Faking Being Fouled

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And as I said, I do not need to call a T to get a player to stop.

None of us need Ts. We call Ts, when the rule applies.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

None of us need Ts. We call Ts, when the rule applies.

And we also call them based on judgment, just like I do not Ts for things that are considered minor either. The rules also leave it up to the judgment of the officials. If that was not the case in the rules things would be spelled out more clearly. And when they are (like the kid pointing up to the sky in after scoring a TD football game recently) people like to question the judgments like this when we ultimately make that call.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

2004-05 Points of Emphasis.

'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.

[Toren]

I have more often seen a three point shooter clearly fall to the ground in an attempt to draw a three point foul.

As I have not witnessed any flopping on the defensive end, or perhaps I did witness it and didn't penalize properly, I can't comment too much on that issue from experience. But I'm in complete favor of sending a T for this type of behavior.

You are supported by rule (10.3.6 f) to give a T. Choosing to call anything else is not calling the rules as written.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Toren

I have more often seen a three point shooter clearly fall to the ground in an attempt to draw a three point foul.

As I have not witnessed any flopping on the defensive end, or perhaps I did witness it and didn't penalize properly, I can't comment too much on that issue from experience. But I'm in complete favor of sending a T for this type of behavior.

You are supported by rule (10.3.6 f) to give a T. Choosing to call anything else is not calling the rules as written.

I love it when people say "You are not calling the rules as written" but if we were talking about any other situation you would not call a T for a minor violation of the rules. For example, would you call a T on a coach that has a toe out of the box? How many kids have you sent out of the game the very first time their shirts are not tucked in. I get that there is a rule for this, but let us not go overboard and claim we call everything only by the strictest interpretation of rules. No one does that even the people that claim they do. Or they will be labeled as "That Guy."

Peace

[Toren]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I love it when people say "You are not calling the rules as written" but if we were talking about any other situation you would not call a T for a minor violation of the rules. For example, would you call a T on a coach that has a toe out of the box? How many kids have you sent out of the game the very first time their shirts are not tucked in. I get that there is a rule for this, but let us not go overboard and claim we call everything only by the strictest interpretation of rules. No one does that even the people that claim they do. Or they will be labeled as "That Guy."

Peace

Let me clarify, if you ever have to justify why you made a call, to be supported by a rule is about as good as you can get. This rule is pretty clear, if you fake a foul the penalty is an unsporting technical. There is no grey area.

So I'm just stating, if you have the person faking it, there is no other call but a Technical. Now in this particular play, many officials could have had any number of different calls. It wasn't such a clear cut case of faking. But the calling official is clearly supported in calling the T because he obviously had a faking act.

So, for those that said they had him faking it and they no called it, they are clearly just choosing to ignore the rule as written. Now with all that being said, I have never had this situation, so I don't know how I would react. With this conversation under my belt, I hope I come up with a T.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Toren

Let me clarify, if you ever have to justify why you made a call, to be supported by a rule is about as good as you can get. This rule is pretty clear, if you fake a foul the penalty is an unsporting technical. There is no grey area.

There are rules that also say that profanity is a Technical foul too, but not many people here will or have agreed when that applies or what is actually profanity. I have heard people claim that if a player says "God..damm!t" that is profanity too and deserves a T every time. So your point of view does not wash as that involves judgment, just like this does.

Originally Posted by Toren

So I'm just stating, if you have the person faking it, there is no other call but a Technical. Now in this particular play, many officials could have had any number of different calls. It wasn't such a clear cut case of faking. But the calling official is clearly supported in calling the T because he obviously had a faking act.

OK, there was a play in the WNBA about a week ago where Sue Bird (yes I said WNBA) where Sue appeared to embellish being fouled. It appeared the foul was there but she made it appear worse. Now should that be a T too at our level?

Originally Posted by Toren

So, for those that said they had him faking it and they no called it, they are clearly just choosing to ignore the rule as written. Now with all that being said, I have never had this situation, so I don't know how I would react. With this conversation under my belt, I hope I come up with a T.

