posted, would have save alot of the flaming). But, isn't this the place for us to hammer out the details of our trade/avocation?

JRutledge · #52 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 09:43am

Quote:

Originally posted by lmeadski
if i pushed this past the point of absurdity. I just was looking for an answer to a simple question (I should have stated it better when I first posted, would have save alot of the flaming). But, isn't this the place for us to hammer out the details of our trade/avocation?

It is to a point. At some point you have to realize that what you think is only about you. Other individuals might have a different point of view and they will not change because you think your way of thinking is better. I know there is not much I have read here that has changed my way of thinking just because someone else though it was a good idea. Most of my officiating philosophies have been shaped by what I have learned from the people I have seen around me or have talked to at camp. So if you want to call Ts for floping, go right ahead. I know I will not do that they way you suggest. It also does not matter how you interpret the rule either. I will not have to work with you to have this debate.

Peace

rainmaker · #53 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 10:15am

Quote:

Originally posted by lmeadski
if i pushed this past the point of absurdity. I just was looking for an answer to a simple question (I should have stated it better when I first posted, would have save alot of the flaming). But, isn't this the place for us to hammer out the details of our trade/avocation?

Yea, it is. And some of us whose minds run like yours (asking lots of weird questions is our way of probing and understanding an issue) haven't been disturbed by your "absurdity". But in general, only socratic questioning is practiced, and when a "student" (ie someone who doesn't understand something) uses "explorational inquiry", JR and Dan can get a little crusty. There are a couple of others who respond this way, but they're not on here quite as much. Rutledge can sound crusty sometimes, but it's just a ruse. He's just enjoys a good argument.

I, for one, appreciate your concern for the game, and your interest in nailing down the details. It's good for all of us to shine the flashlight into the nooks and crannies of the rules, and see what's hiding in there.

Don't worry. If you crack a good locker room joke, and tell them to "Shut up" a couple times, you'll find yourself fitting right in. Also, the current acceptable expletive on this board is "Bruce" as in, "You're being a Bruce-head" and "We got Bruced".

ChrisSportsFan · #54 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 10:18am

Quote:

Originally posted by lmeadski

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by lmeadski
if the defender leans back all the way to the floor (a real long lean, sometimes referred to as falling), the defender still has LGP?

If A1 charges into him as he's leaning he has lgp.

If A1 (or any A) trips over him after he hits the floor he's guilty of blocking.

Dont mean to cut this so thin, but, if the defender has not hit the floor yet, but is virtually down (15 degrees from the floor, lets say), and A runs into him and goes to the floor, it is a foul on A? Really?

I would say that at this point, we're beyond the laws of verticality. However, if you are watching the D and trying to decide who caused the contact it would have to be A's foul. (at least in this play)

ChrisSportsFan · #55 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 10:28am

Wow, I posted without reading to the end of the stitch. I didn't realize that the topic had changed. Sorry for interrupting, carry on...............

Forksref · #56 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 10:43am

A flop with no contact is a T. A flop with contact is either a block (if no LGP) or absorbing the contact (no call is possible or PCF if B has LGP).

JRutledge · #57 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 10:44am

Juulie,

There is a difference between a good friendly debate as compared to all the comments that has gone on in this post about an issue that is never going to change the minds of officials on this issue. This very issue been discussed several times (and will continue to be debated) and I know I have never changed my mind once because someone said something differently on this topic or many other topics for that matter. So it is good to debate many things from time to time. It is also good to put the debate in perspective.

Peace

rainmaker · #58 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 10:50am

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
Juulie,

There is a difference between a good friendly debate as compared to all the comments that has gone on in this post about an issue that is never going to change the minds of officials on this issue.

Yup. I'm just trying to keep lmeadski here, so he doesn't get mad and leave. I like haearing other people who learn this way. I'm not the only one who instinctively says, "Yea, but..."

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
This very issue been discussed several times (and will continue to be debated) and I know I have never changed my mind once because someone said something differently on this topic or many other topics for that matter. So it is good to debate many things from time to time. It is also good to put the debate in perspective.

Also very true. Good to debate, good to keep perspective. Now, Jeff, you do realize, don't you, that with this kind of sensible down-to-earth language, you'll never qualify as a speaker at a ref camp?

You need to be a lot more verbose and high-falutin'...

lmeadski · #59 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 11:24am

is that I DIDN"T call a T for the infraction (not that I wouldn't if the situation warranted but have yet to T up a flopper). In fact, I didn't call anything! I have called my share of blocks and charges (haven't seen a blarge yet, tho). I just keep replaying the play in my mind wondering what I might do differently next time. That's when I came upon the thought of LGP and flopping and how they inter-relate (esp a defender who is IN LGP and then feels compelled to flop anyway). I love this site, I have learned alot and will continue to.

[Edited by lmeadski on Dec 31st, 2005 at 11:27 AM]

JRutledge · #60 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 31, 2005, 11:26am

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Also very true. Good to debate, good to keep perspective. Now, Jeff, you do realize, don't you, that with this kind of sensible down-to-earth language, you'll never qualify as a speaker at a ref camp? You need to be a lot more verbose and high-falutin'...

Juulie,

If I listen to people on this site I would have never done anything. That is just another reason why people need to keep things into perspective as to what someone says about anyone or any issue here.

Peace