I want to talk about 'flopping' a little bit.

[dukestheheat]

ok, i played basketball like most people who will read this thread. i want to quickly address the topic of 'flopping' that for some reason we (Duke) get criticized for much more than most teams that I check out.

first, I get the distinct feeling that people who complain about 'flopping' are mostly waifs or whiny wafer types who never even played competitive basketball (ie, where you had a coach, and you had to go to practice, and you had to learn basic things like HOW TO TAKE A CHARGE).

so, a couple things about this:

1) Taking a charge is supposed to be an integral part of the 'defense' side of basketball.
2) We have a coach at Duke who thrives on teaching defense.
3) To properly take a charge in basketball, you MUST LEAN BACK a little when the opposing player is coming to run over you. You work to ABSORB the impact. You are never to TOTALLY and RIGIDLY repel the contact.
4) If you stand there rigidly YOU WILL BE INJURED. (hello? is anyone reading this...hello??)

We take a lot of charges at Duke; our coach teaches this. Do ALL of the attempts to take a charge work? NO. Some work, some don't, some look better than others. That is part of the game at Duke. Your guys don't 'flop' probably because they don't work too hard at (insert your school name here) in teaching the full theory of defense. All players who are schooled to take a charge HAVE TO FLOP or you get your neck broken daggonit.

So get educated and get over it, and I am sick and very, very tired of hearing so many people tacitly tell us that they really don't understand basketball very well. The next time someone criticizes a Dukie for 'flopping' and trying to take a charge, tell them that their coach should work to teach defense and teach it correctly. We got three NC banners hanging up there in Cameron to prove we've learned a thing or two about playing defense and taking the charge at Duke.

Thank you; my Rant (capitalized) is over.

dukestheheat

[CDu]

First: not really sure why you're ranting at Duke fans about this. This rant would be more appropriate elsewhere, unless you're just looking for people to agree with you.

Second: while you can definitely reasonably be expected to fall down after a legitimate charge taken, there IS such a thing as flopping. A flop occurs when you dive to the floor exagerating contact that wasn't worthy of a charge. When you take a real charge, you fall to the floor, but that's not a flop. When someone dribbles up, makes minimal contact and spins away, and the defender dives to the floor, that's a flop.

In other words: legitimate charge taken = no flop
Diving to try to draw a fake charge = flop

When a defender takes a charge on a shooter, it's very rarely a flop. In those cases, the fall is absolutely the end result of the contact. Flops typically happen much more frequently when a player is on the block, or when a player up top is dribbling toward a defender and tries a spinning change of direction.

Do we currently flop more than other teams? I definitely don't think so. Have we had players who flopped (in addition to taking lots of legitimate charges)? I'd say so.

Battier, for all of his defensive greatness (including the ability to take legitimate charges), definitely did some flopping as well. He didn't flop as much as some people say he did, but he did flop some. But in this day and age, flopping occurs all across the country.

[dukestheheat]

cdu-

not meaning to rant AT our Duke fans, but am only trying to drive home a few points that we aren't as bad at flopping as most people assert and that it's a part of the game. i've flopped, so have you if you played and we shouldn't take any more junk from others about it. is all. i'm tired of others criticizing our guys for something that is part of the game.

dth.

[CDu]

cdu-

not meaning to rant AT our Duke fans, but am only trying to drive home a few points that we aren't as bad at flopping as most people assert and that it's a part of the game. i've flopped, so have you if you played and we shouldn't take any more junk from others about it. is all. i'm tired of others criticizing our guys for something that is part of the game.

dth.

I don't remember flopping, actually. Part of that is because I was a guard when I played (less time spent in the post). Part of that is because I think our definitions of flopping are different.

I don't consider going down after taking a legitimate charge to be a flop. I consider flopping to be like taking a dive in soccer. When you throw yourself to the ground after minimal contact in an overexaggerated attempt at a charge, that's a flop. Thus, flopping (as I define it) IS despicable, and it shouldn't be a part of the game. Falling after trying to take a legit charge is not flopping (and not despicable).

I've seen Battier (and other Duke players) take dives on what were not charges (though not as much as some suggest he did). I agree that it doesn' happen with Duke players nearly as much as some suggest (certainly not this year, and not for a few years really).

[greybeard]

Before you go tooting your devil blue horn, you should understand a few things about flopping:

1. It is a relatively recent invention in the game, circa 1970. You are not going to like knowing its inventor. Can we all say "Dean Smith," boys and girls. It was invented by him at about the same time he installed that other great contribution to the modern game, the Four Corners. Heck, Dean literally made watching college basketball like watching people fish (does anyone watch those shows by the way). I mean, nothing happens for minutes on end when Carolina or a Carolina wanna be had the ball, and then when they go on defense, everybody's flopping around all over the court like fish out of water.

2. Charges were always part of the game, but they were not to be farmed. They happened when someone tried to run through someone. They were rare. Contact of that sort was rare. It was a good thing that such contact was rare. The game kept moving, and people made plays, elegant ones. Some offensive guy put down his head, actually his shoulder, and tried to make like Jim Brown, the refs called a foul. Somebody stepped in front of somebody, the foul was usually on the stepper. There had to be meaningful contact for anything to be called. The idea that there could be "charges" away from the basket, much less by people not moving towards the basket, was ridiculous.

3. I understand this business of forcing people to the baseline and then boxing them in. I'm all for that. K's invention and a damn good one. But, calling a charge on the offensive guy if his shoulder makes contact with the guy who stepped in his way, when no advantage has been gained, is a nonsense call. That is Dean Smith's invention, not K's. They should do away with that call yesterday.

4. In fact, the game would be safer and more elegant if there was no such thing as an "offensive" foul for charging. If an offensive player breaks the plane or whatever the term is and GETS AN ADVANTAGE, do like in choose up games. The other side gets the ball. Period. End of discussion (at least where we used to play, you could never challenge any call the other team made or we would still be playing our first game (a lot of lawyers in that group)). Defensive blocks, they would remain fouls.

