Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[tref]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

Wait a minute, to flop, in & of itself isnt in the rulebook. The technical foul is for faking being fouled not flopping.
I may be wrong (I'm sure someone will point that out sooner than later) but the only place in the rulebook where I recall the word fake is in the free throw section... "the free thrower shall not fake a try."

You would agree that fake here, means the try never took place, correct?
Following that same thought process, in order for a player to fake getting fouled in block/charge situations the defender would have to flop or lay down without ANY CONTACT.
If there is contact & the player embellishes that is not a fake, it's an exaggeration of contact that actually did occur.

How many times have you made a block call & felt like the defender didnt have to do the antics & you would've called the block anyway?

It's a game & in games players should play, sometimes players become actors in the game that they play. IMO there's nothing wrong with that.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

You would agree that fake here, means the try never took place, correct?

Sure.

Originally Posted by tref

Following that same thought process, in order for a player to fake getting fouled in block/charge situations the defender would have to flop or lay down without ANY CONTACT.

No. The fake means they try to make you think they were fouled when the FOUL never occurred. The rule doesn't say it is illegal to fake contact, but a foul.

Originally Posted by tref

If there is contact & the player embellishes that is not a fake, it's an exaggeration of contact that actually did occur.

They're not faking contact, they're faking a foul....not he same.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure.

No. The fake means they try to make you think they were fouled when the FOUL never occurred. The rule doesn't say it is illegal to fake contact, but a foul.


They're not faking contact, they're faking a foul....not he same.

Is it faking a foul if they think they were really fouled but are embellishing to try to make it more obvious?

These players honestly (I think) think they are fouled when their uniform gets brushed by the breeze.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is it faking a foul if they think they were really fouled but are embellishing to try to make it more obvious?

Yes, it's all about the deception.

Now, do you whack someone who was actually fouled, and is indeed selling the illegal contact more? I sure wouldn't. At the most, I'd talk with the player about it, unless it gets ridiculously repetitive.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is it faking a foul if they think they were really fouled but are embellishing to try to make it more obvious?

These players honestly (I think) think they are fouled when their uniform gets brushed by the breeze.

Yes. The actions are faked...the dishonesty and deception in trying to make the official believe you were fouled by either totally fabricating or exaggerating the situation are what is unsporting.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes. The actions are faked...the dishonesty and deception in trying to make the official believe you were fouled by either totally fabricating or exaggerating the situation are what is unsporting.

Fabricating is making up something that didnt occur.
Exaggerating is stetching something that did occur.

IJS

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Fabricating is making up something that didnt occur.
Exaggerating is stetching something that did occur.

IJS

They're fabricating the FOUL. If you don't call the foul, then it, by definition, didn't occur.
They're exaggerating the CONTACT (which may or may not be a foul).

The rule involves faking a foul. If they actively do something for the purpose of making you think there was a foul and there was no foul, then they have faked the foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

Wait a minute, to flop, in & of itself isnt in the rulebook. The technical foul is for faking being fouled not flopping.
I may be wrong (I'm sure someone will point that out sooner than later) but the only place in the rulebook where I recall the word fake is in the free throw section... "the free thrower shall not fake a try."

You would agree that fake here, means the try never took place, correct?
Following that same thought process, in order for a player to fake getting fouled in block/charge situations the defender would have to flop or lay down without ANY CONTACT.
If there is contact & the player embellishes that is not a fake, it's an exaggeration of contact that actually did occur.

How many times have you made a block call & felt like the defender didnt have to do the antics & you would've called the block anyway?

It's a game & in games players should play, sometimes players become actors in the game that they play. IMO there's nothing wrong with that.

Totally agree with you here.

Peace