Jeff Van Gundy on "Flopping"
 

I know a lot of you don't watch the NBA, but former NBA coach and now announcer for ESPN, Jeff Van Gundy, went on a nearly 3 minute tirade on "flops" in the NBA. Now this isn't something I've heard limited to the NBA...heard the same thing said all throughout the NCAA tournament...not just by announcers, but from fans...no matter what level of play. Thoughts?

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YMY7IWVX0JA" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Correct call...illegal screen. Even if he flopped, he was still fouled.

Now, as far as true flopping goes (which for the purposes of this discussion, I'll consider acts to draw the foul in absence of a real foul) I'd like to see them establish a rule to make it a personal foul against the flopper if there is contact that would otherwise not be a foul....and keep it a T if there is no contact.

I agree on the illegal screen...the defender did embellish the amount of contact, but it still rose to the level of illegal contact IMO. Just because a player embellishes the amount of contact doesn't necessarily make the contact not illegal.

What levels of play would you like to see your rule suggestion for?

All levels. We usually know when the player flops. If we were to call a few as automatic fouls on the flopper when they exaggerate the contact when there wasn't enough for a foul, they'll stop flopping pretty quickly. Now, the same would even more quickly happen if we called the T as specified in the book but a lot more officials would be willing to call the personal foul a long time before they'd be willing to call a T.

First of all that was not a flop and I do not consider that to be really an illegal screen, even though technically it would be. It just seemed like they were going for a loose ball and then the NY player pushed off after to keep the defender away. If it was a flop at all, it really was not that pronounced, it was slight as he got moved off his stop by the forearm. Van Gundy is not the best person to listen to about officiating issues because he goes on and on often about things that are not big issues. You would have thought that someone was fighting and threw a punch and he is going on an on what every player in every sport does to try to get the benefit of calls.

Peace

The contact was small but I don't see that as a flop. I think flops are when there is zero contact or the player goes in a different direction the contact should take him. The judgement plays are where the player is stationary and takes a little contact like they were run over by a truck. When a player is on one leg or in a non stationary position it is easily possible to be knocked over with a little contact.
Either way... Illegal screen. Good call. Van Gundy is a minority, at least I think, in this issue.

Flop. You can see after the initial contact there's a tiny pause and then the defender throws himself backwards.

Also an offensive foul.

Maybe they need the NHL rule, where a player can be called for a hook/slash/hold/etc. but a player that embellishes can also simultaneously be called for "diving".

Last night
 

I worked a game, I'm going to guess 6th grade boys. I had never seen a game like this, one team had kids that were jacking around the whole game, throwing behind the back passes, off the glass, crazy jumpers, they were having fun with the game and I had no problem with how they were playing. We'll call this team B.

Team A was playing serious, they were obviously outgunned though and lost by a fair amount.

My point is, on one play, Team A player drives to the basket and comes about 5 feet from contact on a player B, who just throws himself to the ground as if there had been contact.

I must admit I did not call a T. And after the game I wish I would have. That one play kind of stuck out in my mind after the game. I didn't react because it was so unexpected.

I've found in my games a quick word normally takes care of it. "If you'd have stayed in position longer, he would have fouled you." I've gotten better at finding a moment to express it to the player.

I will say, if a player embellishes the contact (or starts to bail early), I'm a lot more likely to go with a no-call because it becomes harder to tell if the contact was illegal or not; and I'm giving the benefit to the offense in that case.

I've rarely had to even no-call this more than once in a game at the high school level. Once, I had a player repeat-offend after a no-call, so now I try to get a word in as quickly as possible.

The one time I called this, it was about this level, and I had already warned the kid and his coach. After the warning, he flew backwards when the dribbler got to about 5-6 feet away; complete with Monica Seles grunt.