Is Duke really accused of using it more than anybody? You guys should be glad. I bet it annoys the heck out of Dean everytime he hears that. :cool:

[Spret42]

Before you go tooting your devil blue horn, you should understand a few things about flopping:

1. It is a relatively recent invention in the game, circa 1970. You are not going to like knowing its inventor. Can we all say "Dean Smith," boys and girls. It was invented by him at about the same time he installed that other great contribution to the modern game, the Four Corners. Heck, Dean literally made watching college basketball like watching people fish (does anyone watch those shows by the way). I mean, nothing happens for minutes on end when Carolina or a Carolina wanna be had the ball, and then when they go on defense, everybody's flopping around all over the court like fish out of water.

2. Charges were always part of the game, but they were not to be farmed. They happened when someone tried to run through someone. They were rare. Contact of that sort was rare. It was a good thing that such contact was rare. The game kept moving, and people made plays, elegant ones. Some offensive guy put down his head, actually his shoulder, and tried to make like Jim Brown, the refs called a foul. Somebody stepped in front of somebody, the foul was usually on the stepper. There had to be meaningful contact for anything to be called. The idea that there could be "charges" away from the basket, much less by people not moving towards the basket, was ridiculous.

3. I understand this business of forcing people to the baseline and then boxing them in. I'm all for that. K's invention and a damn good one. But, calling a charge on the offensive guy if his shoulder makes contact with the guy who stepped in his way, when no advantage has been gained, is a nonsense call. That is Dean Smith's invention, not K's. They should do away with that call yesterday.

4. In fact, the game would be safer and more elegant if there was no such thing as an "offensive" foul for charging. If an offensive player breaks the plane or whatever the term is and GETS AN ADVANTAGE, do like in choose up games. The other side gets the ball. Period. End of discussion (at least where we used to play, you could never challenge any call the other team made or we would still be playing our first game (a lot of lawyers in that group)). Defensive blocks, they would remain fouls.

Is Duke really accused of using it more than anybody? You guys should be glad. I bet it annoys the heck out of Dean everytime he hears that. :cool:

This just became my bible. What was said here pretty much sums the flop/charge thing for me. I don't care who the hell is to blame. I want it out of basketball.

I did play organized basketball, I was raised by a man who played organized ball and what I was always told was the charge was a rare thing for when a guy went barelling to the basket with his head down. Other than that, you kept your feet and played defense.

As far as does Duke do it more than others, of course not. But do a Youtube search on "Paulus Flops" Unfortunately, that play is Duke's rep, albeit most likely unfair.

[feldspar]

I did play organized basketball, I was raised by a man who played organized ball and what I was always told was the charge was a rare thing for when a guy went barelling to the basket with his head down. Other than that, you kept your feet and played defense.

What does you being raised by a person who played "organized ball" have to do with the rules of basketball? Precisely nothing.

Drawing a "charge" (ie, offensive foul) is a concept coaches use to teach their players how to play proper defense. As I have said before, the defense is always entitled to a spot on the court as long as that spot was gained legally and within the prescribed rules. If a player, no matter how "barelling" or not you deem him to be, displaces that player from his spot so that a disadvantage is created, an offensive foul should be called.

You may have a preference for how you like basketball to be played, and that's fine, but the fact is that your opinion has no bearing on the rules of basketball.

[feldspar]

2. Charges were always part of the game, but they were not to be farmed. They happened when someone tried to run through someone. They were rare. Contact of that sort was rare. It was a good thing that such contact was rare. The game kept moving, and people made plays, elegant ones. Some offensive guy put down his head, actually his shoulder, and tried to make like Jim Brown, the refs called a foul. Somebody stepped in front of somebody, the foul was usually on the stepper. There had to be meaningful contact for anything to be called. The idea that there could be "charges" away from the basket, much less by people not moving towards the basket, was ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but to me this just seems like another "back in the old days" argument. Basketball changes. Back in the old days we didn't have the three-point line, or TV replay or things of the like. But things change. Therefore, what's your point?



3. I understand this business of forcing people to the baseline and then boxing them in. I'm all for that. K's invention and a damn good one. But, calling a charge on the offensive guy if his shoulder makes contact with the guy who stepped in his way, when no advantage has been gained, is a nonsense call. That is Dean Smith's invention, not K's. They should do away with that call yesterday.


What play are you referring to? The one where Nolan Smith stepped in the way and an offensive foul was called? Whichever way the call went, how can you say that no advantage was gained? Honestly, I don't understand how a rational person can say no advantage was gained on that play.


4. In fact, the game would be safer and more elegant if there was no such thing as an "offensive" foul for charging. If an offensive player breaks the plane or whatever the term is and GETS AN ADVANTAGE, do like in choose up games. The other side gets the ball. Period. End of discussion (at least where we used to play, you could never challenge any call the other team made or we would still be playing our first game (a lot of lawyers in that group)). Defensive blocks, they would remain fouls.


You act as if the rule is not currently being applied under the advantage/disadvantage principle. It is. That is how most fouls are determined. Furthermore, why do you want to penalize the defense more than the offense? Why, in your scenario, should an offensive player be penalized less for a similar type of contact? I'm interested in your answer.

[greybeard]

You may have a preference for how you like basketball to be played, and that's fine, but the fact is that your opinion has no bearing on the rules of basketball.

I didn't hear (read) him to say otherwise.

This gaining an advantage thing, doesn't flopping, by definition, create that?

In other words, let's say I'm on the wing, and I drive to the baseline, encouraged by my defender. Another defender slides over, cuts off the path to the basket. I see him, continue going until we make contact, but not enough to knock him anywhere, just so I know where he is, and can spin around him, grabbing the ball between my right hand and forearm/wrist, scooping it in the direction I am spinning (I maintain my pivot foot which is my right), and rise for a jump shot from ten feet and sink it. The guy who cut me off would have no chance because I hooked my right foot outside his left before spinning and he is dead meat. Only, I look down and he is on the floor and a whistle has blown and I not only have a masterful basket taken away, but have been assessed a foul, not because I barreled into him, but because I gained an advantage by skill and guile only the guy flopped.

