Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So you tell Jeff the rule is clear but here you make an interpretation that can found absolutely nowhere in the rule book. So again, please explain how this rule is so clear.

90+% of the words in the rulebook are not defined in the rule book. It is basic English. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about the word fake. If they wanted it to mean something other than the basic meaning of the word, they'd define it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

90+% of the words in the rulebook are not defined in the rule book. It is basic English. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about the word fake. If they wanted it to mean something other than the basic meaning of the word, they'd define it.

Then explain why reasonable, intelligent persons such as yourself and Snaqs cannot agree whether embellishing contact is the same as faking a foul? Why should your interpretation being any more valid than his?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Then explain why reasonable, intelligent persons such as yourself and Snaqs cannot agree whether embellishing contact is the same as faking a foul? Why should your interpretation being any more valid than his?

Because a lot of people just want to dance around the topic and want to have a reason why they don't call it. There are good reasons to not call it, but they really don't include what the rule means.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Because a lot of people just want to dance around the topic and want to have a reason why they don't call it. There are good reasons to not call it, but they really don't include what the rule means.

That's your opinion. You having your own definition of what faking a foul does not equate to it being a clear rule. The rule book (NFHS, haven't found such a rule in NCAA) only states "faking being foul", which means a lot is left up to individual judgment and interpretation. Your interp carries no more weight than Jeff, Snaqs, or tref.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You having your own definition of what faking a foul does not equate to it being a clear rule. The rule book (NFHS, haven't found such a rule in NCAA) only states "faking being foul", which means a lot is left up to individual judgment and interpretation.

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

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

[JRutledge]

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 that deceptive practices are taking place, what more do you need?

The interpretation part is when people are defining when this takes place or not. We have no definitive definition in any rule book or case play that says when faking takes place. Until they do we will continue to have this discussion.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We have no definitive definition in any rule book or case play that says when faking takes place.

I think we all know what faking means.

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

All kidding aside, we all know what it means. If a player deceives, it's faking, period. It's just not an easy thing to positively spot.

And I'm talking about the basketball court. Really, I am.

[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 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Then explain why reasonable, intelligent persons such as yourself and Snaqs cannot agree whether embellishing contact is the same as faking a foul? Why should your interpretation being any more valid than his?

That is the problem with the rule if they want this to be called more. Or the committees are purposely vague to only have the obvious situation called. As I said before I do not see this as a major problem. It happens rare enough and usually is counter productive to what a team is actually trying to do. Coaches catch on really quick if they are not getting the fouls.

Peace