Faking Being Fouled
 

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6KR1qzj-3kI" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="345" width="560"></iframe>

We don't know the full story behind this game...for all we known a warning may have been given earlier...but is this the type of play we want to get the T for? Perhaps the FIBA wording makes for a slightly different enforcement on the play?

This is a bang bang play. Did the defense act a little? Yes IMO. But was there contact by the offensive players right arm? I believe so. Bang bang play like this I wouldn't be shocked if I was going the other way with the call.

But I would tag a foul on the defense if he had a history in this particular game of "acting".

The defender was trying to get an Oscar award...that's a no call in my book everyday of the week. The offensive player stops well short of any kind of contact that would send the defender to the floor...I think the ballhandler does a good job of not going to and through the defender. The simple fact that he has his forearm out and there's contact doesn't make it an offensive foul.

Regardless of the "acting" performance, this is simply a BLOCK because the defender did not establish Legal Guarding Position before he got into the path of the dribbler (and caused the contact).

I seriously hope that you don't believe that there was no LGP. There certainly was. It was established almost immediately after the offensive player caught the pass. Shortly thereafter the defender did exactly what is in red. One can see this as early as four seconds into the video.

The only point for debate is how much contact there was and how much acting.

I dont know FIBA rules, so I cant comment on the T.

But the play itself made for a tough call for the slot, its definitely a bang-bang play!
LGP established... A1s arm is out but not extended... defender goes hollywood upon minor contact...

The most positive thing about this play is the calling officials position adjustment! WOW thats a great example of energetic movement with a purpose! Although a look from the topside (T) is the A look for this play, the step down put him in a GREAT place to referee the matchup. I wonder what the call would've been minus the T?

B maintained LGP.

Working lots of FIBA games, my understanding is that FIBA discourages faking being fouled moreso that Fed does.

I think the T is a good call. If there was a no-call on this one, I'm ok with that as well. This sort of play draws the line, that's for sure.

If not a charge, im calling a block on this "actor". I don't see a no-call here. I rather call a block then a tech under NFHS for this situation.

For the no-caller's, why a no-call?

A block is a cop-out. You're not going to discourage flopping unless you call the T.

Mind you, you have to be positive you saw a flop in order to call it. That said, if we're so comfortable with T-ing up players for unsportsmanlike conduct, why are we so uncomfortable with the T for faking fouls? Isn't faking unsportsmanlike?

Tell me what the defender did wrong by rule to get a blocking foul on the play.

I said a no-call because the contact was marginal helped by the fact that the defender was trying his giving his best Oscar performance on the play and didn't rise to the level of illegal contact.

A "block" is the call that some people call to send a message without calling the T. Calling nothing could, in some games, lead to problems.

I know the call...but usually that involves both players going to the floor if one goes that route. If the offensive player isn't affected at all, why put air in the whistle? On this play, the offensive player's defender is on the floor because he's taken himself out of the play

Usually. But he can do it only 4 more times. Which only once if a tech is given already. I like to use it if in any way I can say the offensive player's speed, rhythm, and balance was affected by the flop. It sends a message to the flopper to knock it off.

Now that I think about it, it's the only situation where it's ever been suggested to me to go with the "block" because it's a potential safety issue.

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.

I'm not a call the block b/c of safety official, My point is to send a message about trying to deceive an official to call a foul. That's not welcome in the game and will never be. On this particular play I'm still stuck on a charge. The only reason I mentioned block was the acting part of the defender was brought up.

What did A1 do wrong?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

That's faking.

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.

Faking when there is contact vs. faking without contact.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Flopping ...
 

'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.

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

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. ;)

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. ;)

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You keep telling yourself that...

Do not change the term to fit your opinion. And this phrase did not come from officiating BTW. Actually my mom used to say this all the time as she was a professor at a university in the town where I grew up and she would say this while on campus there would be students that would just walk across the street and not be cognizant of they cars flying down the street. Her point was that they were right to walk across the street under the law, but they should not assume that the people in the cars were just going to yield.

Peace

I don't have to. I already know that. I'm telling you that.

On the contrary. As Billy posted earlier, it's not part of the game.

The players should just play the damn game without getting sleazy and resorting to fabrications. To simply accept cheating is the reason why this crap still goes on. Just grow a pair and deal with it, even if you have to warn them first.

That has nothing to do with right and wrong. That has everything to do with being cautious.

May not be meant to be part of the GAME, but it is part of the game within the GAME. You referee by the black & white of book if you want & I'll live in the grey, ok. John Adams is big on calling the game by the rules as written. Hearing him critique in a camp setting, he too says "right call, wrong time."

