PC, Block or No-Call (video)

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Looks like a flop. I think I have a block considering the flop ended up tripping the player.

Peace

My thoughts as well. I also think the C could've picked up the block - or at least been more comfortable calling it - if he'd been at the FTLE as opposed to above the top of the key. Regardless, I don't think this was a play on.

[Pantherdreams]

Not to start a storm here but in order:

1) I've got a PC. Player was in proper guarding position and offense intitated the contact. This has been something I've been looking at in therms of my officaiting and in games I can get ape of. IME, If we don't get these and call them charges you end up with the majority of 50/50 calls turn into 80/20 calls. Where defense gets called for the block at least 1/2 the time or more when trying to draw and charge and then no called to the point where only the most extreme pc's get called and they only get a charge go 10-20% of the time.

2) Even if you don't think the contact is enough to have caused him to go down and want to no call it, IMO, that is not flopping. I equate the term flopping with faking being fouled, he isn't faking contact that doesn't exist and as the defender is allowed to move backwards and absorb contact/protect themselves. If he doesn't want to stand there until you make the kid collapse his chest that's not faking being fouled.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

IMO, that is not flopping. I equate the term flopping with faking being fouled, he isn't faking contact that doesn't exist and as the defender is allowed to move backwards and absorb contact/protect themselves. If he doesn't want to stand there until you make the kid collapse his chest that's not faking being fouled.

Flopping isn't only faking contact, it is also faking the amount of contact in an attempt to make the contact look worse than it was.....which is what this defender did.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Flopping isn't only faking contact, it is also faking the amount of contact in an attempt to make the contact look worse than it was.....which is what this defender did.

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

Come on, that is a really weak cop out. It isn't that hard to tell. I don't have to know what he was thinking when you can see what they do.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

2 - The wording "faking being fouled" is inherently poor. To my mind the fake has to be for faking contact.

Except that isn't what the rule says at all.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

What is all that silly stuff for. The rule isn't unclear like you're trying to make it. I agree that it may not be one we should enforce to the letter or even close but you're just making yourself look silly with all of those gymnastics you're having to go through to avoid taking the rule for what it is.

[#olderthanilook]

This is probably considered a 50/50, which means the crew needs to be aware of a similar play yielding a similar (play on) result on the other end. ( Which does not mean the crew passes on everything similar. )

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

This is probably considered a 50/50, which means the crew needs to be aware of a similar play yielding a similar (play on) result on the other end. ( Which does not mean the crew passes on everything similar. )

Then what does it mean?

[referee99]

Everything about this play is consistent with the way this crew worked the game.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Then what does it mean?

It means, call the game consistently. If a crew "no calls" something they think is worthy a no call on one end, no call it on the other.

But, that doesn't mean a 'no call' is the only option the next time there are bodies on the floor. If there is a foul, call the foul.

In either case, just be consistent.