I would have warned him in your game, or talked to his coach. If he only did it once, though, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I have a hard time taking anything Van Gundy says seriously - usually turn the channel if he is announcing a game. All because of the Heat/Knicks "fight" years ago when he was holding on to Alonzo Mourning's leg and getting drug around like a little grandchild. So his opinions are really worthless in terms of rules and officiating, imo.

As far as the call - I liked it. It was an illegal screen attempting to keep the defender away from the shooter. Was the contact severe enough to cause the defender to go to the floor? Don't think so...but that doesn't mean it's a bad call.

Flopping
 

Van Gundy, I believe, is right regarding flopping, but wrong on this particular example.

I am seeing way too many youth and junior high coaches teaching "the flop" as part of their defensive philosophy. They are encouraged and rewarded for acting, rather than fundamental basketball. Like others, I am reluctant to toss a T for this, going for the no call. However, next year, I think I will just make the minimal contact flop an automatic blocking call.

I would love to see penalizing the flop be a point of emphasis next year.

I cannot speak for what they are doing at the JH or youth level, but when they get to HS, that stuff often goes uncalled. I think the guys in the NBA are much more talented to get away with it if it is taking place. Even this play it is possible the defender embellished, but he was pushed. But then again it does not take much to push down a guy that is off balance either, which is why JVG really needs to shut up on this particular play. I would understand if the situation was so obvious that hardly any contact took place, but this was not the play.

Peace

Wow.

Really???

Regardless of LGP? Regardless of who initiated the contact? Just gonna go with a block as an automatic call if you deem there was minimal contact?

Good luck. Let us know how that goes for you.

I thought he said he minimal contact "flops" as a block.

I was told if you want the flops to stop, call it a block & if you get pushback from the coach... "Would you prefer the T, by rule?"

And the only way to judge that would be to have contact and have to judge that it was minimal. So why call a block? Why have to explain that call to a coach? Why not just call nothing as there really wasn't any contact?

To say "I'm going to call it a block" when it really isn't a block just open us up to a whole lot of trouble.

If I'm sure enough that he's "faking being fouled," I've got no problem warning him and then ringing him up if he does it again. I did it (warned) twice last season, and there were no repeat offenders.

Most cases involve a player bailing too early, but that's not illegal. Ever. The rules specifically allow the defender to move to absorb contact. Doing it early only reduces the chance of an actual foul, but it's not illegal, so I don't understand why people want to penalize this player with a block.

When defenders bail early, in most cases the airborne shooter cannot land unhindered. Not always but when its obvious I call it & protect the airborne shooter.

On the minimal contact & lay down play, the shooter would have to be disadvantaged for a block call. But as others have suggested I like to be preventative and talk to them early when I can.

Agree with the talking to them...that is an excellent way to deal with it. Saying "I'm going to call all of those flops a block" is not an excellent way to deal with it.

Yes, saying what we would do on all situations or making something automatic paints us into a very small box.

"He's A Beanie Baby" ...
 

The problem with the way I see it for flops and charges alike is: if you don't fall to the ground or demonstrate that you were shoved or hit hard by acting out, you probably won't get the call.
If you take on an opposing player like a linebacker takes on an oncoming blocker by holding your ground you probably will get the foul called on yourself. Or if you take the charge by backing up a step or two instead of falling to the ground , there is a better chance of a no call.
So I don't see how you can change the flops or acting of players, just like in this instance. There is no way the player from NY could knock over the Miami player so easily with one arm. But if he would have stood his ground, there would not have been a call.

flopping
 

Please excuse my lack of specifics and the generalization.

The play I have in mind is when the defensive player gets in position - usually in the key -- but the offensive player avoids contact on the way to the basket, or the contact is so minimal -- the brush type of contact -- that is does not impact the play. Yet, the defensive player goes flying, arms waving, using with sound effects.

(Or at the younger level, what is usually seen is the player falling straight down, having yet to perfect the backward launch.)

In the past, I have always no-called this. My thinking has been that by falling to the floor, he has self-penalized his team.

