FT flopping, then Flagrant Foul.

[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.