I don't know why you continue insist that the rule is unclear. The language is pretty basic. There is nothing unclear about the rule for anyone that doesn't want it to be unclear.

Was the player fouled? If not, did they do something not caused by the contact to try to make the official(s) think they were fouled? If yes, they faked a foul.

The real truth is that no one wants to call a T for it. Claiming the rule is unclear is just a scapegoat. I don't call T's for it...but I'm not going to make something up to justify not calling it.

As for the jersey, most people still don't believe it is unsportsmanlike but are stuck calling it because they explicitly listed it (sort of like faking being fouled is already explicitly listed)...and there were previously no words in the unsportsmanlike rule about jerseys. So, that is a poor comparison.

That's subjective. And it's also subjective whether the contact caused the ensuing "something".

If a player embellishes the severity of the contact is it faking a foul, whether or not a foul is judged by that particular official? Wait:

So you tell Jeff the rule is clear but here you make an interpretation that can found absolutely nowhere in the rule book. So again, please explain how this rule is so clear.

Personally, I've never seen flopping or faking a foul to be a big problem in my games. More times than not it's the player's own coach who will tell him to quit falling down and/or to stay in there and take the charge.

This is what I see as well. Coaches here tend to know why I no-called it.

90+% of the words in the rulebook are not defined in the rule book. It is basic English. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about the word fake. If they wanted it to mean something other than the basic meaning of the word, they'd define it.

Then explain why reasonable, intelligent persons such as yourself and Snaqs cannot agree whether embellishing contact is the same as faking a foul? Why should your interpretation being any more valid than his?

From a previous thread:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ng-fouled.html

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6KR1qzj-3kI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looks like that FIBA official didn't get the memo. ;)

Because a lot of people just want to dance around the topic and want to have a reason why they don't call it. There are good reasons to not call it, but they really don't include what the rule means.

That is the problem with the rule if they want this to be called more. Or the committees are purposely vague to only have the obvious situation called. As I said before I do not see this as a major problem. It happens rare enough and usually is counter productive to what a team is actually trying to do. Coaches catch on really quick if they are not getting the fouls.

Peace

That's your opinion. You having your own definition of what faking a foul does not equate to it being a clear rule. The rule book (NFHS, haven't found such a rule in NCAA) only states "faking being foul", which means a lot is left up to individual judgment and interpretation. Your interp carries no more weight than Jeff, Snaqs, or tref.

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?