I interpreted it as the refs calling fouls on the defender when before there would have been a no-call. Flopping annoys me, like it annoys most people. But if there is no basis for this in the rules of basketball, in my eyes you cannot start calling defensive fouls for flops that are trying to draw charge calls. A flop is falling down when there is little or no contact. Therefore, it should not be a defensive foul. If they get rid of the no call, it puts even more pressure on the refs to get it right because some sort of foul WILL be called. Now refs are going to be more prone to err on the side of screwing the defensive player, when it is usually the offensive player that is out of control in these situations.
from how i'm reading the article, it has nothing to do with offensive flopping. they'll probably keep calling it the way the have. However, I think if they used your plan, the refs would have more impact on the game. They'd have to decide if the guy was flopping on every other play. They'd have the power to award free throws willy nilly. At least with the current system fans can accept the fact that stars and offensive players tend to get more calls, so they try to take advantage of that fact.
I guess it all depends on how you define flops. If a flop is only when there is little contact and shouldn't have been a foul....then that will be very hard to detect. However, if a flop is simply embellishing the contact (hockey now has a penalty for diving -- which is called whether or not the dive follows contact) then the call becomes much easier to make. The defender should not try to 'draw the foul' by his actions. He should stand his ground, and let the ref call the foul based on the offensive player's actions. If the defender tries to 'draw the foul' be emphasizing the contact....he has committed a separate foul (assuming the new rule is implemented) and should be called for it.
I guess i'm assuming that the players will adjust their play so that they wouldn't be 'flopping' to draw a foul. If there is no change in the play...then you're right, Kenny, that they've just added one more judgement call for the ref to make.
This writing is terrible. In "the latter option more often will be called as a defensive foul," what is the 'latter option?' The rest of the article doesn't make it any clearer. Is he trying to say that plays that would have been non-calls last season will be defensive fouls this season? If so, Kenny, I think you're complaint is right. But, how can you trust someone with such a poor grasp of the English language?
during the games..refs have a hard time distinguishing whether or not if a player is flopping...hence some get away with it... but its usually obvious in replays....i say after games...they review calls and fine those who flop...
Heck, let it be a no call. How many times would you land on your butt without a call in your favor? RR
The latter option as in the last of the 3 options the ref traditionals has had: 1. Offensive foul; 2. Defensive foul; 3. No call. He is stating the no call is now more likely to be called a defensive foul. I disagree. Defensive foul should be a foul on the player. By definition a true flop implies no contact. They should award a technical foul for unsportsman-like conduct (like taking a dive in soccer gets you a yellow card). Get caught twice in a game & your gone; not to mention the free throw & the reset of the time clock. Also aren't players nominally fined for techs these days. That seems to be a pretty servere penalty. .... I'd be all for baiting the refs with "offensive flops" to be fair game as well. Think how much it would improve the flow of the game. Not to mention the public persona of the game. All the oncourt whining for fouls & flopping turns far more people off than what Allen Iverson chooses to wear from the team bus to the locker room.
Just like you find in soccer, flagrant flops are cautioned (yellow card) and this comes with a fine. Two cautions results into one match ban. This measure has greatly reduced flopping and deterred floppers. Many might see a technical in backets as very hash though but we will see how the NBA wants to tackle this. Like someone stated earlier, tje flop call in itself can be subjective unless the the very blatant/flagrant ones.
I think the stake is high enough as of now for the ref to decide whether it's charging (offensive) or blocking (defensive) foul. It could alter the outcome of a game in crucial moments. If you add the possibility of punishment of flopping in there, it will make the calls more crucial. I don't want to see too many games decided by some judgment call by the officials. Almost all charging fouls have some flopping element in there because most of the time, even real contact is made, the player can usually keep his balance by moving his feet after he is hit. That should be a charging foul. But if you don't fall, the refs won't call it. So what they do is keep the feet planted and fall backward. I my opinion, a post player who uses the shoulder/body/backside to bump the defender backward to create room is charging. You should not be allowed to use any part of your body to push the defender away. But this kind of bumping is not called. So what can the defender do? He either moves his feet and get bumped backward, giving the offensive player space to score. Or he can plant his feet and fall and hope for an offensive foul call. I think if you have to punish flopping, only the very obvious ones should be punished.
If only we would have had this back in '97. Of course, Stockton and Malone wouldn't be Hall of Fame bound if we had this rule... In fact, we should CALL it thie S&M rule, in honor of their floppyness. Take that however you value it.
It's almost impossible to do when the offensive player is in motion toward you and you are standing still unless you are much bigger or stronger than him.
As well as Gasol. The bad news is, looks like Yao perfected the art of flopping last night against the Wizards. I guess he did it twice without getting the call.
So are they going to start giving T's to players who lie about who was hit last when a ball goes out of bounds when the refs know better? Do they give T's to players who lie and say "he did it first" or "What? I didn't do nothing", when that player commited a foul? A flop should be a no call. Floppers are falsifying contact. If the league starts calling techs for each act of dishonesty on the court the game would be slowed considerably.
Who said anything about lying when a ball was hit out of bounds or the other stuff you mention? This is about flopping only. Don't take one measured step out to some crazy extreme and say because the extreme is bad the measured step is also bad. Nothing has been instuted to penalize players for "each act of dishonesty". Try to keep the discussion intelligent. There are risks with this move, no doubt, but let's see what happens before jumping off the deep end. If the refs overreach or more harm is done than good, the whole thing will die. Based on the preseason, I haven't noticed much difference at all.
Read it again. To answer his 3 questions. No, no & no. He may be right that a flop should be a no call, but I like this experiment. If it fails, junk it. But the league isn't going to start calling fouls for each act of dishonesty; just flopping. If they decide to expand it as some here suggest, that is another story.
Flopping is trying to get a call that is not there. Players do that all the time in many different forms. Center's point is that why single out flopping unless there is a good reason. One reason is that flopping changes the way both defense and offense are played. I think that is a good enough reason to at least look into the issue. To me, a similar form of getting a call for nothing that is quite common in the NBA is when an offensive player jumps into the defender, creating the contact and getting the foul call in his favor. Star players like Iverson and Francis (and, yes, Karl Malone) do that all the time. TMac is famous for his "pump fake and jump into you when you are coming down" move. I think this kind of calls are very unfair to the defender.
