Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

You are right that the rule does not specify really what it means, just like the rules does not say what is profanity. And until rules makers get specific like they have with other issues (like pulling out a jersey) then you will have different interpretations on what it is or when it takes place. And when there is contact we are supposed to get in the head of players and know what they are doing and why. As I said, players try to fake/embellish or make the contact seem worse but still are fouled. And until there is a standard that we all can agree on, then I will disagree with you that a fake is simply a fake. I have yet to see anyone call a T or penalize this at any level. And that is why I said that JVG was over the top in his outrage and has never had to make a single call in his life to know what he is asking and how to apply those rules. He needs to get over himself and stop being a drama queen about something that is not tragic to the game even if you think it happens too often.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are right that the rule does not specify really what it means, just like the rules does not say what is profanity. And until rules makers get specific like they have with other issues (like pulling out a jersey) then you will have different interpretations on what it is or when it takes place. And when there is contact we are supposed to get in the head of players and know what they are doing and why. As I said, players try to fake/embellish or make the contact seem worse but still are fouled. And until there is a standard that we all can agree on, then I will disagree with you that a fake is simply a fake. I have yet to see anyone call a T or penalize this at any level. And that is why I said that JVG was over the top in his outrage and has never had to make a single call in his life to know what he is asking and how to apply those rules. He needs to get over himself and stop being a drama queen about something that is not tragic to the game even if you think it happens too often.

Peace

You're right that no one calls it but it is not because we can't tell what faking is or whether there is different levels of interpretations. Everyone knows when a player is faking the foul. It happens all the time.

The issue is that no one wants to be "that guy" that is the only one that calls it.

You can dance around with word games and call it embellishing instead of faking but it is the same. There is no need to get in their head to tell...most of the time. It is pretty easy to tell.

You can hunt for 100 ways to avoid calling it but that doesn't mean the rule isn't sufficiently clear to support calling it.

Of course, I'm not saying you need to be "that guy" but at least be honest about why we're not calling it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're right that no one calls it but it is not because we can't tell what faking is or whether there is different levels of interpretations. Everyone knows when a player is faking the foul. It happens all the time.

The issue is that no one wants to be "that guy" that is the only one that calls it.

You can dance around with word games and call it embellishing instead of faking but it is the same. There is no need to get in their head to tell...most of the time. It is pretty easy to tell.

You can hunt for 100 ways to avoid calling it but that doesn't mean the rule isn't sufficiently clear to support calling it.

Of course, I'm not saying you need to be "that guy" but at least be honest about why we're not calling it.

Cameron,

If we cannot even agree whether the play that is being referenced here, it is more than being "that guy" in my opinion. If we cannot agree on other Ts that are "spelled out" in the rulebook, now we are going to call a bunch of "faking" that even with video we cannot determine when it takes place? This is not as black and white as you want to make it out to be. Heck we have plays that have a lot of contact that also are not called, not everyone is passing on those plays just because of a flop either in my opinion.

Especially when there are officials that claim, "When bodies on the floor we must have a foul" and I do not see a lot of those plays called as consistently as many suggest we should.

This is why I do not agree with JVG, it is not something that is chronic or happens several times a game. Usually when players realize that it does not give them any better chance of getting a call, they stop doing it. And just because they may "fake" does not mean they were in a legal position or were going to get a foul either. The game is not going to hell in a hand basket because a foul was not called either way.

Peace

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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

You have just defined flopping exactly like I do...and I think most others in this forum would agree.

