Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No one is not saying we do not know [what] it 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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...

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

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

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

Spoil sport.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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."

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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".

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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".

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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why do I have to break it down?

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