Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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?

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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.

[Adam]

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".

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

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).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Our brains aren't synced with his brain.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

No, they are not synced at all.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In a nutshell you are not in a position to tell people what is defined and when a rule is actually broken.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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. ?????

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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 have is to say fake doesn't really mean fake. ?????

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And the only reason is that you 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