Judgment? Certainly. We have to know for sure that deception is taking place.

Interpretation? Not really. If you see and conclude that deceptive practices are taking place, what more do you need?

The interpretation part is when people are defining when this takes place or not. We have no definitive definition in any rule book or case play that says when faking takes place. Until they do we will continue to have this discussion.

Peace

I think we all know what faking means.

(And don't anyone get any bright ideas by posting that Meg Ryan video.)

All kidding aside, we all know what it means. If a player deceives, it's faking, period. It's just not an easy thing to positively spot.

And I'm talking about the basketball court. Really, I am.

No one is not saying we do not know it means, but when is it to be called? And rule book definitions are not the same as real world or Webster definitions. Again you say it is clear but very respectable people cannot agree what the rule means. And one of the people that seem to agree with you says he has not called it and would not call it now. If that is not telling then I do not know what is.

Peace

Does it mean what you posted below?

I know to me it means a player taking a dive (again, I see it more with 3-pt shooters than anything else) who has received no contact.

What if A1 illegally elbows B1 on the collarbone but B1 goes down holding his mouth as if he just lost some teeth? Is that faking being fouled?

Like I said, it is an individual's interpretation of what "faking being fouled" means.

Actually, you did: "No definitive definition."

Still, much of this is about ThatGuyPhobia. A lot of people are afraid of be the first dude on the dance floor. I've had other officials say to me, "I'd call it, if other officials would." And then, we go home, watch a game, and complain about the flop they just saw on TV. And we wonder why we see it more often.

I suppose, but why would you? Why wouldn't you hold the point of impact? Wouldn't that make a more effective sell?

It appears we have a difference in context. I judge the actions on the court, and interpret the wording of the rules.

Maybe A1 has gotten away with an elbow earlier and B1 wants to make sure the official notice this time?

Judge/interpret, choose the words you want, but what I consider "faking being fouled" means there has to be no contact. Would I be wrong? If so, on what basis?

If this issue is such a problem, why no POE about this ever?

Peace

I feel the same way. I have only seen it once in my career and I was more stunned that was done and I am not sure it was a rule then.

Peace

Every Party Has A Pooper ...
 

Spoil sport.

Kick The Can ...
 

Good point, especially in regard to "Fashion Police" issues.

Well, let's break it down. What led you to that conclusion?

Why do I have to break it down? That's what I judge to be faking a foul, no contact involved. You may disagree with my interpretation, but you can't tell me I'm wrong based on anything in the rule book or case book. You only have your interpretation which I would have no basis to say is incorrect either.

Which comes to my point, without further guidance it's strictly up to individual officials, assignors, or state organizations to determine what "faking being fouled" means and it's arrogant for any individual to say their interpretation is "clearly" how the rule should be viewed and adjudicated. (not saying that's what you are doing)

Of course all this is just rhetorical for me because there is no epidemic of flopping or faking being fouled anywhere I work.

+1000

Peace

I'm not BNR, and I'm not going to "break it down," but I will state that to me, in order to fake something, you have to know it didn't happen. IOW, for a player to truly fake being fouled, they have to know they weren't fouled. I'm not convinced players don't think they're fouled every time they get touched.

No...they have to do something that wasn't caused by the contact that is intended to make others believe it was caused by the contact.

I'm amazed at all the cleverness people go through in trying to ambiguate a very simple word to as a way to justify not calling this T. I'm OK with not calling the T but at least be honest with yourself about why we're not calling it. To say you don't know what the word "fake" means is a lazy cop out.

Next thing you know, we'll be debating the meaning of "is". :eek:

So A1 is driving to the basket and jumps to shoot his layin. B4 runs past him and takes a big swing but misses. A1 yells and then falls to the floor as the ball goes through the basket. You immediately call the T on A1, right?

Because, you requested a "basis" to disprove your theory. That assumes you have a basis to prove it. It cuts both ways.

If you read my posts, you'd see that I said I am NOT calling it.

I'm only arguing that the reason it isn't called is not because the rule is unclear but is because it just isn't enforced...at all....for other reasons.

This is not unlike the infamous multiple foul. Everyone knows what it is and there is no lack of clarity in what is a multiple foul...but we just don't call it. By practice, not by rule, we pick one foul, call one foul, and penalize one foul. If two officials happen to call fouls on two different players, we don't report both, we get together and pick one.

Not when you continue reading what he said. His point is, there's no standard set in the rule book, and neither side has definitive backing from the NFHS.