The flop creates my advantage which creates a foul. Now, I know you will say that a discerning ref should be able to separate the wheat from the bs, but, in the heat of the game, we know what the call too often is going to be.

That would be what me and my man object to. That would be some of why we would like the rule changed. Now I could never pull a move like that off (actually I used to all the time), splitting two defender's like that. But, my man, Earl, he made himself a legend doing exactly that. :)

[feldspar]

I didn't hear (read) him to say otherwise.

This gaining an advantage thing, doesn't flopping, by definition, create that?

In other words, let's say I'm on the wing, and I drive to the baseline, encouraged by my defender. Another defender slides over, cuts off the path to the basket. I see him, continue going until we make contact, but not enough to knock him anywhere, just so I know where he is, and can spin around him, grabbing the ball between my right hand and forearm/wrist, scooping it in the direction I am spinning (I maintain my pivot foot which is my right), and rise for a jump shot from ten feet and sink it. The guy who cut me off would have no chance because I hooked my right foot outside his left before spinning and he is dead meat. Only, I look down and he is on the floor and a whistle has blown and I not only have a masterful basket taken away, but have been assessed a foul, not because I barreled into him, but because I gained an advantage by skill and guile only the guy flopped.

The flop creates my advantage which creates a foul. Now, I know you will say that a discerning ref should be able to separate the wheat from the bs, but, in the heat of the game, we know what the call too often is going to be.

That would be what me and my man object to. That would be some of why we would like the rule changed. Now I could never pull a move like that off (actually I used to all the time), splitting two defender's like that. But, my man, Earl, he made himself a legend doing exactly that. :)

A quality ref, 9 times out of 10, will be able to separate the wheat from the BS. They do on a regular basis. It's called a "no-call".

I'm not sure why that answer doesn't seem to satisfy you.

[dukie8]

i'm pretty sure that soccer got sick of their version of flopping and added a rule that if you intentionally flop you get a penalty. would you like a similar rule in college hoops?

[feldspar]

i'm pretty sure that soccer got sick of their version of flopping and added a rule that if you intentionally flop you get a penalty. would you like a similar rule in college hoops?

In high school it's a technical foul. I'm not sure that's need in the college ranks. Refs are generally smart enough to recognize it, and as I've said, 9 times out of 10 when a player flops, it only gives the offensive player more of an advantage.

[greybeard]

A quality ref, 9 times out of 10, will be able to separate the wheat from the BS. They do on a regular basis. It's called a "no-call".

I'm not sure why that answer doesn't seem to satisfy you.

I got no beef with the refs; it is a fast, super fast, and way too physical game.

That said, if they get the flop call right 9 out of 10 times, then I disagree as to what constitutes an advantage. I also seriously do not like the step in play at all. I think you know my reasons, we all have done this dance several times.

I'm for changing the rule, not for trying to tweak it and have the NCAA tell refs how to let more things go or not. Just my view.

My recommendation still stands.

[Karl Beem]

I'd like to see the NBA dotted line, to prevent a player from drawing a charge while under the rim.

[greybeard]

After Dean invented and fell in love with the "flop", he came up with a similar tactic that I thought far more invideous and soured me on him big time. I am talking about the hands up in the air, straight body, take a step towards the shooter, and bring the other foot adjacent, and let the shooter worry about where he was going to come down and whether he could walk afterwards.

That tactic went on for years and I thought it the dirtiest legal play ever invented. I don't know why Carolina stopped using it, but am glad it happened.

Stepping in to draw a charge in the cluster of the paint when the ball carrier is beginning to catch for a finish should be discouraged. That charge call before all else has to go. The little ring around the paint suggested by KB actually sounds like a realistic proposal. Me, I'm a dreamer.

[Duke79UNLV77]

I HATE the NBA circle where if you are anywhere remotely in the vicinity of the basket, it's perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, just to plow over the defender. What does this beget? Big men just lowering the shoulder with the finesse of a sumo wrestler, a la Shaq, and wings driving in out of control. The college rule, and greater proclivity to call charging wherever it occurs, encourages defensive hustle and footwork and offensive control and skill.

As for flop, you shouldn't necessarily have to fall over for there to be a charge, but you almost always have to fall over to get the call. Therefore, you better coach the techniqe. Also, falling over is often legitimate based on contact and to prevent injury. Heck, when I went to basketball camp at Duke during Coach K's first year, he taught how to draw charges.

As for the Paulus flop on Youtube, he was defending something like a 4-on-1 fastbreak. He had absolutely no chance but to try to draw a charge. He tried, the offensive player avoided contact, and no foul was called. Humorous, but no big deal.

The NBA should also go college on: the shot clock and the 5 second rule. This would decrease 1-on-1 play and 2-man games while the rest of the team spectates, as well as forced shots.

[Spret42]

What does you being raised by a person who played "organized ball" have to do with the rules of basketball? Precisely nothing.


He was coached properly. He taught me in the front yard. He helped explain to me the rules as a kid. He helped coach me. Sort of the whole father/son thing. That is all I was saying.

[CMS2478]

Before you go tooting your devil blue horn, you should understand a few things about flopping:

1. It is a relatively recent invention in the game, circa 1970. You are not going to like knowing its inventor. Can we all say "Dean Smith," boys and girls. It was invented by him at about the same time he installed that other great contribution to the modern game, the Four Corners. Heck, Dean literally made watching college basketball like watching people fish (does anyone watch those shows by the way). I mean, nothing happens for minutes on end when Carolina or a Carolina wanna be had the ball, and then when they go on defense, everybody's flopping around all over the court like fish out of water.

2. Charges were always part of the game, but they were not to be farmed. They happened when someone tried to run through someone. They were rare. Contact of that sort was rare. It was a good thing that such contact was rare. The game kept moving, and people made plays, elegant ones. Some offensive guy put down his head, actually his shoulder, and tried to make like Jim Brown, the refs called a foul. Somebody stepped in front of somebody, the foul was usually on the stepper. There had to be meaningful contact for anything to be called. The idea that there could be "charges" away from the basket, much less by people not moving towards the basket, was ridiculous.

