Quick change of fortune
 

Player A1 driving hard to the basket, goes airborne at the lower block. B1 who has position anticipates the contact and tries to sell a PC, only problem A1 went straight up and releases a try that hits the bottom of the cylinder and bounds directly into B1’s hands while laying on the floor, and A1 dives on B1 trying to get the ball.

Probably a foul on A1.

I would allow a dive to the side but not on top. Call the foul.:)

Um, it appears as though B1 got to the floor by feinting a foul. I hate to give T's in this situation, BUT before I call a foul on A1 for jumping on to B1, I have to ask myself if I was giving B1 a blatant advantage for trying to fake a foul ending up on his back.

If your not calling a T for flopping, foul on A.

It is perfectly legal to anticipate and brace for contact, including falling backwards. Usually the flop involves a verbal noise and/or suddenly flailing the arms to mimick the effects of a collision; rather than slowly falling backwards.

So it's open season on players that fall down on thier own now? I missed that new rule. Sorry 25, you fell down. Now 15 gets to body slam you from the top rope. Get ready!:p

I am thinking you two gentlemen may not have read the OP very carefully. You may not have missed the new rule, BUT you did miss a pretty important phrase in the OP. While sounds and flailing arms may "usually" be associated with feinting a foul, I assume that you agree that there is no requirement for these elements for the official to properly issue a technical foul in this case. I have highlighted the key part of the description for you below:

As I stated initially, it appears at though B1 was feinting a foul, in this case based on the words of the CO. Therefore, those of you calling a foul on A1 have, indeed, quite possibly ignored a foul committed by one player (B1) and then imposed a foul on the other (A1) for fouling a player who got to his position while committing a foul -- once again, based on the OP description not my opinion.

My focus was on "anticipates the contact." I don't think "selling a foul" is necessarily a T, "faking being fouled" is a T. I think there's a difference.

As was previously stated, if you don't call the T on B1, you have to call the foul on A1. Unless you think letting A1 jump on top of him is appropriate punishment for trying to "sell" a PC foul.

Usually I agree with you, Snaq, but "selling" (per OP) something that doesn't exist is fraud. This is most likely a htbt but unless the kid was kinda red-faced with an "oops, he didn't run me down after all" expression (i.e. "I guess self-preservation wasn't an issue after all ..."), it was just another one of the little darlin's being a smart-aleck. Seen it too often. Manytimes with Mommy's accompanying accusations against that mean old man in the stripes missing a "clear" foul.

Agree totally here btw.

Anticipating contact is different than faking being fouled. Selling a foul when there is contact (remember, Jonny usually thinks he actually got fouled when we have incidental contact) is different than faking being fouled.

To me, it's the difference between overreacting to contact (or even expected contact) and flopping with no-contact.

The way I read the OP, the kid was expecting contact, was bracing for it and attempting to embelish the reaction a bit; and got surprised when there was no contact at all.

I read it just like it says. If you didn't T him up for attempting to fake that is on you. You cannot ignore the foul commited by A. People get away with things durring the game and maybe we did see it and didn't call it. That does not prevent me calling a foul when they are fouled later. This is what you seem to be saying. If not, you are wanting the T. I realize time is probably relevant here, but I hope you see my view.:)