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?

[ref2coach]

The way I am reading Spence's situation the player is not absorbing or lessening contact the player is "wanting the charge" and is falling down without having been contacted. Simulating contact that did not occur.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

The way I am reading Spence's situation the player is not absorbing or lessening contact the player is "wanting the charge" and is falling down without having been contacted. Simulating contact that did not occur.

Exactly. I don't see absorbing contact as meaning to fall down.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

The way I am reading Spence's situation the player is not absorbing or lessening contact the player is "wanting the charge" and is falling down without having been contacted. Simulating contact that did not occur.

Are you 100% sure this is the case? Then call the T. If you are only 95% sure, then do not call it. That is why you do not see it called often - it is a severe penalty, so you better be absolutely sure the only intent was to deceive, and there was absolutely no other reason that player was on the floor.

I called it about 5 years ago. It was obvious to everyone in the gym, and it came even after mentioning it to the coach after the player had tried the same thing earlier in the game. Similar to calling a T for the actions of the crowd - it can be called, but how often do you actually see it? (Last night's Santa Clara/Gonzaga game, perhaps...) There are other methods of handling those situations, rather than going directly to the T. But if it becomes that obvious, then by all means, penalize accordingly.

[WIRef]

How many of you use preventitive officiating the first time it happens, and either talk to the player that is "Flopping", or talk to coach? Again, this would probably depend on the severity or situation it happened for the first time. You may have to bypass the talk and go right to "T". In most cases, I am going to talk with player first. As mentioned above, it is a severe penalty, so you better be 100% sure. Just MO.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Are you 100% sure this is the case? Then call the T. If you are only 95% sure, then do not call it. That is why you do not see it called often - it is a severe penalty, so you better be absolutely sure the only intent was to deceive, and there was absolutely no other reason that player was on the floor.

I called it about 5 years ago. It was obvious to everyone in the gym, and it came even after mentioning it to the coach after the player had tried the same thing earlier in the game. Similar to calling a T for the actions of the crowd - it can be called, but how often do you actually see it? (Last night's Santa Clara/Gonzaga game, perhaps...) There are other methods of handling those situations, rather than going directly to the T. But if it becomes that obvious, then by all means, penalize accordingly.

Really? How many times have I read on this board that a "Technical Foul is JUST a foul" that we are to call with no other "emotion or fanfare than any other foul."

Really? NFHS must not feel that way they do not include a caveat or warning after describing the penalty for faking a foul.

I am not advocating that every game needs this call but I am saying when it is clear to the referee that a player is trying to cheat by faking being fouled why not treat it as any other situation where the rules clearly state the penalty for a foul and it is clear to the referee that faking has occurred? Why should referees look for "other ways to handle the situation" when the rule book clearly states how to handle it?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Really? How many times have I read on this board that a "Technical Foul is JUST a foul" that we are to call with no other "emotion or fanfare than any other foul."

You seem to be confusing the emotion of calling some T's with what I am stating is the level of severity of the foul. Usually a T is given for unsporting conduct during an emotional event of some sort, and the purpose of the above statement is to remind us that we are not to become emotional back at the player or coach, but rather simply make the call as unemotional as we would any other travel or foul. It does not change the fact a T is still one of the most severe penalties in the rule book, short of a flagrant ejection.

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Really? NFHS must not feel that way they do not include a caveat or warning after describing the penalty for faking a foul.

What does this have to do whether or not we make the call?

Are you aware of the reason the NFHS changed the penalty of excessive swinging of elbows from a T to a violation?

[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.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Flopping is not a foul, faking is.

Pray tell, what is Flopping?

Is not flopping the act of exaggerating the effect of contact or acting as if contact occurred to achieve the result of influencing the referee to punish the opponent for a minimal or nonexistent event?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Pray tell, what is Flopping?

Is not flopping the act of exaggerating the effect of contact or acting as if contact occurred to achieve the result of influencing the referee to punish the opponent for a minimal or nonexistent event?

No. Flopping can be anticipating contact and falling backwards to brace for it, only to end up falling too soon. If you want to call this a T, go ahead.

So, how many of these have you called?

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, how many of these have you called?

V none this season. JV +/or Freshman 2 or 3.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

V none this season. JV +/or Freshman 2 or 3.

In one season? I don't even see it at the JV level.