3. I understand this business of forcing people to the baseline and then boxing them in. I'm all for that. K's invention and a damn good one. But, calling a charge on the offensive guy if his shoulder makes contact with the guy who stepped in his way, when no advantage has been gained, is a nonsense call. That is Dean Smith's invention, not K's. They should do away with that call yesterday.

4. In fact, the game would be safer and more elegant if there was no such thing as an "offensive" foul for charging. If an offensive player breaks the plane or whatever the term is and GETS AN ADVANTAGE, do like in choose up games. The other side gets the ball. Period. End of discussion (at least where we used to play, you could never challenge any call the other team made or we would still be playing our first game (a lot of lawyers in that group)). Defensive blocks, they would remain fouls.

Is Duke really accused of using it more than anybody? You guys should be glad. I bet it annoys the heck out of Dean everytime he hears that. :cool:

And all this time I thought Vlade Divac invented the "flop".......go figure. ;)

[elvis14]

first, I get the distinct feeling that people who complain about 'flopping' are mostly waifs or whiny wafer types who never even played competitive basketball (ie, where you had a coach, and you had to go to practice, and you had to learn basic things like HOW TO TAKE A CHARGE).


What does you being raised by a person who played "organized ball" have to do with the rules of basketball? Precisely nothing.


The original poster stated that the people complaining about flopping were not coached, etc. Which is basically a way of saying that unless have played organized ball, your opinion doesn't mean crap! In response, the poster you are replying too, prefaced his opinion with his playing credentials and background as being someone who has been coached so by the standard set, his opinion would mean crap. So although it may not have anything to do with the rules of hoops, it was appropriate, unlike your response.



A quality ref, 9 times out of 10, will be able to separate the wheat from the BS. They do on a regular basis. It's called a "no-call".

I'm not sure why that answer doesn't seem to satisfy you.


In high school it's a technical foul. I'm not sure that's need in the college ranks. Refs are generally smart enough to recognize it, and as I've said, 9 times out of 10 when a player flops, it only gives the offensive player more of an advantage.

Oh how I wish your statistics were correct. I'd say that 9 is more like a 5. I'm all for calling legitimate charges but I see way too many flops being called.


I'd like to see the NBA dotted line, to prevent a player from drawing a charge while under the rim.

Although I see the issue with the dotted line (players plowing thru when they get close to the basket) I like the idea of using this dotted line to limit flopping around the basket.

I'm hate the flop. I think there needs to be many more no calls in college basketball. More no calls will lead to fewer flops. I'd like to see flops called as technical fouls.

Then there's Duke's image in regards to the flop. You guys might want to talk to some non-Duke fans. I don't care who invented the flop, Duke has perfected it over the years and has used it to our advantage more than anyone. As a result our players are perceived as bunch of soft floppers by fans of other programs. Watch a non-Duke game in public around here and what you'll hear is stuff like this "That guy should play for Duke"....right after some flops.

[CDu]

Oh how I wish your statistics were correct. I'd say that 9 is more like a 5. I'm all for calling legitimate charges but I see way too many flops being called.

I agree wholeheartedly. The flop is certainly missed more times than 1/10. I'd also add that the flop is probably missed about as regularly as the general charge/block call is called incorrectly on legitimate foul situations.


Although I see the issue with the dotted line (players plowing thru when they get close to the basket) I like the idea of using this dotted line to limit flopping around the basket.

I'm hate the flop. I think there needs to be many more no calls in college basketball. More no calls will lead to fewer flops. I'd like to see flops called as technical fouls.

Technicals would be nice, but realistically they could only be applied in truly egregious examples of flopping. Otherwise, you're back to the issue of the official accurately determining the difference between a flop and a real foul.

[allenmurray]

Also, falling over is often legitimate based on contact and to prevent injury. Heck, when I went to basketball camp at Duke during Coach K's first year, he taught how to draw charges.


Very good point. Falling at the beginning of contact, by letting your body go with the direction of the offensive player, will prevent many injuries that would occur if you tried to remain standing.

[CDu]

Very good point. Falling at the beginning of contact, by letting your body go with the direction of the offensive player, will prevent many injuries that would occur if you tried to remain standing.

I agree that, on shooting instances in which the shooter is airborne and makes contact, falling is the best scenario. And in these situations I'd never call it a flop.

The ones I have a beef with are (some of) the ones in which both players are on their feet (i.e., non-shooting situations). These are the scenarios where the fall is more likely to be an actual flop. When a player has his back to you and makes contact and you go down, that's generally a flop. Or, when a player dribbles up to a defender and spin-pivots at the last second (making slight contact with the defender) and the defender falls, that's quite frequently a flop as well. Sure, there are some legitimate charges in those situations, but I'd bet that more often than not those are flops and shouldn't be called.

[CMS2478]

I agree that, on shooting instances in which the shooter is airborne and makes contact, falling is the best scenario. And in these situations I'd never call it a flop.

The ones I have a beef with are (some of) the ones in which both players are on their feet (i.e., non-shooting situations). These are the scenarios where the fall is more likely to be an actual flop. When a player has his back to you and makes contact and you go down, that's generally a flop. Or, when a player dribbles up to a defender and spin-pivots at the last second (making slight contact with the defender) and the defender falls, that's quite frequently a flop as well. Sure, there are some legitimate charges in those situations, but I'd bet that more often than not those are flops and shouldn't be called.

That is a flop!!!

[Duke79UNLV77]

Think of the majority of the moves Shaq has ever made. Starts 8-10 feet from the basket because did not beat other big man to spot 2 feet from basket. Very limited ability to score 8-10 feet from basket but a devastating force 2 feet from basket. Get ball, body up, body up, body up. Weighs 75 pounds more than opposing big man so is eventually 2 feet from basket. Dunks.

