Should there have been a whistle?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

1st view = foul charged to A1
2nd -5th view = I don't think A1 displaced B1. If B1 was not looking to draw a foul on A1, I don't think B1 would have been displaced by A1.

Nope, A1 didn't displace B1; he just knocked him flat on his azz instead.

And what's wrong with B1 trying to draw a foul? Don't coaches teach their players how to take a charge? You can't penalize the defender for playing legal defense.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, A1 didn't displace B1; he just knocked him flat on his azz instead.

And what's wrong with B1 trying to draw a foul? Don't coaches teach their players how to take a charge? You can't penalize the defender for playing legal defense.

And what's wrong with B1 trying to draw a foul? That depends on how you "try to draw a foul". Flopping is "trying to draw a foul". After watching this play a couple of times, I think B1 exagerrated the contact. Certainly there was contact but I didn't see A1 go through B1.

I adjusted this one:
Don't coaches teach their players how to take a charge whether the contact was sufficient for a charge or not? (trying to draw a foul)

Surely your not taking the stance of "if the coaches teach it, it is OK".

You can't penalize the defender for playing legal defense. I agree.

[Adam]

And just because the player doesn't do everything within his power to stay upright doesn't mean he flopped. If I don't know for sure that the player could have stayed upright, then I'm going to assume he was knocked down.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And just because the player doesn't do everything within his power to stay upright doesn't mean he flopped. If I don't know for sure that the player could have stayed upright, then I'm going to assume he was knocked down.

I think requiring players to "take a good shot" leads to a lot of no calls where fouls are more appropriate. In other words, I think you're absolutely right.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

Flopping is "trying to draw a foul". After watching this play a couple of times, I think B1 exagerrated the contact.

Do you know what "flopping" is? It's faking being fouled. A flop involves NO or very little contact. Are you really saying that there was NO or very little contact on that play?

If you think think that was a flop, we're looking at different films.

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you know what "flopping" is? It's faking being fouled. A flop involves NO or very little contact. Are you really saying that there was NO or very little contact on that play?

If you think think that was a flop, we're looking at different films.

Here, here, JR!!

2004-05 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

B. 'Flopping.' The defensive player or screener acting as though he or she has been charged by an opponent, when in fact he or she has not been, definitely has an impact on the game. It is detrimental to the best interests of basketball. The "actor" wants to create the false impression that he or she has been fouled in the charging/guarding situation, or while he or she is screening when in either case there is no contact or incidental contact. The "actor" falls to the court as though he or she were knocked down by the force of the contact. Those actions are designed to have a foul charged to the opponent – a foul not deserved. The "flop" also incites spectators. The rules are in place to deal with such activity and must be enforced. A technical foul is charged to the "actor" in all cases. Coaches can have a positive impact by appropriately dealing with players who fake being fouled.

It is not a part of the game. Officials must penalize the act.