Faking Being Fouled

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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