That should be a charge even if the opposing big man doesn't fall, but it's rarely called that way. Thus, a "flop" to get the call made is necessary.

[CMS2478]

Think of the majority of the moves Shaq has ever made. Starts 8-10 feet from the basket because did not beat other big man to spot 2 feet from basket. Very limited ability to score 8-10 feet from basket but a devastating force 2 feet from basket. Get ball, body up, body up, body up. Weighs 75 pounds more than opposing big man so is eventually 2 feet from basket. Dunks.

That should be a charge even if the opposing big man doesn't fall, but it's rarely called that way. Thus, a "flop" to get the call made is necessary.

I respect your opinion, but as a big man would have to disagree. The "backdown" is something all big men do. Shaq just gets penalized for being "really big." If the offensive player and defensive player are the same size nobody thinks it's a charge, but if Shaq does it....."It has to be a charge because he weighs 75-100 pounds more." I think big men get punished for being big in basketball way too much!!! Just my opinion. :)

[CDu]

Think of the majority of the moves Shaq has ever made. Starts 8-10 feet from the basket because did not beat other big man to spot 2 feet from basket. Very limited ability to score 8-10 feet from basket but a devastating force 2 feet from basket. Get ball, body up, body up, body up. Weighs 75 pounds more than opposing big man so is eventually 2 feet from basket. Dunks.

That should be a charge even if the opposing big man doesn't fall, but it's rarely called that way. Thus, a "flop" to get the call made is necessary.

No offense, but using Shaq as your example isn't really a good argument. Shaq does what everyone else does, but is just bigger. Thus, he gets more out of it than most. The flop is an extreme measure for that VERY extreme circumstance.

For the TYPICAL post man, this isn't the case. They back in, but the defenders can hold their ground and push back a bit. The backdown is far less effective for normal sized big guys, so in those cases it is a flop.

Ideally, I'd like to see the backdown taken out of the game. But allowing the flop is not the appropriate way to do that, in my mind.

[Duke79UNLV77]

"They back in, but the defenders can hold their ground and push back a bit."

If the defensive player has position, holds his ground, and is pushed off his spot by a backdown, that should be a charge. I don't find it very exciting to watch or think it is the way basketball was intended to be played. It is more allowed in the NBA than in college. Throw in the large circle not just under, but surrounding the rim, and you can really get away with some bull moves.

You're right that Shaq isn't the only one who does it, but it has been more of a benefit to him than anyone else because he is so hugegantic and he is so much more effective 2 feet from the basket than 8 feet from the basket. Rather than just plowing through the defender, you should have to beat him to the spot to begin with, beat him with a drop-step, up-and-under move or the like, or hit a short jumper or hook.

[CDu]

"They back in, but the defenders can hold their ground and push back a bit."

If the defensive player has position, holds his ground, and is pushed off his spot by a backdown, that should be a charge. I don't find it very exciting to watch or think it is the way basketball was intended to be played. It is more allowed in the NBA than in college. Throw in the large circle not just under, but surrounding the rim, and you can really get away with some bull moves.

You're right that Shaq isn't the only one who does it, but it has been more of a benefit to him than anyone else because he is so hugegantic and he is so much more effective 2 feet from the basket than 8 feet from the basket. Rather than just plowing through the defender, you should have to beat him to the spot to begin with, beat him with a drop-step, up-and-under move or the like, or hit a short jumper or hook.

I agree that it should be a charge. But it hasn't been called that way for years, unless the official feels it is egregious. But I don't like flopping to try to sell it as over the top contact. I wish the officials would simply call the call correctly. I hate exaggerated flopping.

[365Duke]

is the absolute certain get up "lifting wave" that all the refs do now to the "flopping player" it grates my nerves. All of them do it now! I love Mike Wood and think he is one of the best around. But he does it every single time. It's like they take their attention away from the ongoing play to showboat to the player. Why not wait until the play is over and run by them and say "nice try" or something. It is always accompanied by a smirk too.

Now I just got myself worked up about it all over again:mad:

[Classof06]

This whole Duke flopping theory goes hand in hand with the "Duke gets all the calls" theory. Both are bogus.

[elvis14]

This whole Duke flopping theory goes hand in hand with the "Duke gets all the calls" theory. Both are bogus.

Couldn't disagree more, they are two very different issues. Duke has perfected the use of the flop and has perpetuated it's use. I don't blame our team or coaching staff. If the refs are going to call a game that way, that's they way you play it and hats off to us for using it to our advantage. That's why I say what needs to be changed is how the game is called in this case. How it is played will follow soon after :-).

As for the "Duke gets all the calls theory". Not only is that bogus but I think that because of all the people that have said that over the years that it's actually the opposite that's true. Duke seems to get fewer calls than we should. As evidence, I offer up our last game vs. FSU. I'm talking the whole game not just the silliness at the end. Watch the first half and count how many times the refs just "let 'em play".

[wilko]

If you dont want someone to flop on you.. hit a friggen jump shot or pass.. or twist and contort so it looks like you were doing something other than driving to the lane for a dunk.

It forces one to focus on the fundamentals and not a highlight.

I think its a sound defensive principle ESPECIALLY when you arent a leaper. Its an equalizer.

I wonder if somone with way too much time has looked at the effectiveness of this as defense.. Like say the area on the floor where most charging/blocking calls are made... whats the probability of a successful outcome for the defender on a charge/block vs: the outcome for contesting the shot with a verticle block.

I dont think Ive ever seen an offensive foul commited by the shooter when someone leaps up to make a play on the ball... so the outcomes are different.

In a charge/block.. either the offensive or defensive player can get a foul called and perhaps a bucket; or a no call

In attacking the shot, the defender can block the shot or get the foul called against the atempt; or a no call.... I think the flop has merrit based in that it takes the advantage away from the offensive player.

I wonder if someone has a better stated this and has results to validate?

