Flopping to Falling and everywhere in between.
 

Falling to fake a foul = Technical foul.

Players are allowed to protect themselves.

Had an interesting discussion with a coach tonight. He must have been one of the rare ones who actually reads rule books or listens when we talk. Partner and I talked about it after game and wil bring it up at next meeting.

When does falling constitute flopping? If a kid is yelling and slapping the floor and looks like a soccer player rolling around inciting the crowd then obviously if there was minimal or no contact then you could warn and/or t them up.

What if its a block charge situation and a player is getting set then just bailing out early? If they start leaning away and anticipation of contact and are basically on their way down before contact can occur and then never does, is that flopping?

I know we can't officiate intent but the kid may not be faking a foul and warning/T'ing up a kid for being soft doesn't seem like the same call.

What is your standard for "flopping"?

FYI - I've only ever been a part of two games where t's were handed out for flopping/faking fouls. One was well deserved. The other - kid had been warned earlier and and went down hard on a play where he reaches in and gets blown by. Partner t'd him up for flopping kid get up and spits a bloody tooth out on his shoe.

Falling? Flopping can take many forms, but is almost never a technical foul.

What do you mean by this?

You reference this discussion with a coach but never tell us what was said. What did the coach say? How did you respond?

Or they may really be hurt, as in your example below.

If a player has established Legal Guarding Position and starts falling before contact occurs, I call a block. I see the player falling early as a safety risk....the offensive player may land on the defenders legs and twist an ankle or get tangled up. Whatever happens, it is less safe for all players involved.

Flopping as a basketball term is defined as "inventing or embellishing contact in order to deceive a referee into calling a foul on the other team". You must understand the difference between inventing contact where none exists (see Paul, Chris) and embellishing contact that has occured (see Miller, Reggie).


This is why you should never call a T for flopping.

If the defender has LGP and falls , so long as the fall does not create illegal contact, whatever else it may be, it isn't a block.

Agreed. It's not illegal for the defender to brace for contact, and falling backwards with pending contact fits that for me. Falling does not involve any action that negates or removes LGP.

Flopping is not defined, as it isn't in the rule. The T is for "faking being fouled", not falling down.

I've called it. Once. And I'd do it again in that specific situation.

Smarter Than The Av-Er-Age Coach ...
 

I had a coach today, in a scrimmage, after my partner called a hand check, yell to his players, "We play under National Federation of State High School Associations rules. These rules say that you can't play defense with your hands". I'm willing to bet that many coaches in my area don't even know what the NFHS is, yet know that we play under their rule set.

Thanks guys. There may be some slightly different language between the NFHS and FIBA rule books but the concept is basically the same.

We had a kid who would set up to take a charge and the rock back to avoid? the contact. Two/ three situations in a row she ended up hitting the ground before contact occurred. Was a girls game so there weren't shooters flying through the air or anyone for her to occupy a "landing area".

Opposing coach wanted a T for flopping. We didn't feel it was a flop just a bail out. Partner did go to talk to the player's coach about it and that we would be watching for flopping. Coach said that was fine but that you could only T a kid up for trying to fake being fouled or doing something to incite the crowd. The she kept avoiding contact and she wasn't faking being fouled she was being a "pu$$y" and you couldn't t a kid up for being soft.

Sounds like just about everyone here is on the same page. That unless a kid is blatantly trying to fake being fouled in anyway (falling down, grabbing a limb, etc) we don't really deal with it.

In these cases, I just no-call it. Around here, the coaches know why, and yell at the kids to stand their ground.

IMO, coach is right. Some kids just get squeamish and bail out early.

No, if by falling, she's getting herself into another player's path, you may have a block.

If the defender gets into LGP, then they have right to that vertical space. However, if by falling he/she leaves that vertical space, then wouldn't a blocking call be correct?

With contact, in college you would be correct, no so in HS.

I'm sorry, I was talking in terms of a block/charge call.

Sure -- if they fall "into" the offensive player. But if they "fall" away from the defender, then contact would not be a block (unless they hit the ground in college)

What would be an example of illegal contact in this case?

An example, for me, would be falling into the path of another player.

What has the defender done to negate or lose LGP?

By moving out of his/her verticality... that's how. Just because one gets LGP, that doesn't mean he/she can then do whatever they want.

I understand that if they fall away from the offense then they are not at fault for the contact, and therefore are not whistled for a foul. But the foul would not be the result of having LGP, it would be the result of the offensive player being the cause of the contact.

They haven't lost LGP just because they "lose verticality". That's not a requirement in the rule.

I'm really not interested in trying to sell a player control foul when a player is already falling backwards well before contact.

No contact, no call. With contact: Block. Don't flop next time, kid.

You're just a coward, then. ;)

I'm not a pioneer, either.

I go with no call on both. I'm calling a block that isn't.