Do not put words in other people's mouths. I am saying that there was contact and his actions tried to get a call. He might have gotten fouled, but he did not have to take himself out of the play. And if you do not agree that is fine. Tell me how that works out for you when you call Ts for this in every game where at least once it is going to happen. Then talk to me about what rules should or should not be applied.

I have said this before and I will say this again. You can be right and dead at the same time.

Peace

[Adam]

You don't need rules backing. You need assigner backing. While the two normally go together, it's not always so. If you don't believe me, try calling a FT violation as soon as you count to ten sometime. Or, try calling three seconds by the letter.
I have called this T exactly once, in a 7th grade YMCA game, after I warned the coach, when the defender grunted and fell as the dribbler got within about six feet. Here, I can tell you in a HS game, if I made the call from the video without a warning, I'd be "counseled." And the rule wouldn't do jack squat for me.
Also, the block is accepted some places as a remedy.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You don't need rules backing. You need assigner backing. While the two normally go together, it's not always so. If you don't believe me, try calling a FT violation as soon as you count to ten sometime. Or, try calling three seconds by the letter.
I have called this T exactly once, in a 7th grade YMCA game, after I warned the coach, when the defender grunted and fell as the dribbler got within about six feet. Here, I can tell you in a HS game, if I made the call from the video without a warning, I'd be "counseled." And the rule wouldn't do jack squat for me.
Also, the block is accepted some places as a remedy.

Exactly. Just like JRut said..you can be right, and still be dead wrong at the same time.

[Toren]

I will say this, if you call an unsporting technical on one side of the floor, that better be the call on the other end. This one has to be all partners on the same page.

Thanks for the discussion guys. Lots of good points, can't wait to get more experience and add more to the discussion.

[SmokeEater]

FIBA rules states in 38.3.1 that it is a Technical foul (non contact foul of a behavioural nature)to Fall down to Fake a foul.
The resulting penalty is 2 shots for the offended team and the ball back.
Players are able to receive up to 5 Technicals in a game or a combination of Technicals and player fouls that add up to 5.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

...you can be right, and still be dead wrong at the same time.

No, sir. Not possible. Instead, you can be right, and significantly unpopular at the same time, particularly within your own circle.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Toren

I have more often seen a three point shooter clearly fall to the ground in an attempt to draw a three point foul.

You are supported by rule (10.3.6 f) to give a T. Choosing to call anything else is not calling the rules as written.

I've seen the shooter lay down move more & more lately. Have you Td up players for this fool the referee attempt?
Not saying I wont, but to date I have whacked zero. Hey, if he wants to disadvantage his team... thats on him!

Long shot, long defensive rebound, fast break transition opportunity & I should whack the guy laying on the ground at the other end just as A5 is about to dunk because he faked being fouled?
I dont think we would last too long if we applied the rule this way.

People say there are no "always" or "automatics" in what we do. Technical fouls generally call themselves & must also fit the situation.

Futhermore, part of the game within the game is players trying to fool the referee, its their job.
Coaches are always trying to put doubt in our minds to get that next call(s), its their job.
They are ultimately trying to influence our decision everytime they whine about something, a T is warranted there, by rule. Again, I'm not going there.

[NCHSAA]

Originally Posted by tref

I've seen the shooter lay down move more & more lately. Have you Td up players for this fool the referee attempt?
Not saying I wont, but to date I have whacked zero. Hey, if he wants to disadvantage his team... thats on him!

Long shot, long defensive rebound, fast break transition opportunity & I should whack the guy laying on the ground at the other end just as A5 is about to dunk because he faked being fouled?
I dont think we would last too long if we applied the rule this way.

People say there are no "always" or "automatics" in what we do. Technical fouls generally call themselves & must also fit the situation.

Futhermore, part of the game within the game is players trying to fool the referee, its their job.
Coaches are always trying to put doubt in our minds to get that next call(s), its their job.
They are ultimately trying to influence our decision everytime they whine about something, a T is warranted there, by rule. Again, I'm not going there.

Well said. And to the "right and dead" situation I agree, in the sense of game management and calling what fits. You can't fit a square peg into a triangular hole.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

No, sir. Not possible. Instead, you can be right, and significantly unpopular at the same time, particularly within your own circle.

You keep telling yourself that...