Charge?

[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?

[WIRef]

I will always go with the theory of trying to use preventitive officiating, when possible. Sometimes rules are established as guidelines to create a "fairness" to the game. I will not call a 3-second violation in the first minute of the game (unless blatantly advantageous), but rather talk to the player(s) to get them to understand what we are seeing. To me, a whistle at that point of a contest is just a "game interupter", when we are trying to establish a flow to the game. You may say I am overlooking a rule, but with no advantage gained, I will use this method most times. My point is that I would do the same in a "Flop" situation. If it is severe enough, I will bang it. But most times I am going to use preventitive officiating to clear up the matter.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by WIRef

I will always go with the theory of trying to use preventative officiating, when possible.

As do I. I take issue with referees who talk, talk, talk and refuse to punish this act of cheating. If you have to talk to or wave-up more than 1 player in a game, it is time to apply the penalty the book calls for.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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. .... 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.
I am not confused, I am disagreeing that it is "so sever". Some referees advocate making up a blocking foul, if this occur es late in the game the opponent could very well be in the double bonus so the only extra the technical gives is a TI. But even if early in a game, two shots and the ball in trade for a player cheating to attempt to place an unearned foul on the opponent, I do not see that as overly sever nor does the Federation


What does this have to do whether or not we make the call?
You were the one who attempted to tie Faking a foul to the Crowd technical. I just pointed out that in the book NFHS does not see them as the same as they do not recommend extra caution regarding enforcement for the Faking punishment.

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

Yes, Your Point? ES with contact could be dealt with by existing rules for foul or flagrant contact. ES without contact did not merit the punishment that was temporarily assigned to it for a few seasons. Faking a foul is every bit as cynical an attempt to cheat as the wrong player purposely attempting free throws for his lower FT percentage team mate. I would say more cynical as it places an unmerited foul on an opponent.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

Yes, Your Point? ES with contact could be dealt with by existing rules for foul or flagrant contact. ES without contact did not merit the punishment that was temporarily assigned to it for a few seasons. Faking a foul is every bit as cynical an attempt to cheat as the wrong player purposely attempting free throws for his lower FT percentage team mate. I would say more cynical as it places an unmerited foul on an opponent.

I agree with this rule as written. Maybe I'm reading your wrong, but you seem to be implying this is happening far more often than I think it is.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree with this rule as written. Maybe I'm reading your wrong, but you seem to be implying this is happening far more often than I think it is.

I am not saying that it happens in every game. What I take issue with is when referees wave up or talk to players more than once in a game and refuse to apply the correct penalty.