FT flopping, then Flagrant Foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I'd only agree with that if they'd give the flopper a T, making it a double foul.

If the offensive player had not exaggerated, the defensive player would have gotten away with foul. The exaggeration is what led to the video review.

But the offensive player most definitely got fouled, so he wasn't faking..

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the offensive player had not exaggerated, the defensive player would have gotten away with foul.

With this mentality, you're only encouraging exaggeration/flopping.

Let's say A-1 stealthily gives B-2 at shot in the groin, and B-2 loudly cries out, "Aaah! Motherf***er!!!" The loud profanity brings attention to the egregious act, which you may not have noticed without it, but it still doesn't justify the reaction.

One illegal act does not allow permission for another. And yes, he most certainly was faking. If you go down strictly from the opponent's contact, that's fine. If the intent is to make the contact seem worse than it really is, that's faking.

[Raymond]

Faking being fouled means he didn't get fouled. Since they called a FF1 upon review, by definition he was not faking.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Faking being fouled means he didn't get fouled. Since they called a FF1 upon review, by definition he was not faking.

That's not exclusively the rule. Don't forget, it's prefaced with those key words, "is not limited to."

[Rich]

What the B player did was not a basketball play. It was BS. The right outcome prevailed, IMO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's not exclusively the rule. Don't forget, it's prefaced with those key words, "is not limited to."

I'm more interested in the defender committing an intentional, non-basketball play than I am in whether target embellished the contact. Big picture vs. small picture.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm more interested in the defender committing an intentional, non-basketball play than I am in whether target embellished the contact. Big picture vs. small picture.

This is where our pictures differ. I believe flopping/embellishing to be a problem that needs to be addressed, period.

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Wouldn't you have a FF1 then a technical foul?

Didn't mean to gloss over this, Sharp. Good question. Can you even double up a flagrant/intentional foul with a technical (in any rule set)?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This is where our pictures differ. I believe flopping/embellishing to be a problem that needs to be addressed, period.
..

It's not a problem anywhere I officiate, nor is embellishing something addressed in any rule set I work. You can only embellish something that already exists by fact.

What's a problem is players finding new ways to gain an advantage by committing sneaky fouls, and no officials being aware of it.

What's troublesome to me is officials being more concern with one player's exaggerated reaction as opposed another player's illegal original action.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

With this mentality, you're only encouraging exaggeration/flopping.

Let's say A-1 stealthily gives B-2 at shot in the groin, and B-2 loudly cries out, "Aaah! Motherf***er!!!" The loud profanity brings attention to the egregious act, which you may not have noticed without it, but it still doesn't justify the reaction.

One illegal act does not allow permission for another. And yes, he most certainly was faking. If you go down strictly from the opponent's contact, that's fine. If the intent is to make the contact seem worse than it really is, that's faking.

I don't know about you, but getting hit in the groin justifies that response from me.


And faking does not equal embellishment. The T is for faking being foul...as in you acted as if you were fouled when there was no foul to be had. If there's a foul to be had on the play, even with some embellishment, you can't fake being fouled cause you've ruled that he's been fouled. To try and even up the score in your mind by calling a T on the fouled player is a pioneer call (and some would say not even support by rule)...especially when it's ruled that the player was FLAGRANTLY (or in NFHS, INTENTIONALLY) fouled!