[Lulu]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/sioncampus/01/23/campus.clicks.0123/index.html

scroll down to "Duke Divers"

[wilson]

So stupid. Yes, they were acting jobs. But Duke is by no means the only team that acts a bit over the course of a game. And anyway, these "dives" were inconsequential: McClure got called for the foul in the first case (as he should have), and while Scheyer didn't get fouled hard enough to fall down on his 3-pointer, he absolutely did get fouled. He subsequently stepped up and nailed 3 FTs. I didn't bother to watch beyond that.
This is but another example of people who already hate Duke ascribing that sentiment to otherwise unremarkable "evidence."

[feldspar]

So stupid. Yes, they were acting jobs. But Duke is by no means the only team that acts a bit over the course of a game.


I'm so utterly sick of this argument.

There are two salient points here:

1) We are in the national spotlight. We're going to get called out for this kind of garbage as a result of that spotlight. If you don't like that, I'd suggest you root for a team like Wake Forest or Miami that flys way under the radar almost every year.

2) Faking fouls is unsportsmanlike. I don't care who does it, and I don't care if Coach K does teach it to his players. Attempting to draw fouls is one thing, faking fouls is a completely seperate issue, and it's one of the biggest qualms I have about K's basketball teachings. I think it's dishonorable, unsportsmanlike, and it grates my nerves to no end to see it go on almost every single freaking game. We are better than that. I don't care how many other teams do it, we shouldn't have to resort to that type of play.

[HumboldtDevil]

Feldspar, I totally, 100 percent disagree with your two points.

First off, to anticipate a certain level of jealousy/disdain coming from fans of other schools is one thing, but there is wayyy too much crap spewed from so-called reputable sources to stomach. Duke has a down year and has bounced back to surprise a lot of people that wanted to believe last season was a sign of Duke's decline. So now these Duke haters - which are everywhere apparently - do everything in their power to pretend like there is some shady reason why Duke wins and feel the need to "prove" that Duke gets all the calls, Duke cheats, Duke is evel, etc. And then ESPN and Sports Illustrated play right into the hands of these idiots by aiding their cause, placing stupid bull--it like this on thei Web site. It's really gets under my skin that Duke is being placed in a bad light for no reason other than their continued success. The scholar-athletes that give their all for Duke University basketball deserve better than to be seen in the way that ESPN and SI are enabling them to be seen. They are simply perpetuating the myth that Duke should be universally hated.

Second, trying to draw an offensive foul is not cheating. Coach K doesn't teach his guys to cheat. If you don't anticipate contact as a defender you're never going to draw an offensive foul call on the opposition. So there will be times that you anticipate contact that ends up being minimal. All that video shows is Duke players trying to draw fouls. It isn't cheating. Any good defensive team does it. Even bad defensive teams do it on occasion. The fact that a Duke fan can see that video and reach the conclusion that Duke does "cheat" by trying to draw fouls is sad. Scheyer is fouled and goes down trying to draw a foul and these idiots have a fit. I'll take the three FTs please.

It just sickens me that a program that does things right and wins the right way can be so hated by everyone. Jealousy is one thing, but there are a large number of similar videos on YouTube devoted to the anit-Duke agenda. I can't believe these idiots waste their time making videos like this one. I made myself watch it and I didn't quite make it halfway through.

One concession I'll make is that this was on the Campus Clicks section of SI.com, which is for the people who probably don't do much actual reading and are more interested in non-news, blog-type stuff. However, the same part of SI.com tried to hate on Paulus after the FSU game, too. Acknowledging that most fans hate Duke is one thing, but when SI and ESPN try to get in on it it becomes a very bad thing.

[feldspar]

Second, trying to draw an offensive foul is not cheating.

Why do people have such a hard time with reading comprehension?

[wilson]

Feldspar, I totally, 100 percent disagree with your two points.

First off, to anticipate a certain level of jealousy/disdain coming from fans of other schools is one thing, but there is wayyy too much crap spewed from so-called reputable sources to stomach. Duke has a down year and has bounced back to surprise a lot of people that wanted to believe last season was a sign of Duke's decline. So now these Duke haters - which are everywhere apparently - do everything in their power to pretend like there is some shady reason why Duke wins and feel the need to "prove" that Duke gets all the calls, Duke cheats, Duke is evel, etc. And then ESPN and Sports Illustrated play right into the hands of these idiots by aiding their cause, placing stupid bull--it like this on thei Web site. It's really gets under my skin that Duke is being placed in a bad light for no reason other than their continued success. The scholar-athletes that give their all for Duke University basketball deserve better than to be seen in the way that ESPN and SI are enabling them to be seen. They are simply perpetuating the myth that Duke should be universally hated.

Second, trying to draw an offensive foul is not cheating. Coach K doesn't teach his guys to cheat. If you don't anticipate contact as a defender you're never going to draw an offensive foul call on the opposition. So there will be times that you anticipate contact that ends up being minimal. All that video shows is Duke players trying to draw fouls. It isn't cheating. Any good defensive team does it. Even bad defensive teams do it on occasion. The fact that a Duke fan can see that video and reach the conclusion that Duke does "cheat" by trying to draw fouls is sad. Scheyer is fouled and goes down trying to draw a foul and these idiots have a fit. I'll take the three FTs please.

It just sickens me that a program that does things right and wins the right way can be so hated by everyone. Jealousy is one thing, but there are a large number of similar videos on YouTube devoted to the anit-Duke agenda. I can't believe these idiots waste their time making videos like this one. I made myself watch it and I didn't quite make it halfway through.

One concession I'll make is that this was on the Campus Clicks section of SI.com, which is for the people who probably don't do much actual reading and are more interested in non-news, blog-type stuff. However, the same part of SI.com tried to hate on Paulus after the FSU game, too. Acknowledging that most fans hate Duke is one thing, but when SI and ESPN try to get in on it it becomes a very bad thing.

I agree completely. The main thrust of my original point is that, as I said, many people dislike Duke (due to jealousy, etc.) before any facts enter the equation, and they in turn apply their feelings toward whatever evidence (no matter how flimsy) they can find. feldspar, I see your point about drawing fouls, but I regard it more as an attempt to benefit the team via precision both in one's knowledge of the rules and in one's physical ability to execute a certain movement or situation. I feel a bit squeamish about it too, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it cheating.