However, this is the type of flop that needs to be halted, because first, it flows against the character of the game, and second, it makes for a dangerous situation. There is now a player on the floor, and if the shot is missed, there are usually three to four players going after the rebound. The guy on the floor gets stepped on, ankles roll, other people fall ... it is just a bad situation.

A good warning early in the game is important, of course. But calling it tight from the get-go will send a message to both teams early.

FYI -- To the administrators, I really enjoy this forum. It is forcing me to think about the craft. I appreciate the work you and everyone puts in on this. Thanks.

Really? How can leaving early make the airborne shooter's landing any more hindered than staying put. By fading away from the shooter, they give the shooter MORE room to land. Had the stayed, the contact would have only been greater.

If the contact itself isn't illegal (backing, bailing, or falling backwards prior to contact are all legal), then a block is, by rule, the wrong call. If that doesn't matter, and if your leadership wants you to call it that way, so be it.

But let's not pretend there's any rules backing whatsoever.

What you do have backing for is a warning and a technical foul if it continues. I've found a no-call, by itself, normally takes care of it. A no-call and a warning, however, always does it.

The warning doesn't have to include the direct threat of a T, either. Just letting the player know, verbally, that you saw him flop takes care of it. Twice this season I told the player that he would have probably gotten a foul call had he stayed in position longer, and neither of them did it again.

Van Gundy is one of my least favorite commentators, for a number of reasons, but I have to say I completely agree with him here.

The reason why flopping has grown is simple. It continues to go unpunished. I find the blocking call on a flop to be a cop-out, and it does not directly with the issue -- that flopping is unsportsmanlike. It was indeed a POE about seven years ago in NFHS, thought I can't speak to whether it has actually helped curb it.

That said, I'm not above talking with a flopper first and whacking later, if needed. It is indeed a hard thing to positively see, and you shouldn't whack anyone unless you're positive.

Jeff Van Gundy is ABSOLUTELY right!!!!! Remember fellas...."you promote what you permit".

NBA/NCAA/NFHS could stop flopping if they want to, but they don't want to.

And how could they stop it?

If by "they" you include the officials...just call the T.

If by "they" you mean assignors...direct the officials to just call the T.

It would stop pretty quickly if just a few T's were called.

That was the point I was hoping to get across...the NFHS and NCAA (don't know the NBA rules) don't need to do anything to stop this deadly epidemic of flopping...we - the officials - have all the tools we need to address the issue.

So for 2cents to say "they" could stop it if they wanted to, "they" just don't want to is putting the blame where it doesn't belong.

He was not right based on the play he went off about. There was contact and there is no interpretation that says that kind of play is a clear violation of the rules at least with the NCAA or NF rules. And unless there is an NBA rule that says that plays with contact requires some decision making of flopping and how to deal with it, then JVG and you are taking your own personal feelings and trying to subject them onto a group that it may not apply to. There might be a problem with flopping, but I have not heard of it as such a problem where there is a clear example of when such penalties or actions should be taken on an officiating level. Heck we have all kinds of definitions for all kinds of behaviors, not seen one on what is flopping or not. I cannot think of a single play that I saw officiating this past year where a player flopped or I thought they flopped without some kind of contact and sometimes significant contact.

Peace

Flopping is obviously an issue in the game and there have been POEs about it and we have rules to deal with it, we have different philosophies/personal feelings about how those plays should be called, but I don't believe they will make this a required whistle play because its a judgment call.

If it is such a problem, how many times has it been a POE? It may have been a POE at the NF level once with other topics thrown into specific POE. And I believe they changed the language to make the issue a T, but nothing has been commented on since. Rough play used to be a POE every year. We see hand-checking, illegal screens and even traveling every year and at least every other year. Nothing on this topic other than what we talk about here. So if must not be seen as a problem to those on the respective rules committees. Or at least it is not enough for them to totally leave it out for years since they changed some rules language.

Peace

+ infinity.

