"22, stop flopping."

Both For The Flopper And The Floppee ...
 

And it could be dangerous too.

I'll talk to the player when I get a chance, but if two or more players from the team do it, I'll talk to the coach instead.

Friday night I had a player do it in traffic; I just told him to get up, but would have called him for a foul if he had affected an opponent while on the floor.

I had this in a BJV game last week except the OTHER coach WANTED the T. V1 flopped on two consecutive trips down the floor only to give up put backs. I told the home HC loudly enough for V1 to hear, "he didn't flop. he's just so uncoordinated, he tripped over the foul line." Home coach was a tool all night, starting at the opening jump. His team was up by 20 and won by 40 and he full court pressed for 28 minutes. He wanted every contact called and his team was bigger and stronger. I thought I was doing an LeBron James game again. (Now thats a flashback as bad as anything LSD could give me.)

I like visiting with that player. However, I might tell the player and the coach, "I'll give you the charge if there is contact, otherwise it's a technical if you are intentionally flopping."

I think this sets the right expectation with the coach and player.

BBRef
 

While my initial post may not have stated it, you misunderstood my meaning. So I take the responsibility for that.

Not my deal to just make up stuff that isn't there.

My meaning was along the lines of slight contact, not no contact.

The principle is still the same. If it isn't a block, the flop doesn't make it a block.

So you're calling the T? If not, why not? That is what it really is.

If there's slight contact, I'll just consider it anticipation rather than faking. Either a no-call or a charge. But anticipation doesn't make it a block.

Calling a T is an option. Calling a block because of a flop is not.

When there is contact (as is the case in the point under discussion) it is always an option.

It's an option whether there is contact or not. Anything the official chooses to do is an option, but this one is not supported by rule.

I'm not seeing what the defender does wrong here. Slight contact, defender falls back, but maintains LGP. Why a block?

Contact enough to cause that reaction between the bodies and the offense did cause it, then the defender did (or at least that is the way you can sell it).

Then we're picturing this differently. I see what would be an obvious charge mitigated by the defender bailing. Bracing or falling backwards in anticipation is expressly allowed, so I don't understand a block call.