[feldspar]

I feel a bit squeamish about it too, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it cheating.

Forgive the bite in my tone, but nothing in the world grinds my gears more than someone putting words in my mouth.

I never said it was cheating. There is a distinct difference, and I think it's argumentatively either lazy or disingenuous for both you and Humboldt to suggest that I did say that.

I view trying to fake a foul--which, let's be honest, is the most accurate way to describe what we're talking about--as completely outside the scope of what sports is supposed to be about. You're misrepresenting the situation in order to benefit from it. Again, that's not cheating, it's something different, but it's still not really in line with what I believe Duke basketball should be.

Many of you probably don't feel strongly either way about it, and that's fine, but when a thread comes up about us being criticized for faking fouls, you're not going to see me circling the wagons on the issue just because I'm a Duke fan.

[wilson]

Forgive the bite in my tone, but nothing in the world grinds my gears more than someone putting words in my mouth.

I never said it was cheating. There is a distinct difference, and I think it's argumentatively either lazy or disingenuous for both you and Humboldt to suggest that I did say that.

I view trying to fake a foul--which, let's be honest, is the most accurate way to describe what we're talking about--as completely outside the scope of what sports is supposed to be about. You're misrepresenting the situation in order to benefit from it, and I don't know about any of you, but that's not what I believe Duke basketball to be.

Many of you probably don't feel strongly either way about it, and that's fine, but when a thread comes up about us being criticized for faking fouls, you're not going to see me circling the wagons on the issue just because I'm a Duke fan.


You're not going to get much disagreement from me on any of that. My point is not "everyone does it, so it's OK for us to do it, too" so much as "everyone does it, so how come we're the only ones taking heat for it?".

[feldspar]

You're not going to get much disagreement from me on any of that. My point is not "everyone does it, so it's OK for us to do it, too" so much as "everyone does it, so how come we're the only ones taking heat for it?".

Fair enough, and I can understand your frustration. However, as I said, that kind of stuff comes with the territory of being a fan of the most nationally televised sports team in the entire country. We have the most footage out there for people to go poring through in order to find evidence to support their flawed hypotheses.

However, I'm willing to put up with all the crap that comes along with that, and have grown duly accustomed to it. It just comes with the territory.

As I said, though, I feel your pain.

[WeepingThomasHill]

Feldspar wrote:

"2) Faking fouls is unsportsmanlike. I don't care who does it, and I don't care if Coach K does teach it to his players. Attempting to draw fouls is one thing, faking fouls is a completely seperate issue, and it's one of the biggest qualms I have about K's basketball teachings. I think it's dishonorable, unsportsmanlike, and it grates my nerves to no end to see it go on almost every single freaking game."

Feldspar, you clearly said faking fouls is "unsportsmanlike" and that "it is one of the biggest qualms you have about K's basketball teachings". What else were saying in that sentence other than K teaches his players to fake fouls? I'm sure you are going to "grind your gears" and claim I am putting words in your mouth, but your words are clear. You are claiming that K encourages the faking of fouls - that, in fact, it is one of his teachings - and thus he fosters unsportsmanlike conduct.

And I think that is bunk, and you should be ashamed to imlpy that our coach would "teach" such conduct.

[feldspar]

Feldspar wrote:

"2) Faking fouls is unsportsmanlike. I don't care who does it, and I don't care if Coach K does teach it to his players. Attempting to draw fouls is one thing, faking fouls is a completely seperate issue, and it's one of the biggest qualms I have about K's basketball teachings. I think it's dishonorable, unsportsmanlike, and it grates my nerves to no end to see it go on almost every single freaking game."

Feldspar, you clearly said faking fouls is "unsportsmanlike" and that "it is one of the biggest qualms you have about K's basketball teachings". What else were saying in that sentence other than K teaches his players to fake fouls? I'm sure you are going to "grind your gears" and claim I am putting words in your mouth, but your words are clear. You are claiming that K encourages the faking of fouls - that, in fact, it is one of his teachings - and thus he fosters unsportsmanlike conduct.

And I think that is bunk, and you should be ashamed to imlpy that our coach would "teach" such conduct.

Good for you, you're entitled to your opinion.

[WeepingThomasHill]

The sarcastic reply was helpful to the discussion.

[feldspar]

The sarcastic reply was helpful to the discussion.
I wasn't being sarcastic.

[Bob Green]

It would be beneficial if everyone calmed down a bit. Please! Thanks!

[Channing]

This is a touchy subject. There are few things I like seeing more than the tougness it takes to take a charge from an opposing player who is bowling his way to the basket. Shane was masterful at this.

However, flopping, or faking a foul, is one of the ugliest things that I have seen from our team in recent years (not saying others dont do it, but I dont watch other games as attentively as I watch ours). There is one highlight I have seen where Paulus falls down without actually being touched. It looks ridiculous. I know it is a very very fine line, but I wish we could stay more on the side of the former rather than the latter.

[sandinmyshoes]

I'm not sure I buy the "selling" of an offensive foul as unsportsmanlike. I'm not speaking as someone who thinks everything Coach K does is beyond reproach. For instance, I do think teaching your players to not help up a player from the other team is unsportsmanlike.

But if you take the contact, however slight, and fall away it's more like you are making sure the ref sees it than faking it. You may be faking the degree, but not the contact itself.


As a basketball fan, I don't like "flopping" much at all, but I can understand why players do it.

[kydevil]

Im all for the "flop" if we get the call.

However, if it goes the other way.... WHAT ARE WE THINKING?

:D just trying to lighten the topic up!

[gep]

As a side note, and maybe provide some humor to this discussion... I remember Jason Williams saying that when he first got to the NBA, he was "standing his ground" under the basket, but then saw Shaq come barreling down the lane, he had to step out of the way so as not to be totally run over by a freight train... no faking or flopping there:D

[CatfiveCane]

Do we flop? Yes.