Why? What rule do you use to justify this call?

I ask because we have a number of guys in our association who call it this way also - even though the defender is allowed to recoil, turn away, etc in order to lessen the contact.

So I don't get calling a block on a kid who has LGP and starts falling backward so that they don't get put into the hospital.

Since when do I have to justify a block call with a rule citation?

I'm not talking about a kid who fades away slightly as the player comes into him -- I'm talking about a kid who starts falling to the floor when the player is still quite a distance away and causes awkward contact that puts both players at risk.

Lots of big dogs call it this way (and I'm not calling myself a big dog, I'm just repeating what I've heard from NCAA officials who are in a position to tell HS officials how to call plays).

I agree completely Rich. Especially the bolded parts.

Wasn't asking you to justify it to a coach or player...was asking you to explain your rule basis for calling it that way to me as another official so I could understand your reasoning.

And it sounds like I was simply picturing the play differently (less extreme) than you were.

It's been a real issue the past few years. I had one on Friday night where the player fell back so early, the offensive player never made contact and wen't through the space the player once occupied (and over the player who fell to the floor). I no called that, but it could've been ugly.

I'm not saying I expect a player to stay in there and "take a charge like a man," but starting to fall to the floor before contact, while probably not flopping, is really not what's intended by the "absorb contact" or "protect himself" statements, either.

My partner said he told the player that he could call a technical foul for flopping and I encouraged him to not be a pioneer in that area, either.

Isn't calling a block when it's contrary to the definition of a block also being a pioneer?

This isn't a pioneer call...I'd actually venture more officials than not officiate this play just like Rich has talked about.

Okay, somebody else pioneered it, but my problem is that it has no rules basis.

Call it that way because everybody else does it? Sounds familiar, I guess.

For me, it's not pioneering if that's the way your bosses want it called. I don't like it, and I don't call it that way; but that's not a hill worth dying on for me.

How does a defender fading away cause any contact? Seems to me that the offensive player is the one who has caused this contact by continuing to go at the defender in his path. Maybe if we were to properly call charges when they happen, defenders wouldn't fell compelled to fade away so much.

Most guys I know around here that call a block when the kid falls backward with little or no contact always ended telling me they are "teaching" that kid a lesson & "that'll stop that". I like Adam's response about do it the way your boss wants it called.

I agree with this. If there is contact when the defender starts to fall early then there would have been contact if the defender didn't fall. Doesn't seem like this contact can be the fault of the defender.

I agree. I'll add, though, that if the defender starts falling early, it becomes more difficult to tell if he fell due to contact or due to his own actions. If I can't tell, I may go with a no-call.

That's exactly it -- he doesn't get to "fall to avoid contact". He can turn to absorb contact or he can give ground. Falling/throwing himself to the ground doesn't fit that criteria, IMO. It's dangerous and it almost always makes us look bad, no matter what we call.

I agree with this; I've just found no-calls to be sufficient to put a stop to it. Only once in recent memory have I had a team not get the message on the first one. He got my more direct message/warning.

What, however, if the offensive player trips over the defender and ends up on the floor himself? It's not the offensive player's fault that this happened? And I'm not going to look at it as, "well, it would've been a player control foul had the player stayed in there" cause, well, he DIDN'T.

Honestly, I'm good with a PC because the defender hasn't lost his LGP, hasn't done anything illegal. All he did wrong was panic and move backwards.

If the defender falls into a different path and that causes the contact, I'll go with a block.

I'd really have to see it to know how I'd rule on a given play.

I really like how the bold part is worded, I think that's a very good justification as to this being a block. I agree with previous posters about being able to turn to absorb contact, moving backwards, etc., but when their backwards lean will clearly result in them falling down prior to or without contact, then I think they are also giving up LGP

I agree Adam.

Sure it is the offensive player's fault. They kept going at a defender who was legally in their path. They were the one in control of the action and contact. All I have is a defender in LGP legally ducking by backing a way from contact and falling in the process. If the offense wants to jump onto/over them, that is their problem.

I very wall may not call a PC but I'm sure not calling a block with no rule support whatsoever.

Well this has gotten heated .. . I guess I should chime back in on the various scenarios and my reasoning (Assuming LGP was established in each):

1) Kid falls prior to contact. No contact occurs at all. No-Call can't call fouls without contact.

2) Kid starts falling/falls prior to contact would have be PC if kid got hit and knocked down but now contact may still be offenses fault but is not disadvantaging player already on the way to the floor. No Call.

3) Player falls prior to contact but now becomes responsible for contact with outsretched arm or flailing body part that trips up or impedes an offensive player. Block/Illegal Hands on Defense.

4) Player leans/braces to absorb and protect but contact sends them to ground. Charge.

Sounds good to me.

Me too.

Me too, actually. I rarely see kids fall straight backwards.