When the prevailing theory is, "call the obvious", you can't blame the defenders for embellishing the contact.

1. I try not to force the defender to fall to the floor to get the call. Displacement is enough.

2. Embellishing isn't flopping, IMO.

3. Players who embellish run the risk of being out of position if we don't call the foul. To me, that's punishment enough; especially at the higher levels where the shooter will take advantage more readily.

What's the dif, then?

This is my take.
 

Embellishing is when there is a call that could be made without the embellishment. Flopping is when there is no call to make but the player feels the need to act like something took place that clearly did not.

Peace

Yep. The T is for "faking being fouled," not for failing to remain standing after contact. If the player really thinks he got fouled, he's not faking, even if he's embellishing. To me, "faking" requires understanding that he wasn't fouled. That usually involves the sudden backwards thrust and a grunt, not a slow fade backwards. Sometimes, it's hard to tell; but if it's hard to tell, I'm not worrying about it.

Amen ...
 

Words of wisdom.

I disagree. Embellishing (a player throwing themselves back after contact to a degree that doesn't match the level of contact) IS faking being fouled. It is an attempt to convince the official there was more contact than there was, that there was a foul when there may not have been enough contact for one. That is faking a foul. The only way it is not is when there really was a foul.

I agree that it is not failing to remain standing....but you and I both know the difference between getting knocked down and falling down as if you were knocked down.

And it is not fading backwards.

Letting your self be displaced is certainly not the same as displacing yourself.

That's how I see it. Embellishing is faking. It's all an act of deception.

Just because you were contacted, it does not earn you the right to pretend there was more.

Yes you have! You DEFINITELY have had a play where contact occurred, a player fell backwards (not just in attempting to take a charge situations, but in others as well) and there was no whistle. It happens in nearly every game during the season.

I agree. I should perhaps have differentiated between embellishing the contact and allowing yourself to be displaced by contact. Most of what I see is the latter, if it's not just bailing early in anticipation of the contact.

You consider flopping differently than I do obviously. Obviously there is not rules definition for what a flop is or is not. I do not consider a flop or something that I would call a T under the rules by something where there is contact. And no I cannot think of a single play where a player fell with absolutely no contact. Now there were some plays where contact was embellished for sure or exaggerated, but that even happens when there is clear displacement either way.

Peace

The rule about faking being fouled doesn't say it is only a fake if there is no contact. It is pretty clear that when a player takes action beyond what the contact caused to make you think there was a foul and there wasn't one, it is a fake. We may not call it, but you can't say the rules don't define it. Fake is fake.

Your definition is sort of like saying a fake Rolex that sort of looks like a Rolex is not really a fake but calling a shoe a Rolex is.

You are right that the rule does not specify really what it means, just like the rules does not say what is profanity. And until rules makers get specific like they have with other issues (like pulling out a jersey) then you will have different interpretations on what it is or when it takes place. And when there is contact we are supposed to get in the head of players and know what they are doing and why. As I said, players try to fake/embellish or make the contact seem worse but still are fouled. And until there is a standard that we all can agree on, then I will disagree with you that a fake is simply a fake. I have yet to see anyone call a T or penalize this at any level. And that is why I said that JVG was over the top in his outrage and has never had to make a single call in his life to know what he is asking and how to apply those rules. He needs to get over himself and stop being a drama queen about something that is not tragic to the game even if you think it happens too often.

Peace

You're right that no one calls it but it is not because we can't tell what faking is or whether there is different levels of interpretations. Everyone knows when a player is faking the foul. It happens all the time.

The issue is that no one wants to be "that guy" that is the only one that calls it.

You can dance around with word games and call it embellishing instead of faking but it is the same. There is no need to get in their head to tell...most of the time. It is pretty easy to tell.

You can hunt for 100 ways to avoid calling it but that doesn't mean the rule isn't sufficiently clear to support calling it.