You know how I deal with it? I take my shooters up, down & beyond and KNOW how they got to the floor & I only put whistles on meaningful plays. My bosses dont like GIs :rolleyes:

Should their antics become a problem, absolutely, I will warn them then whack them. I dont have that problem because there's a look I give them to let them know, Not Tonite son!
See the problem with that particular play is, some referees like to watch the flight of the ball, they hear a boom & reward the shooter because he fooled them. If we do our damn jobs & stop falling for the okie-doke maybe the players will come up with something new..

[QUOTE=tref;785199]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!

I had a play this summer in camp. Player A1 attempts a three point shot, he gets hit in his body by B1 as an airbourne shooter. I have a whistle, no doubt in my mind there's a foul here. I report. Coach B kind of says a little comment, not much. No dialogue.

A few possessions later, B1 is in the corner and shoots a fade away three point shot. A1 jumps at him but lands about 1 foot in front of B1 and is never close to contact. B1 lands on his butt and slides and looks at me with hands raised. I let it go and quite honestly never even thought about calling a T for faking. His coach goes crazy and comes onto the court about four feet and I give him a technical.

With this discussion, I'm wondering if me calling a T on B1 with the original faking, would have been warranted and would have shown Coach B that I am watching all players up, down and through their shot.

Camp evaluator says after the game, I went to watch the other game after you called that T because I knew you could handle your business and didn't really need me to watch anymore. I guess I took that as a compliment.

By the letter of the rule, you would've supported.
In a real game situation I'm staying away from this call.

The coach is always watching the flight of the ball, who cares what they "think." He heard the crash, saw his guy on the floor & wanted the same call on a play that was not similar.

Had you whacked B1, you still would have to whack the coach & probably twice :D

Dont trouble trouble... Dont go looking for trouble... It will find you!

At most, it's semantics. But "unpopular" doesn't quite cut it. Not when your assigner is involved. Point is, the "rule" call can still be the wrong call.

Then you completely missed the point then, because if you are a pedestrian you have the right away in most situations under the law of most jurisdictions. In other words a car that hits you the person driving would be in violation of the law. But if you are dead because you got run over, what good is being right when you are in a grave or what about if you are in the hospital?

It is the same thing we are talking about here as officials. If you make that call and you get fired or you do not get many more games because your judgment is in question, I guess you can stand there and say you applied the rule, but what point did you make when you are not working anymore? Some battles are worth fighting, and others are not. And this is I was told to not be a "rulebook official" because that will get you run out of working more than just about anything.

Peace

Rut, I got your point. I disagree with it strongly.

So what you're saying is, one's desire for assignments should transcend one's integrity. That speaks volumes, doesn't it? Be careful what motivates you, sir.

Calling the game the way my assignor wants is most important to me...assuming I actually like working games that aren't 7th grade girls. The National Federation of High Schools does not give me games.

What does this have to do with integrity? Integrity has nothing to do with calling things that are expected or fit a philosophy in the game or officiating. I will bet my game checks for the next year that if I go to your games you are not calling every infraction to the letter and I am not talking about 3 seconds here, I am talking about player/coach infractions that are technical fouls like in Rule 10-4-1b, "Attempting to influence an official's decision." That takes place every single game and every single call that is close and I doubt you are T'ing up any coach or bench personnel that does that. Or better yet in 10-4-1e, "Objecting to an official's decision by rising from the bench or using gestures." So I guess the travel you "missed" in front of the opponent’s bench and everyone gets up and gives the travel signal you are T'ing up the coach or players that do this?

If you want to question the integrity of people or the judgment of others for having a standard for not calling a T for "faking" a foul no matter when it takes place, then you better call these other things no matter when they take place as well. And I bet if I watched a single game tape of your games I would see these two situations multiple times in some capacity and I you better have a T for the first infraction. After all your integrity is in question right?

All rules have a philosophy. That philosophy might be to call things by the letter and others might be to warn, talk to or address in other ways. That does not mean your integrity is in question. It might mean that you are following the common wisdom of the game.

And by your statement it is clear you did not read the first statement in all rulebooks from the NF that says "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules." It is clear by that statement that the rules need to be applied intelligently and that we should call things that put someone at a clear disadvantage. Sorry, but I do not see a player that takes himself out of a play on the perimeter as putting his opponent at a clear disadvantage.

Peace

Nor do I. However, we're dealing in the realm of unsportsmanlike conduct here.

Does a coach that openly opines how much you "suck" put his opposition at a disadvantage? Does a player who flips off his opposing bench -- or anyone, for that matter -- put his opponent at a disadvantage? Although there's no clear disadvantage in either case, these are instances we cannot let go, so we punish accordingly.

