Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Jeff Van Gundy is ABSOLUTELY right!!!!! Remember fellas...."you promote what you permit".

NBA/NCAA/NFHS could stop flopping if they want to, but they don't want to.

He was not right based on the play he went off about. There was contact and there is no interpretation that says that kind of play is a clear violation of the rules at least with the NCAA or NF rules. And unless there is an NBA rule that says that plays with contact requires some decision making of flopping and how to deal with it, then JVG and you are taking your own personal feelings and trying to subject them onto a group that it may not apply to. There might be a problem with flopping, but I have not heard of it as such a problem where there is a clear example of when such penalties or actions should be taken on an officiating level. Heck we have all kinds of definitions for all kinds of behaviors, not seen one on what is flopping or not. I cannot think of a single play that I saw officiating this past year where a player flopped or I thought they flopped without some kind of contact and sometimes significant contact.

Peace

[tref]

Flopping is obviously an issue in the game and there have been POEs about it and we have rules to deal with it, we have different philosophies/personal feelings about how those plays should be called, but I don't believe they will make this a required whistle play because its a judgment call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

Flopping is obviously an issue in the game and there have been POEs about it and we have rules to deal with it, we have different philosophies/personal feelings about how those plays should be called, but I don't believe they will make this a required whistle play because its a judgment call.

If it is such a problem, how many times has it been a POE? It may have been a POE at the NF level once with other topics thrown into specific POE. And I believe they changed the language to make the issue a T, but nothing has been commented on since. Rough play used to be a POE every year. We see hand-checking, illegal screens and even traveling every year and at least every other year. Nothing on this topic other than what we talk about here. So if must not be seen as a problem to those on the respective rules committees. Or at least it is not enough for them to totally leave it out for years since they changed some rules language.

Peace

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by jump stop

The problem with the way I see it for flops and charges alike is: if you don't fall to the ground or demonstrate that you were shoved or hit hard by acting out, you probably won't get the call.
If you take on an opposing player like a linebacker takes on an oncoming blocker by holding your ground you probably will get the foul called on yourself. Or if you take the charge by backing up a step or two instead of falling to the ground , there is a better chance of a no call.
So I don't see how you can change the flops or acting of players, just like in this instance. There is no way the player from NY could knock over the Miami player so easily with one arm. But if he would have stood his ground, there would not have been a call.

+ infinity.

When the prevailing theory is, "call the obvious", you can't blame the defenders for embellishing the contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

+ infinity.

When the prevailing theory is, "call the obvious", you can't blame the defenders for embellishing the contact.

1. I try not to force the defender to fall to the floor to get the call. Displacement is enough.

2. Embellishing isn't flopping, IMO.

3. Players who embellish run the risk of being out of position if we don't call the foul. To me, that's punishment enough; especially at the higher levels where the shooter will take advantage more readily.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Embellishing isn't flopping, IMO.

What's the dif, then?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

What's the dif, then?

Embellishing is when there is a call that could be made without the embellishment. Flopping is when there is no call to make but the player feels the need to act like something took place that clearly did not.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

What's the dif, then?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Embellishing is when there is a call that could be made without the embellishment. Flopping is when there is no call to make but the player feels the need to act like something took place that clearly did not.

Peace

Yep. The T is for "faking being fouled," not for failing to remain standing after contact. If the player really thinks he got fouled, he's not faking, even if he's embellishing. To me, "faking" requires understanding that he wasn't fouled. That usually involves the sudden backwards thrust and a grunt, not a slow fade backwards. Sometimes, it's hard to tell; but if it's hard to tell, I'm not worrying about it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If it's hard to tell, I'm not worrying about it.

Words of wisdom.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep. The T is for "faking being fouled," not for failing to remain standing after contact. If the player really thinks he got fouled, he's not faking, even if he's embellishing. To me, "faking" requires understanding that he wasn't fouled. That usually involves the sudden backwards thrust and a grunt, not a slow fade backwards. Sometimes, it's hard to tell; but if it's hard to tell, I'm not worrying about it.

I disagree. Embellishing (a player throwing themselves back after contact to a degree that doesn't match the level of contact) IS faking being fouled. It is an attempt to convince the official there was more contact than there was, that there was a foul when there may not have been enough contact for one. That is faking a foul. The only way it is not is when there really was a foul.

I agree that it is not failing to remain standing....but you and I both know the difference between getting knocked down and falling down as if you were knocked down.

And it is not fading backwards.

Letting your self be displaced is certainly not the same as displacing yourself.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. Embellishing (a player throwing themselves back after contact to a degree that doesn't match the level of contact) IS faking being fouled. It is an attempt to convince the official there was more contact than there was, that there was a foul when there may not have been enough contact for one. That is faking a foul.

That's how I see it. Embellishing is faking. It's all an act of deception.

Just because you were contacted, it does not earn you the right to pretend there was more.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

....I cannot think of a single play that I saw officiating this past year where a player flopped or I thought they flopped without some kind of contact and sometimes significant contact.

Peace

Yes you have! You DEFINITELY have had a play where contact occurred, a player fell backwards (not just in attempting to take a charge situations, but in others as well) and there was no whistle. It happens in nearly every game during the season.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. Embellishing (a player throwing themselves back after contact to a degree that doesn't match the level of contact) IS faking being fouled. It is an attempt to convince the official there was more contact than there was, that there was a foul when there may not have been enough contact for one. That is faking a foul. The only way it is not is when there really was a foul.

I agree that it is not failing to remain standing....but you and I both know the difference between getting knocked down and falling down as if you were knocked down.

And it is not fading backwards.

Letting your self be displaced is certainly not the same as displacing yourself.

I agree. I should perhaps have differentiated between embellishing the contact and allowing yourself to be displaced by contact. Most of what I see is the latter, if it's not just bailing early in anticipation of the contact.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Yes you have! You DEFINITELY have had a play where contact occurred, a player fell backwards (not just in attempting to take a charge situations, but in others as well) and there was no whistle. It happens in nearly every game during the season.

You consider flopping differently than I do obviously. Obviously there is not rules definition for what a flop is or is not. I do not consider a flop or something that I would call a T under the rules by something where there is contact. And no I cannot think of a single play where a player fell with absolutely no contact. Now there were some plays where contact was embellished for sure or exaggerated, but that even happens when there is clear displacement either way.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You consider flopping differently than I do obviously. Obviously there is not rules definition for what a flop is or is not. I do not consider a flop or something that I would call a T under the rules by something where there is contact. And no I cannot think of a single play where a player fell with absolutely no contact. Now there were some plays where contact was embellished for sure or exaggerated, but that even happens when there is clear displacement either way.

Peace

The rule about faking being fouled doesn't say it is only a fake if there is no contact. It is pretty clear that when a player takes action beyond what the contact caused to make you think there was a foul and there wasn't one, it is a fake. We may not call it, but you can't say the rules don't define it. Fake is fake.

Your definition is sort of like saying a fake Rolex that sort of looks like a Rolex is not really a fake but calling a shoe a Rolex is.