FT flopping, then Flagrant Foul.
 

FT flooping?

Did anyone see this play?

It was funny but how would you handle this?

Oh, feel free to embed this if possible. I cannot seem to do it on my IPad.

Peace

I believe the ended up giving the player who did the pushing a FF1. I agree with that. I would have liked the C to be a little more active there either telling him to knock it off or giving information about what he saw immediately. A little acting but that is not anything close to a basketball play.

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

T the B player. That will stop all the nonsense that goes on. Then tell the A coach that acting isn't appreciated.

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

There is a difference between flopping and exaggeration. This is exaggeration by the white jersey player. If the black jersey player does not want to be called for a flagrant foul then he should not be sticking his hand there.

It's been stated here before but I don't recall. What determines what they can and can't review? I have a lane violation, before and after the review.

Ball was live, couldn't have a T for that.

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..

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.

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."

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

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.

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)?