PC, Block or No-Call (video)

[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!

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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!

What NCAA-specific rule would that be?

NFHS 10-6-1
A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

What NCAA-specific rule would that be?

NFHS 10-6-1
A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

The one which states that a player down on the floor doesn't have LGP (NCAA) as opposed to the NFHS ruling which states that he does have a legal spot and shouldn't be penalized unless he clearly grabs or purposely trips an opponent.

Both rulings have been posted on this forum several times in the past.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The one which states that a player down on the floor doesn't have LGP (NCAA) as opposed to the NFHS ruling which states that he does have a legal spot and shouldn't be penalized unless he clearly grabs or purposely trips an opponent.

Both rulings have been posted on this forum several times in the past.

Forgot. I do that more often now.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

What NCAA-specific rule would that be?

NFHS 10-6-1
A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s), or by bending his/her body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics.

I don't see any of those that this defender did. His foot remained where it was when he had LGP...he didn't extended it or anything.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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!

What a cowardly stance to avoid calling the foul.

B1 trips A1, that is plain as day. B1 wasn't already lying on the floor. And B1's right leg up in air at a 45 degree angle is not a legal guarding position. Please, get real.

PC or Block (trip). A no-call is an incorrect call.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

B1 trips A1, that is plain as day. B1 wasn't already lying on the floor. And B1's right leg up in air at a 45 degree angle is not a legal guarding position. Please, get real.

I see A1 fall because his momentum has taken him through a stationary defender that has LGP. A block/trip would be a brutal call here IMO. Its PC or nothing. Or you could call a bail out travel I guess.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I see A1 fall because his momentum has taken him through a stationary defender that has LGP. A block/trip would be a brutal call here IMO. Its PC or nothing. Or you could call a bail out travel I guess.

That matches my opinion, but BNR doesn't care for it. I'm not going to result to insults though because someone doesn't agree with me.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What a cowardly stance to avoid calling the foul.

B1 trips A1, that is plain as day. B1 wasn't already lying on the floor. And B1's right leg up in air at a 45 degree angle is not a legal guarding position. Please, get real.

PC or Block (trip). A no-call is an incorrect call.

I agree with this description. B1's flop causes his right leg/foot to go in between A1's legs causing him to trip and fall. Two bodies on the floor in this particular plays needs a whistle, one way or the other.

Although L rotated pretty well, he didn't get positioned the way he needs to. He needs to be positioned 45 degrees towards the paint, not parallel to the baseline. Shoot, you could almost argue he's angled to some degree towards the sideline! One more step 'out' and getting 45 degrees could have given him a much clearer angle on this play.

[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.