Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

No one is not saying we do not know it means, but when is it to be called? And rule book definitions are not the same as real world or Webster definitions. Again you say it is clear but very respectable people cannot agree what the rule means. And one of the people that seem to agree with you says he has not called it and would not call it now. If that is not telling then I do not know what is.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No one is not saying we do not know [what] it means...

Actually, you did: "No definitive definition."

Still, much of this is about ThatGuyPhobia. A lot of people are afraid of be the first dude on the dance floor. I've had other officials say to me, "I'd call it, if other officials would." And then, we go home, watch a game, and complain about the flop they just saw on TV. And we wonder why we see it more often.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What if A1 illegally elbows B1 on the collarbone but B1 goes down holding his mouth as if he just lost some teeth? Is that faking being fouled?

I suppose, but why would you? Why wouldn't you hold the point of impact? Wouldn't that make a more effective sell?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Much of this is about ThatGuyPhobia. A lot of people are afraid of be the first dude on the dance floor. I've had other officials say to me, "I'd call it, if other officials would."

Good point, especially in regard to "Fashion Police" issues.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I think we all know what faking means.

....

Does it mean what you posted below?

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

I know to me it means a player taking a dive (again, I see it more with 3-pt shooters than anything else) who has received no contact.

What if A1 illegally elbows B1 on the collarbone but B1 goes down holding his mouth as if he just lost some teeth? Is that faking being fouled?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

Spoil sport.