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

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

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

+1

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

if there is contact and it causes that player to fall to the ground, then you should blow the whistle for a foul....that is a foul.

if there is contact and, in your opinion, the player falls to the ground trying to draw a foul, you don't blow the whistle....that is a flop.

those are the most obvious examples of what we are talking about. of course, it is not the ONLY examples of flops: the ball handler exaggerates a bump by flinging his head & upper body backwards; after releasing the ball - the jump shooter who immediately falls backward when a defender is near; the rebounder who yells and leaps forwards (out of bounds under the basket) to feign a push from behind when the rebound goes long over his head and he cannot reach it; etc.

these happen in EVERY game you've worked. you seem to recognize these as plays that "don't deserve a whistle", but you don't recognize them as being "flopping".

because officials do not penalize this deceitful behavior, it will continue because there is no "down-side" to the player....."if I flop and the ref doesn't fall for it, no big deal. if I flop and I get the call, GREAT!"

remember....you promote what you permit. the rules committees AND game officials promote flopping by their lack of action.