Of course, I'm not saying you need to be "that guy" but at least be honest about why we're not calling it.

Cameron,

If we cannot even agree whether the play that is being referenced here, it is more than being "that guy" in my opinion. If we cannot agree on other Ts that are "spelled out" in the rulebook, now we are going to call a bunch of "faking" that even with video we cannot determine when it takes place? This is not as black and white as you want to make it out to be. Heck we have plays that have a lot of contact that also are not called, not everyone is passing on those plays just because of a flop either in my opinion.

Especially when there are officials that claim, "When bodies on the floor we must have a foul" and I do not see a lot of those plays called as consistently as many suggest we should.

This is why I do not agree with JVG, it is not something that is chronic or happens several times a game. Usually when players realize that it does not give them any better chance of getting a call, they stop doing it. And just because they may "fake" does not mean they were in a legal position or were going to get a foul either. The game is not going to hell in a hand basket because a foul was not called either way.

Peace

You have just defined flopping exactly like I do...and I think most others in this forum would agree.

as per my last post....we define flopping exactly the same.....you just seem to forget that definition when you are working a game.

This is exactly what Jeff Van Gundy was saying...until "they" (the NBA, NCAA, NFHS) decide they want to put a stop to it, it will continue.


It's NOT Jeff Van Gundy who is the drama queen....IT'S ALL THE FLOPPERS who are the drama queens!

You seem to think that 1+2=4....It you agree that embellishing contact to draw a foul (when no foul is warranted) is a flop, and flopping happens often, and nobody calls a T for flopping because of the rule, then why won't "they" change the rule?.....because "they" do not see anything wrong with it OR to put it another way - "they" are fine with flopping.

It's pretty simple...1+2=3.

Is the reason the T is not called on all this faking is the penalty is too harsh? Maybe the penalty can be changed to a violation, i.e. the excessive elbows penalty. That may increase the calls on faking and flopping on the court and rid this rancid display of crap basketball. JMHO.

If it was a violation, what would the penalty be?

Penalty, award ball to opponent nearest spot of violation of flopping. Mechanic could be...not sure on that one yet.

A1 blows by B1. B1 flops. You stop the game and award the ball out of bounds?

Don't think so.

Well, the penalty for "faking being fouled" is a player technical and penalty is two free throws and ball for division line throw-in. Are you going to call the technical on B1 flop?

I personally have never made this call, have seen it a few times, none recently.

My point is, if you make this a violation, it won't work at all. This would actually help the defense. If your man beats you, flop. The play stops and they take it out of bounds.

How do you know what I do during a game? And you can disagree all you like, but I do not see this as big of a problem that JVG made it out to be. I am lucky if one player flops in a single game and if they do, when we do not reward them they figure it out and stop. A lot of times it is just a player that is trying to take a charge but bails so much that almost no contact takes place and nothing is called. It is clear you have no idea what I call or why I call what I do in a game.

Peace

You are wise beyond your years. So, let's stick to the T and call it. I have in the past called a block if there is a bit of contact and then a flop. Usually the kid complains about the call and I inform the kid that the next time it looks like a flop, a T comes next. That generally fixes the problem with flopping.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/04wtn2XAgMg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="480"></iframe>

I think if any play would ever fit your scenario, it would be this one. ;)

I do think there's a foul here...it's obvious the defender puts the forearm in the Evan's chest and pushes in retaliation for the hard, blind (legal) screen. But Reggie Evans does his best European soccer player impression on this play and is rightfully getting blasted in the media for it. One of the rare times, in an NBA game, where you'll see a flagrant foul penalty two get downgraded all the way to just a run-of-the-mill personal foul.

This is the play he should have been going nuts over.

This play reminded me of the game I saw in South Africa where Kaka from Brazil was Red Carded for a wonderful acting job by a player from the Ivory Coast. It looked like bad acting live, but when I saw it on replay back at the hotel, it was just as funny as this play.

