Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again problem is solved if you simply do not call anything. I have told player their acting usually makes me think they were not fouled. Either way the message is sent.

Peace

Not really... because sometimes they're successful. You might be able to talk them out of continuing that night, but they'll be back at it the next night.

If they're successful once out of several times and there is no penalty for the times they're unsuccessful, there is no deterrence. Why not keep trying. Eventually they'll hook one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not really... because sometimes they're successful. You might be able to talk them out of continuing that night, but they'll be back at it the next night.

If they're successful once out of several times and there is no penalty for the times they're unsuccessful, there is no deterrence. Why not keep trying. Eventually they'll hook one.

So all the times you here "and 1" you see a call made? Isn't that a way to suggest you were fouled?

It is one thing to get one benefit but it is another to try something that barely works. I get it, flopping or embellishing works from time to time. But it often does not work with experienced officials. And at most youth levels kids are not skilled enough to do it effectively. Even college players are not very skilled to do it successfully. This is one of the reasons for years you would see no calls for this and we would complain that train wreaks were not being called at higher levels.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So all the times you here "and 1" you see a call made? Isn't that a way to suggest you were fouled?

It is one thing to get one benefit but it is another to try something that barely works. I get it, flopping or embellishing works from time to time. But it often does not work with experienced officials. And at most youth levels kids are not skilled enough to do it effectively. Even college players are not very skilled to do it successfully. This is one of the reasons for years you would see no calls for this and we would complain that train wreaks were not being called at higher levels.

Peace

Of course not. A statement ("and 1") is not an action. It is asking for a foul. It is not making it appear there was one.

I see enough flops get a call that it is an issue. It would not be in the spotlight as much as it is right now if it were not an issue...even at the top levels.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Of course not. A statement ("and 1") is not an action. It is asking for a foul. It is not making it appear there was one.

I see enough flops get a call that it is an issue. It would not be in the spotlight as much as it is right now if it were not an issue...even at the top levels.

So if officials are not recognizing flops and subsequently calling fouls on the opposing players how will calling T's help?

What's really at the core of the problem, refs who don't penalize flops or refs who are not properly ref'n the defense in order to properly judge the play?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So if officials are not recognizing flops and subsequently calling fouls on the opposing players how will calling T's help?

What's really at the core of the problem, refs who don't penalize flops or refs who are not properly ref'n the defense in order to properly judge the play?

Officials ARE recognizing the flops but are not calling the T's. Why? Probably because no one wants to be the only one to do so or they feel the penalty is too harsh...I've suggested a lessor penalty for a flop in the past. Plus, many officials have an aversion to calling T's even when deserved.

Even if you properly referee the defense, you can get fooled by a flop.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Officials ARE recognizing the flops but are not calling the T's. Why? Probably because no one wants to be the only one to do so or they feel the penalty is too harsh...I've suggested a lessor penalty for a flop in the past. Plus, many officials have an aversion to calling T's even when deserved.

Even if you properly referee the defense, you can get fooled by a flop.

Or could it be that the rule is not very well defined?

We cannot even agree what a flop is and the rule does us that language at all as a description for what we are talking about. If the Rules Committees want this to be called they could define the rule much clearer than they have previously. Did anyone think pulling out a jersey was an unsportsmanlike act until the rule added that action as illegal?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Or could it be that the rule is not very well defined?

We cannot even agree what a flop is and the rule does us that language at all as a description for what we are talking about. If the Rules Committees want this to be called they could define the rule much clearer than they have previously. Did anyone think pulling out a jersey was an unsportsmanlike act until the rule added that action as illegal?

Peace

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.