PC, Block or No-Call (video)

[ballgame99]

PC. Embellishment yes, but overembellishment (aka: flop) no. I've no-called over embellishments before, but I think I would have PC'd this play.

L is looking right at it though, and C let him take/not take it. If you are that L, do you have a problem with a C who came in and got that one?

[HawkeyeCubP]

I'm in the PC camp. But barely.

[zm1283]

Nothing, but would not criticize anyone who called a block.

That was the definition of embellishment by the defender. He acts like he got RTFO and he barely got bumped.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

PC. Embellishment yes, but overembellishment (aka: flop) no. I've no-called over embellishments before, but I think I would have PC'd this play.

L is looking right at it though, and C let him take/not take it. If you are that L, do you have a problem with a C who came in and got that one?

Play is either a PC or nothing. The defender was legal and did nothing wrong, including falling down.
The Lead needs to determine whether the defender was knocked down or fell down trying to draw a whistle. That is his judgment call to make.
I'd have a big problem with either the C or T overriding his judgment and coming in with a call here. The Lead obviously has a good look at the play and doesn't need help.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Play is either a PC or nothing. The defender was legal and did nothing wrong, including falling down.
The Lead needs to determine whether the defender was knocked down or fell down trying to draw a whistle. That is his judgment call to make.
I'd have a big problem with either the C or T overriding his judgment and coming in with a call here. The Lead obviously has a good look at the play and doesn't need help.

I do agree with this. I don't think many guys I work with would care for the C coming in to get this when it's right in front of the Lead.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

True, but there's no rule against this. It may be counterproductive, but it's not illegal.

Sure it is. The rule is for faking being "fouled". It is not for faking contact. If the player wasn't fouled (which you judge by not calling a foul) but tried to make it look like he was fouled, then he faked being fouled.

We may not call it so strictly, giving the benefit of doubt in most cases, but that is what the rules say.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it is. The rule is for faking being "fouled". It is not for faking contact. If the player wasn't fouled (which you judge by not calling a foul) but tried to make it look like he was fouled, then he faked being fouled.

We may not call it so strictly, giving the benefit of doubt in most cases, but that is what the rules say.

If he really got "fouled" he wasn't "faking being fouled" but rather exaggerating the effect of the foul. Is this a part of the rule? When I think of a T here I think of a true flop, a player who falls with little to no contact.

[APG]

Defender embellished...no call on that.

I have a tripping foul on the defender afterward

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

I have a tripping foul on the defender afterward

Really? You think that the defender actively tripped the offensive player while on the ground?
This isn't a college game. Don't apply NCAA rules to the defender!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If he really got "fouled" he wasn't "faking being fouled" but rather exaggerating the effect of the foul. Is this a part of the rule? When I think of a T here I think of a true flop, a player who falls with little to no contact.

If he got fouled, then there would be a foul call against his opponent (by definition) If there isn't such a call, then you can't use the argument that he was fouled to say it isn't a fake.

Of course, I'm not saying this guy should be T'd, just commenting on what the really says. I passed on a far more egregious flop recently that was probably about as much of a flop as there ever could be. Why? It is not something that gets called and I'm not going to be a pioneer....but it was a flop.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If he got fouled, then there would be a foul call against his opponent (by definition) If there isn't such a call, then you can't use the argument that he was fouled to say it isn't a fake.

What I'm saying is the fact that he embellished the contact should not keep a foul from being called if it otherwise would have, and I think sometimes it is.

Of course, I'm not saying this guy should be T'd, just commenting on what the really says. I passed on a far more egregious flop recently that was probably about as much of a flop as there ever could be. Why? It is not something that gets called and I'm not going to be a pioneer....but it was a flop.

Well, it's a T or nothing. If it's not called, it doesn't really matter what the rule says, you know, kinda like a travel.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it is. The rule is for faking being "fouled". It is not for faking contact. If the player wasn't fouled (which you judge by not calling a foul) but tried to make it look like he was fouled, then he faked being fouled.

We may not call it so strictly, giving the benefit of doubt in most cases, but that is what the rules say.

I guess this is where we differ.

1- If he gets hit and goes down I don't know why. He could be embelishing, he could have been off balance trying to lean away to avoid/protect, he might just ahve bailed out because he doesn't like getting in the chest because he's a big pu$$. I can't make that judgement. A kid who barely gets hit and goes down is not "faking" being fouled/hit if only because you have no way of knowing what the thought process or motivation for going down that hard would be.

If the kid doesn't get touched and goes down as if he was u can pretty easily make the assumption he's faking something.

2 - The wording "faking being fouled" is inherently poor. To my mind the fake has to be for faking contact. If the fake isn't for faking contact, but rather faking a foul . . . how can anyone fake a foul. Its only a foul if we judge contact to be a foul. He can't fake blow your whistle for u? He can fake contact or fake excessive contact but until you blow your whistle its not a foul, and if you call it a foul he's not faking. If its only a foul if you call it then he can't fake what you are going to call. So by definition you could never actually call this if you interpretted foul literrally which is why I tend to infer that it must mean faking contact.

[Zoochy]

The C does not rotate fast enough to be coming in to make a call. Leads call all the way. If I choose, then I choose a PC.

[Ref16]

This one is close IMO, as others have stated.

I will join the team of PC foul though. To me, in real time and replay-it looked like LGP was established and the defender took an elbow as the offensive player turned into him (initiating contact) while making his move to the basket.

JMHO....

[onetime1]

I am going PC foul. It looks like the offense player smashes through the defense on this play. Defense established legal g position easily. I am shipping it the other way.