Faking Being Fouled

[tref]

Originally Posted by NCHSAA

On this particular play I'm still stuck on a charge.

What did A1 do wrong?

[Pantherdreams]

The problem in this situation (as a FIBA official who also does some NFHS stuff) is that if you don't call the unsportsmanlike for flopping you have to ignore the coach if he tries to discuss it with you. Since there is no charge or block and not calling the flop a "t" any response you give to a coach questioning how that happened has you not doing your job properly. I don't like a T here I would prefer a no call but there is a slippery slope in terms of game management and professionalism is my opinion (or at least what I've been informed is to be my opinion by our supervisors) if you don't call the T on what you feel is a flop where a kid ends up on the floor at any level above middle school.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

On this play, why have a whistle? The defender is legal after all...this isn't an RSBQ play to me...first of all, the ball handler was already trying to stop short of the defender before the defender tried going Hollywood. If the defender wouldn't have fell to the floor, we're not even discussing this play. By putting air in the whistle, you've penalized a defender that technically did nothing wrong.

Technically and by the letter of the rule, the defender faked being fouled and should have been tagged with a T. So, yes, the defender DID do something wrong.

However, it is the norm to not call the T unless the fake involved absolutely no contact and was clearly egregious. The rule doesn't require that their be no contact, but that is usually what it takes before anyone will even consider a T.

Short of the T, many officials will call a block since there actually was contact and the defender made it look like a lot of contact yet the dribbler didn't commit a charge. True, there was no meaninful effect on the dribbler and the actual contact was not really that much, but the block call is used to penalize the player without resorting to the T. I've done it. I don't do it all the time or even most of the time but there are situations where it cleans up a problem....it works. Not all foul calls need to depend on advantage/disadvantage. There are some that are called just because the type of contact is outside the range of what should be allowed.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, it is the norm to not call the T unless the fake involved absolutely no contact and was clearly egregious.

I think that's a big part of the problem.

Calling a block on a flop does not send a message to anyone, except in the official's head. You think you're dealing with flopping, but you're actually calling something else, instead of confronting the true problem.

Admittedly, I've gone with the warn-then-whack approach, and I've only T'd up one flop in six years. Still, I've heard other officials say, "I'd call flops, if other guys would." What are we so afraid of?

Perhaps we all need to step it up.

[JRutledge]

I am not calling a block or a T for this. There was contact, but not enough to stop play. All the defender did was take himself out of the play. I am no-calling this all the time. If there was no contact, then yes I would advocate the T.

Peace

[tref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If there was no contact, then yes I would advocate the T.

I agree, there's a difference between embelishing upon contact & faking being fouled (no contact whatsoever).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

I agree, there's a difference between embelishing upon contact & faking being fouled (no contact whatsoever).

Isn't embellishing the same as faking? It is an attempt to give the impression there was a foul when there wasn't one.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't embellishing the same as faking? It is an attempt to give the impression there was a foul when there wasn't one.

Embellishing upon contact, meaning there was indeed contact & they added actions to help get a call.

Embellishing without any contact whatsoever is what I believe they mean by faking being fouled.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't embellishing the same as faking? It is an attempt to give the impression there was a foul when there wasn't one.

I agree with you Camron, but the problem is that there has been little to no directive as to what to consider faking at least in the NCAA or NF rules. So if there is contact I want a little more to call a T. I personally pass on many fouls for embellishment. And until there is more specifics by those committees (and I personally think they keep this vague to not increase the amount of calls for this) I feel comfortable not calling a T for this action.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by tref

Embellishing upon contact, meaning there was indeed contact & they added actions to help get a call.

That's faking.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

the problem is that there has been little to no directive as to what to consider faking at least in the NCAA or NF rules.

I recall the NFHS made it a point of emphasis six or seven years ago. As for what's "faking," I think that's pretty clear. The tough part is knowing for sure when you see it.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's faking.

Faking when there is contact vs. faking without contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I recall the NFHS made it a point of emphasis six or seven years ago. As for what's "faking," I think that's pretty clear. The tough part is knowing for sure when you see it.

Can you quote the interpretation? I do not recall seeing anything that was that specific other than it was something they were pointing out. If they want consistency, then they need to be a little bit more specific as to what they mean. Kind of like what is considered profanity. Not everyone agrees on what is profanity and when that should be addressed, I do not see that happening here either. I want no contact to feel comfortable to call this. Players embellish too much and I do not need a T to stop that behavior. They learn after you do not bail them out.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Can you quote the interpretation?

Here are the 2004-05 Points of Emphasis. See 4b.

I do not need a T to stop that behavior. They learn after you do not bail them out.

I doubt this. I say they're far more likely to think, If they're not calling it, I'm going to keep doing it until someone does.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I doubt this. I say they're far more likely to think, If they're not calling it, I'm going to keep doing it until someone does.

Really? Maybe if they're trying to do this at the basket, but if you're trying to draw charges like in the clip, and you no call it, he's going to stop because all he's done is put his team at a 5v4 disadvantage and his coach is going to tell him to stop falling down and play defense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Here are the 2004-05 Points of Emphasis. See 4b.

I doubt this. I say they're far more likely to think, If they're not calling it, I'm going to keep doing it until someone does.

Well that was a POE over 5 years ago. Funny how it has not been since considering that this takes place at least once a game on some level. And as I said, I do not need to call a T to get a player to stop.

Peace