Does flopping create a disadvantage? No, but that's not the point. Flopping is cheating and unsportsmanlike, plain and simple. If you let it go without even a warning, the cheating continues. The only people who could possibly give you grief over calling the flops are those that don't believe cheating is a big deal.

This is a great conversation. I am really enjoying it. But just let whoever live or die with their philosophies pertaining to this play.

And your point is what?

Who said anything about flipping someone off or telling someone they suck? Those are more obvious situations that would be addressed just like flopping with no contact would be.

It could cause an advantage if done in the right situation, but this situation specifically the guy took himself out of the play and gave an open look. Not to say that the actual call was not a good one, but I hope it took place with some previous behavior or that is the standard for this call in that league, area.

OK, keep telling yourself that. I guess the people that claim they never fouled anyone on a call also believe in cheating too? Oh, do you T them when they question your call? After all that is clearly against the rules.

Peace

Wrong, sir. Disrespectfully addressing, gesturing, and attempting to influence the official are against the rules. Questioning is legal, provided it's done civilly. That happens all the time.

We agree about this situation. Still, I'm struggling to think of an example where an actual, physical advantage is gained by flopping. Again, it's all about the unsportsmanlike act, which is what needs to be penalized.

Don't change the subject: he asked whether you T a coach for questioning your call. Your T here is for the disrespect, not the question.

LOL I changed nothing. The man said nothing about disrespect, only questioning. Of course, the answer is no.

You need to go back and read what I asked you again. I asked specifically when bench personnel did specific things and all of them do not require "disrespect" as I pointed out in Rules 10-4-1b or e. Neither say anything about disrespect, they simply say it is illegal to attempt to influence an official (happens every game) and to give a gesture like a travel signal or putting their arms up. My point is these are clearly against the rules no matter how you judge it, but as officials do we penalize the most egregious acts and often warn before we even penalize. Even disrespect comes in many forms and I doubt you are giving a T every time someone does many number of things that others would consider disrespect either.

Very easy if you think about a situation. You have A1 going hard to the basket and B1 flops with little or no contact at all to draw a charge, while B1 is on the floor, A1 falls or trips on top of him and cannot participate in the play for the possible rebound or if the basket is made. Now not only is B1 out of the play, so is A1.

I said something about giving gestures and doing and saying things that are trying to influence an official's decisions. You know when a coach says, "Can we get a call on the other end?" Is that not trying to influence an official's decisions?" Or better yet when the coach says to you, "It is 8-1." Is that OK directly under the rules? My point is they are not, but we use other means to stop that behavior and penalize if it continues. I feel the same way about this rule we are talking here. And I doubt seriously you are giving a T for these many other things that are violations of the rules that you claim must be followed no matter what.

Peace

B1 Can Also Get Injured ...
 

Or worse, A1 is injured. I'm sure that the intent of this rule involves the increased chance of injuries, as well as the unsporting nature of the act.

There it is. Solid point.

In my opinion, the former would come closer to 10-4-1b than the latter, but either is a stretch. The first is a question; the second is a declarative sentence. For my money, when you get into imperative sentences (i.e. "Call it both ways!"), that's when you're crossing the line.

That's where we part ways. I don't.

Often times, a coach's question is simply there to acquire information. (If I smell influence, I'll deal with it.) However, there's never a positive intent to flopping. I have no problem with answering civilly asked questions from a head coach or player, even under tense circumstances, but I have a big problem with cheating. It's that simple.

bainsey,

Whether you agree or not is really not my point. The point I am really making is you said that anyone that did not call this the way you wanted, they were compromising their integrity when they are following either a supervisor's standard or some philosophy as to how to handle these situations that did not result in an immediate T.

There is nothing in the rules that says, "Call it both ways" is egregious and "The fouls are 10-1" is OK. "Call it both ways" in many situations would make me laugh more than it would even cross my mind to give a T. This is not a question, it is a statement. I tend to ignore statements. This statement would have to be coupled with some other behavior on its face value. And I would not question your integrity if you were told by others that would not be a good T to make out of the box.

Peace

...that would get the "whack" way before the fake flop...IMO.

...also...in response to another thread...

here is a chance to use another "non-approved" signal...we've all seen it on a non called flop...

lifting your arms to the sky, as a preacher in church would do to signal his congregation to rise for the next hymm. ;)

Never seen this by this description. Any pictures?

No pics...I don't think I've used this "mechanic"...but, I've seen some H.S. and college officials do the "waving to get up" mechanic when players are on the floor.

Watch an Ed Hightower game...you're bound to see it.

Do you call a T every time a coach attempts to influence your call? 10-4-1b

Asked and answered, counsel. See "civilly questioning" earlier in this thread.