Peace

And even on this type of play, I'm okay with the personal foul on this call. That type of play can lead to escalation if not dealt with right away. But if the league wanted to treat this like they do technical fouls (in that points accumulate as does the amount of the fine...all leading to suspension at a threshold), then this would be the poster child for the type of play they should penalize.

On a side note, during the FIFA World Cup, I think they should review all yellow cards as those can lead to missed games. I also wouldn't mind if they assessed yellow cards after the fact, for diving...just like a technical foul or flagrant foul can be assessed after the fact in the NBA for the total number of points/total number needed for suspension.

And I would have no problem with such retroactive penalties in the NBA like the NFL does. It is after all a league and they can review every video to penalize such actions. As I said before it would have been much more appropriate to go crazy over this kind of play that started this thread.

Peace

+1

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.

btw....i know EXACTLY what you do during a game, because I have worked with you at various levels and in various environments.....

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.

Far be it for me to get in between the two of you, but this is where I disagree with you.

A player falling does not have to be either a flop or a foul. If, in bracing for imminent contact, the defender leans backwards to the point where he loses his balance, then contact from the offense isn't what causes him to fall. No foul. Remember, the rule is for "faking being fouled," and that's not what happened here, either, so it's nothing.

Most times, this is what happens. It's the same as incidental contact prior to a travel. We have to judge whether the travel (or fall) would have happened without the contact.

All I can say is if this stuff is happening in every game you work, your area has some issues.

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.

Totally agree with you here.

Peace

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.

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

Unless you live in Central Illinois and you live in my home town then you could not have worked with me that much. Maybe we have worked together but do not exaggerate what we have done on the court.

Peace

I'm guessing he's speaking metaphorically.

The most prevelant example of players faking be fouled are 3-point shooters who fling themselves to the ground when the defender breathes on them.

How many of you "call the T and flopping will stop" grandstanders have ever called a T for it?

I understand where you're going & I seriously doubt guys are whacking players for that. Many people feel that the acting 3 point shooter put himself in a bad defensive position by laying down & that is penalty enough as everyone is headed the other way.
Cant blame the player for trying, they know if the covering official is watching the flight of the ball, they might get that call. Smart players!

IMO bodies down in the paint is of more concern than a shooter down at the arc.

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.

Making the statement "call the T and flopping will stop" doesn't mean I'm going to call it. It just means that I believe that if you were to call the T, the flopping would stop.....and it would.

However, I'm not going out there and calling a different game than my peers even if I believe it would solve a problem and make the game better. I don't care to be a pioneer by enforcing a rule that no one else enforces.

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.

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.

Jeff u live in the Wheaton-area (i live in suburban chicago too), we've attended the same college camps together (even drove together in the same car!), we've worked college games together, we work for the same college/HS assignors, you would recognize my name/face/etc in a second.

I would NEVER think of working games in Central Ill (no matter how they much paid!)...but I know your family lives there so it makes sense for you.

Your love of Michigan is a little much for me, but it's better than being a Hoosier!!!!

btw....I literally know you (and u know me) not metaphorically (it amazes me what so people on this forum create in their own minds).

You do realize that Jeff goes by his real name, while you don't - and have no other info about yourself given in your profile. So how is he supposed to recognize you???

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?

And everything he said is common knowledge. You do not have to be a close friend or ride in a car to know that.

Peace

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

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.

That's subjective. And it's also subjective whether the contact caused the ensuing "something".

If a player embellishes the severity of the contact is it faking a foul, whether or not a foul is judged by that particular official? Wait:

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.

Personally, I've never seen flopping or faking a foul to be a big problem in my games. More times than not it's the player's own coach who will tell him to quit falling down and/or to stay in there and take the charge.

This is what I see as well. Coaches here tend to know why I no-called it.

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?

From a previous thread:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ng-fouled.html

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6KR1qzj-3kI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looks like that FIBA official didn't get the memo. ;)

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 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

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.