Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...

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

Maybe A1 has gotten away with an elbow earlier and B1 wants to make sure the official notice this time?

Originally Posted by bainsey

It appears we have a difference in context. I judge the actions on the court, and interpret the wording of the rules.

Judge/interpret, choose the words you want, but what I consider "faking being fouled" means there has to be no contact. Would I be wrong? If so, on what basis?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Judge/interpret, choose the words you want, but what I consider "faking being fouled" means there has to be no contact. Would I be wrong? If so, on what basis?

I feel the same way. I have only seen it once in my career and I was more stunned that was done and I am not sure it was a rule then.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Maybe A1 has gotten away with an elbow earlier and B1 wants to make sure the official notice this time?



Judge/interpret, choose the words you want, but what I consider "faking being fouled" means there has to be no contact. Would I be wrong? If so, on what basis?

Well, let's break it down. What led you to that conclusion?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Well, let's break it down. What led you to that conclusion?

Why do I have to break it down? That's what I judge to be faking a foul, no contact involved. You may disagree with my interpretation, but you can't tell me I'm wrong based on anything in the rule book or case book. You only have your interpretation which I would have no basis to say is incorrect either.

Which comes to my point, without further guidance it's strictly up to individual officials, assignors, or state organizations to determine what "faking being fouled" means and it's arrogant for any individual to say their interpretation is "clearly" how the rule should be viewed and adjudicated. (not saying that's what you are doing)

Of course all this is just rhetorical for me because there is no epidemic of flopping or faking being fouled anywhere I work.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why do I have to break it down? That's what I judge to be faking a foul, no contact involved. You may disagree with my interpretation, but you can't tell me I'm wrong based on anything in the rule book or case book. You only have your interpretation which I would have no basis to say is incorrect either.

Which comes to my point, without further guidance it's strictly up to individual officials, assignors, or state organizations to determine what "faking being fouled" means and it's arrogant for any individual to say their interpretation is "clearly" how the rule should be viewed and adjudicated. (not saying that's what you are doing)

Of course all this is just rhetorical for me because there is no epidemic of flopping or faking being fouled anywhere I work.

+1000

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why do I have to break it down?

Because, you requested a "basis" to disprove your theory. That assumes you have a basis to prove it. It cuts both ways.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Because, you requested a "basis" to disprove your theory. That assumes you have a basis to prove it. It cuts both ways.

Not when you continue reading what he said. His point is, there's no standard set in the rule book, and neither side has definitive backing from the NFHS.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Because, you requested a "basis" to disprove your theory. That assumes you have a basis to prove it. It cuts both ways.

No, it means once you have my interpretation you should have a clear and concise ruling to show that I'm wrong. But you don't. It doesn't cut both ways because I never said your interp was wrong. I have an interp and you have absolutely nothing you can point to to say it is wrong. Unlike some folks here I have the ability to realize that just because someone disagrees with me it doesn't mean they are wrong, or that they are lazy, or they're dumb, that they are a coward.

And unless Camron writes the NFHS rules all his bloviating means nothing, especially his garbage about people not being honest with themselves because our brains aren't synced with his brain.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Our brains aren't synced with his brain.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Unlike some folks here I have the ability to realize that just because someone disagrees with me it doesn't mean they are wrong, or that they are lazy, or they're dumb, that they are a coward.

That is certainly a lesson many do not seem to understand. We can disagree without someone having to win the argument or call others names while disagreeing.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And unless Camron writes the NFHS rules all his bloviating means nothing, especially his garbage about people not being honest with themselves because our brains aren't synced with his brain.

No, they are not synced at all.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No, it means once you have my interpretation you should have a clear and concise ruling to show that I'm wrong. But you don't. It doesn't cut both ways because I never said your interp was wrong. I have an interp and you have absolutely nothing you can point to to say it is wrong. Unlike some folks here I have the ability to realize that just because someone disagrees with me it doesn't mean they are wrong, or that they are lazy, or they're dumb, that they are a coward.

If you're implying that's what I believe, you're dead wrong. I don't believe any of those things about you.

Here's what I see you're forgetting, though. Citations are not limited to the rule and case books. In absence of anything noteworthy there, then we have to go back to the origin of definitions -- the dictionary.

While there's nothing in the rule and case books that contradicts your claim, there's also nothing that substantiates it, either. So, we simply have to look at the words in the rule. What do they mean?

In a nutshell, "faking" is defined as tricking, deceiving, or simulating. That's all it takes to break the rule. Contact isn't mentioned at all, and is, therefore, irrelevant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Well, let's break it down. What led you to that conclusion?

I'm not BNR, and I'm not going to "break it down," but I will state that to me, in order to fake something, you have to know it didn't happen. IOW, for a player to truly fake being fouled, they have to know they weren't fouled. I'm not convinced players don't think they're fouled every time they get touched.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not BNR, and I'm not going to "break it down," but I will state that to me, in order to fake something, you have to know it didn't happen. IOW, for a player to truly fake being fouled, they have to know they weren't fouled. I'm not convinced players don't think they're fouled every time they get touched.

No...they have to do something that wasn't caused by the contact that is intended to make others believe it was caused by the contact.

I'm amazed at all the cleverness people go through in trying to ambiguate a very simple word to as a way to justify not calling this T. I'm OK with not calling the T but at least be honest with yourself about why we're not calling it. To say you don't know what the word "fake" means is a lazy cop out.

Next thing you know, we'll be debating the meaning of "is".

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No...they have to do something that wasn't caused by the contact that is intended to make others believe it was caused by the contact.

I'm amazed at all the cleverness people go through in trying to ambiguate a very simple word to as a way to justify not calling this T. I'm OK with not calling the T but at least be honest with yourself about why we're not calling it. To say you don't know what the word "fake" means is a lazy cop out.

Next thing you know, we'll be debating the meaning of "is".

So A1 is driving to the basket and jumps to shoot his layin. B4 runs past him and takes a big swing but misses. A1 yells and then falls to the floor as the ball goes through the basket. You immediately call the T on A1, right?