Charge?

[Spence]

What about the following scenario?

A1 driving. B1 wants to take charge but starts to fall backwards way too early. He falls to the floor (without having been contacted by A1) and as A1 lands A1 trips over B1 and goes down.

Anything on B1?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Spence

What about the following scenario?

A1 driving. B1 wants to take charge but starts to fall backwards way too early. He falls to the floor (without having been contacted by A1) and as A1 lands A1 trips over B1 and goes down.

Anything on B1?

If not a T for faking being fouled, then how about a block on B1? What do you think?

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Spence

What about the following scenario?

A1 driving. B1 wants to take charge but starts to fall backwards way too early. He falls to the floor (without having been contacted by A1) and as A1 lands A1 trips over B1 and goes down.

Anything on B1?

T by rule. But a lot of referees make up all kinds of excuses to not assess it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

T by rule. But a lot of referees make up all kinds of excuses to not assess it.

Careful here. The T is assessed when a player fakes being fouled, not because they fall backwards early. They are allowed, by rule, to turn away or back away from contact. Now if the player grunts like they just got hit by a runaway elephant and fly backwards into the third row, all without any contact, then yes, you can probably say they were faking being fouled. But if they close their eyes and start to lean back expecting the contact that never comes, and end up falling down, then I wouldn't call that faking being fouled, and therefore not T-worthy.

Can you see the difference?

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Careful here. The T is assessed when a player fakes being fouled, not because they fall back-wards early. They are allowed, by rule, to turn away or back away from contact. Now if the player grunts like they just got hit by a runaway elephant and fly back-wards into the third row, all without any contact, then yes, you can probably say they were faking being fouled. But if they close their eyes and start to lean back expecting the contact that never comes, and end up falling down, then I wouldn't call that faking being fouled, and therefore not T-worthy.

Can you see the difference?

I have seen and know the difference.

Notice I said "a lot" not all.

I rarely see a player "close their eyes and start to fall backward expecting contact that never comes." What I most frequently witness is the player who, someone has attempted to teach to draw a foul, does not have any or minimal contact then falls to the floor and looks for an official expecting a foul to be called. While the culprit's coach is shouting "thats a charge".

[Adam]

IMO, faking being fouled is different than attempting to "sell" a foul the player believes is either imminent or already transpired.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

IMO, faking being fouled is different than attempting to "sell" a foul the player believes is either imminent or already transpired.

FAKE: to pretend; simulate; to trick or deceive; anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit;

The situation as described by Spense was the defender "wanting to take a charge" and falling backward without any contact. The question as asked, had the referee already making the judgment that the defender was "wanting the charge" the player then fell backward without contact. You may choose to create contortions in logic to avoid punishing the faker but the information provided in this situation meets the criteria to assess the correct penalty.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

FAKE: to pretend; simulate; to trick or deceive; anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit;

Agree.

Originally Posted by ref2coach

The situation as described by Spense was the defender "wanting to take a charge" and falling backward without any contact.

Ok, here is where you've lost me - how does this meet the definition you provided above? I know taking a charge can be painful, both in the initial contact with the offensive player, and when I hit the ground after contact. I know one way to lessen the pain of the initial contact is to back away from it; I would even contend that's done on instinct. So, how does a player back away from the contact and be "faking" being fouled?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

FAKE: to pretend; simulate; to trick or deceive; anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit;

The situation as described by Spense was the defender "wanting to take a charge" and falling backward without any contact. The question as asked, had the referee already making the judgment that the defender was "wanting the charge" the player then fell backward without contact. You may choose to create contortions in logic to avoid punishing the faker but the information provided in this situation meets the criteria to assess the correct penalty.

You don't need to give me the definition of fake. I'm not an idiot. My point is simple. Falling backwards, even without contact, is not necessarily faking. Flopping is not a foul, faking is.

If you can't tell for sure what his intent is, it's not a fake. Personally, if you're going to call it that often, you need to call it when the shooter recoils excessively from contact as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

T by rule. But a lot of referees make up all kinds of excuses to not assess it.

Like M&M, I disagree with your ruling. Where is it a T for falling down too early?

BTW, I'm one of the few around here who have actually called this T; but it wasn't for falling down too early.

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by Spence

What about the following scenario?

A1 driving. B1 wants to take charge but starts to fall backwards way too early. He falls to the floor (without having been contacted by A1) and as A1 lands A1 trips over B1 and goes down.

Anything on B1?

I asked something similar to this a month or so ago, and the consensus seemed to be a) probably a no-call (if A1 has returned to the floor, after a shot, as I presume Spence means here), b) still possibly a charge (if B1 was simply trying to absorb the shock of an imminent charge but was just faked out, as it were. No T unless he's trying to obviously sell a phony call to the officials). Ultimately a HTBT.

But it was far from unanimous, as I recall.