I gave that up when I switched parties, but I'll leave it at that. :eek:

I'm not saying we don't ignore the rule at times, I just don't think it applies to as many plays as you do. I probably address this more than most here, though, in that if it's obvious to me that the player fakes a foul, I'll tell him to knock it off. I've never had to address it after that in a school sanctioned game.

I have called it in a YMCA game (the fall and grunt happened with 6 feet of space between them).

No, it means once you have my interpretation you should have a clear and concise ruling to show that I'm wrong. But you don't. It doesn't cut both ways because I never said your interp was wrong. I have an interp and you have absolutely nothing you can point to to say it is wrong. Unlike some folks here I have the ability to realize that just because someone disagrees with me it doesn't mean they are wrong, or that they are lazy, or they're dumb, that they are a coward.

And unless Camron writes the NFHS rules all his bloviating means nothing, especially his garbage about people not being honest with themselves because our brains aren't synced with his brain. :rolleyes:

Now We're In Synch ...
 

That is certainly a lesson many do not seem to understand. We can disagree without someone having to win the argument or call others names while disagreeing.

No, they are not synced at all. ;)

Peace

If you're implying that's what I believe, you're dead wrong. I don't believe any of those things about you.

Here's what I see you're forgetting, though. Citations are not limited to the rule and case books. In absence of anything noteworthy there, then we have to go back to the origin of definitions -- the dictionary.

While there's nothing in the rule and case books that contradicts your claim, there's also nothing that substantiates it, either. So, we simply have to look at the words in the rule. What do they mean?

In a nutshell, "faking" is defined as tricking, deceiving, or simulating. That's all it takes to break the rule. Contact isn't mentioned at all, and is, therefore, irrelevant.

In a nutshell you are not in a position to tell people what is defined and when a rule is actually broken. If that was the case then they would not have a definitions section in any rulebook and a casebook that tells you how to apply those definitions. So it is irrelevant what you are saying because no where in the rulebook or casebook is your words considered illegal based on whether or not there is actual contact. And because there is no definition, we are where we are in this discussion. I think BNR has stated very well how you are not in a position to tell anyone how to call this. As I have said before, you might feel this way, but the people I work for might not feel this way, like they do not feel that other things should be called without consideration to other factors even if the rulebook has defined those things more clearer than what we are discussion right now.

I will repeat what I have said for years. You can be right and wrong at the very same time. I am certainly not going to start calling a T when contact takes place just to satisfy some guys on the internet. And certainly do not get how this is so clear, but the very people advocating this are not calling it themselves.

Peace

Funny, that's exactly what we all do on this forum.

Neither I nor bainsey are saying you should, but you can't honestly claim that is because you don't think the player is faking by any reasonable and logical definition of the work faking. You can dance around the definition of a pretty basic and well defined word all you want but its meaning is not ambiguous. Rather, we don't call it because we don't believe it is the just penalty in most situations and it would not be consistent with how it has been called.

You are saying that people are wrong for not agreeing with your interpretation. And that is really all it is, "your interpretation." What you are saying is no way official or the standard. Actually I think what I have been saying is more of a standard because I do not see anyone call Ts for this based on your premise. But with that being said I am not saying I am right, just do not see anyone give a T for a flop with any contact. Usually these plays have some contact. Like I said, I have only seen one time where a player fell with absolutely no contact in my entire career. When the player did not get the foul, it stopped.

Peace

No one has to dance, I just do not agree with you. It is that simple. I just do not feel that was the intent of the rule and there is nothing that says I should feel differently. And this is one of these conversations that typically happens here and no where else in my officiating life which tells me exactly why I feel the way I should.

Peace

And the only reason is that you say fake doesn't really mean fake. ?????

And the only reason is that you have is to say fake doesn't really mean fake. ?????

This is where you are wrong. I am not saying my reasoning is about a definition, I am saying your reasoning has no more rules support what so ever. And my position has no rules support either. And until you can show anyone a single reference or interpretation by wording or video, then there is not much we are going to get resolved. Again Camron, I am not changing my mind on this until you show something concrete. And you are not standing on good moral ground when you clearly are not calling this based on your own words, but want to be critical of my position which is basically comes to the same result.

Peace

I'll say this...watching the playoffs this Saturday, I saw exactly one play, where I myself, under NFHS rules, would consider a T for faking.

Noah Webster Is Rolling Over In His Grave ...