[twocentsworth]

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

as per my last post....we define flopping exactly the same.....you just seem to forget that definition when you are working a game.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are right that the rule does not specify really what it means, just like the rules does not say what is profanity. And until rules makers get specific like they have with other issues (like pulling out a jersey) then you will have different interpretations on what it is or when it takes placePeace

This is exactly what Jeff Van Gundy was saying...until "they" (the NBA, NCAA, NFHS) decide they want to put a stop to it, it will continue.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As I said, players try to fake/embellish or make the contact seem worse but still are fouled. And until there is a standard that we all can agree on, then I will disagree with you that a fake is simply a fake. I have yet to see anyone call a T or penalize this at any level. And that is why I said that JVG was over the top in his outrage and has never had to make a single call in his life to know what he is asking and how to apply those rules. He needs to get over himself and stop being a drama queen about something that is not tragic to the game even if you think it happens too often.
Peace

It's NOT Jeff Van Gundy who is the drama queen....IT'S ALL THE FLOPPERS who are the drama queens!

You seem to think that 1+2=4....It you agree that embellishing contact to draw a foul (when no foul is warranted) is a flop, and flopping happens often, and nobody calls a T for flopping because of the rule, then why won't "they" change the rule?.....because "they" do not see anything wrong with it OR to put it another way - "they" are fine with flopping.

It's pretty simple...1+2=3.

[reffish]

Is the reason the T is not called on all this faking is the penalty is too harsh? Maybe the penalty can be changed to a violation, i.e. the excessive elbows penalty. That may increase the calls on faking and flopping on the court and rid this rancid display of crap basketball. JMHO.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by reffish

Is the reason the T is not called on all this faking is the penalty is too harsh? Maybe the penalty can be changed to a violation, i.e. the excessive elbows penalty. That may increase the calls on faking and flopping on the court and rid this rancid display of crap basketball. JMHO.

If it was a violation, what would the penalty be?

[reffish]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If it was a violation, what would the penalty be?

Penalty, award ball to opponent nearest spot of violation of flopping. Mechanic could be...not sure on that one yet.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by reffish

Penalty, award ball to opponent nearest spot of violation of flopping. Mechanic could be...not sure on that one yet.

A1 blows by B1. B1 flops. You stop the game and award the ball out of bounds?

Don't think so.

[reffish]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A1 blows by B1. B1 flops. You stop the game and award the ball out of bounds?

Don't think so.

Well, the penalty for "faking being fouled" is a player technical and penalty is two free throws and ball for division line throw-in. Are you going to call the technical on B1 flop?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by reffish

Well, the penalty for "faking being fouled" is a player technical and penalty is two free throws and ball for division line throw-in. Are you going to call the technical on B1 flop?

I personally have never made this call, have seen it a few times, none recently.

My point is, if you make this a violation, it won't work at all. This would actually help the defense. If your man beats you, flop. The play stops and they take it out of bounds.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

as per my last post....we define flopping exactly the same.....you just seem to forget that definition when you are working a game.

How do you know what I do during a game? And you can disagree all you like, but I do not see this as big of a problem that JVG made it out to be. I am lucky if one player flops in a single game and if they do, when we do not reward them they figure it out and stop. A lot of times it is just a player that is trying to take a charge but bails so much that almost no contact takes place and nothing is called. It is clear you have no idea what I call or why I call what I do in a game.

Peace

[reffish]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I personally have never made this call, have seen it a few times, none recently.

My point is, if you make this a violation, it won't work at all. This would actually help the defense. If your man beats you, flop. The play stops and they take it out of bounds.

You are wise beyond your years. So, let's stick to the T and call it. I have in the past called a block if there is a bit of contact and then a flop. Usually the kid complains about the call and I inform the kid that the next time it looks like a flop, a T comes next. That generally fixes the problem with flopping.

[APG]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Maybe they need the NHL rule, where a player can be called for a hook/slash/hold/etc. but a player that embellishes can also simultaneously be called for "diving".

I think if any play would ever fit your scenario, it would be this one.

I do think there's a foul here...it's obvious the defender puts the forearm in the Evan's chest and pushes in retaliation for the hard, blind (legal) screen. But Reggie Evans does his best European soccer player impression on this play and is rightfully getting blasted in the media for it. One of the rare times, in an NBA game, where you'll see a flagrant foul penalty two get downgraded all the way to just a run-of-the-mill personal foul.