Is flopping "wrong"? I would have to say... yes.

Do I blame the players for doing it? no.

As a defender, taking an offensive charge is a great thing. It's great because it's speaks of great defense and willing to sacrifice the body. "Flopping" takes the whole sacrificing the body part out of the equation.

I think a lot of teams now focus on "taking the charge". I don't think this was true just 5-7 years ago. Maybe everybody saw the success Shane Battier had and started to copy. Eitherway, I think Duke's reliance to it stems from our lack of a dominate inside presence (i.e. shot blocker)

[DangerDevil]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/grant_wahl/01/23/the.bag/1.html

[elvis14]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/grant_wahl/01/23/the.bag/1.html

This shows the perception of Duke with respect to flopping. I know alot of people here are saying that others do it too but the public perception is that it's a Duke tactic that's been adopted by others just trying to keep up with us. I would really like to see the NCAA make a rule change...and then I'd like to see Coach K have us adapt our play to the rule quicker than everyone else and create even more haters :D

Here's an excerpt for those of you that don't want to follow that link:

After watching Greg Paulus in the Florida State game and basically throughout his career, I'm wondering: Does Coach K actively teach flopping? Paulus is not the first, nor will he be the last, to do this for Duke. To be honest, they make the Italian national soccer team look like the Dick Butkus-era Chicago Bears when it comes to toughness. They are usually talented, so why resort to this bush-league tactic over and over?
-- Kevin, Lexington, Ky.
I went to my brother's high school game the other night and was amazed. It's official! Flopping has finally trickled down to the high-school level. Who do I blame for this? Well, Duke of course. Will the NCAA take steps to prevent so many flops? I feel it really slows down the pace of the game and in turn makes it less exciting.
-- John, Richmond, Va.
For a long time we've advocated establishing a circle under the basket (a la the NBA) to prevent defenders from taking charges right under the hoop. But yes, the general scourge of flopping appears to be worse than ever this season everywhere on the court. I doubt Coach K actually runs drills in practice to teach flops, though the idea of it makes me recall a hilarious TV ad featuring the Italian soccer team working on flops in training. It's clearly time that the NCAA made reducing flops a (you guessed it) point of emphasis for next season. But has anyone noticed that Duke's slashers (Gerald Henderson, Nolan Smith, Demarcus Nelson) do a particularly good job of avoiding contact when they drive hard to the basket? Is there any chance that it's because they face floppers every day in practice? Just wondering.
(And yes, that makes two soccer references in one 'Bag.)

[wilko]

If you dont want someone to flop on you.. hit a friggen jump shot or pass.. or twist and contort so it looks like you were doing something other than driving to the lane for a sure dunk.

It forces one to focus on the fundamentals and not a highlight on offense.



The other part of my previous post probably wasnt stated very clearly, hence its lack of notice and comments. So I'll try to clean up my thoughts a bit and express myself a tad better....or maybe I missed it.

If Im a defender and and the only thing in the offensive players path to a layup or Dunk is me... what are my options?

I could be a matador and just let him go by... but I dont think thats gonna happen too often. I can try to stay with him on the dribble and challenge the shot, Or I can get in his way and try to slowdown his advance, possibly deter a drive or force a pass.

In challenging the shot.. as a defender I can see that I might force a pass, I might block the shot, or I might get called for the foul in the attemptor a no-call happens. How often does the offensive player draw the foul when both players are in the air and a shot is being contested? None stick out in my mind. It sure feels like a rare occurance.

So in using ones body as a barrier between the basket and the offender. The opportunity is present to put the offender in jeopardy by drawing an offensive foul. It adds an additional possible outcome. So if you CAN defend using this why wouldnt you? It takes pressure off of the defense to a limited degree and forces the offense to hit a jump shot or make a good pass.

I'd be curious to see if anyone has charted this out a bit further to have some sort of probability chart to validate it as a defensive strategy in this way.

[greybeard]

There are some instances when an offensive player attacking the rim barrells into someone that no one disputes is, always has been, and ought to remain a foul.

The rest, burn em.

Flopping confuses the play and, when it occurs because the defender chooses that course, I find it annoying. That such flops result in charge calls in way two many instances that don't fit the definition outlined in the first sentence in my view detracts from the game. Puts it way too much in the hands of the refs, who already have way too much to occupy their attention that deserves it.

Charges away from the basket should not be fouls; at most, if you genuinely bulled the guy over and you were going toward the basket, make it like walking.

There should be a heavy presumption that all step-in collisions that occur on drives to the rim are blocks. Contact not made to both sides of the spin (left and right, not back and front) should always be blocks except if there was no step in, in which case the barrelling rule will prevail.

[calltheobvious]

"They back in, but the defenders can hold their ground and push back a bit."

If the defensive player has position, holds his ground, and is pushed off his spot by a backdown, that should be a charge. I don't find it very exciting to watch or think it is the way basketball was intended to be played. It is more allowed in the NBA than in college. Throw in the large circle not just under, but surrounding the rim, and you can really get away with some bull moves.

You're right that Shaq isn't the only one who does it, but it has been more of a benefit to him than anyone else because he is so hugegantic and he is so much more effective 2 feet from the basket than 8 feet from the basket. Rather than just plowing through the defender, you should have to beat him to the spot to begin with, beat him with a drop-step, up-and-under move or the like, or hit a short jumper or hook.

There seems to be some misunderstanding on the NBA's "semi-circle rule." The rule does not say that no charge can be called within that space. It says, in effect, that a charge cannot be drawn by a secondary defender within that space. Big men are not, by rule, allowed to back down with impunity their primary defender just because that defender is within the restricted area.

This rule would clean up a lot of the nonsense in the college game. It would force guys trying to defend fast breaks to step out beyond the circle, which results in more clear-cut plays generally: obvious block/charge, blow-by (because of the better angle for the dribbler), or easy dish to a teammate.

It also forces the help to be better on plays to the basket in half-court situations, for the same set of reasons. If you'll notice, despite the much greater pace and power of the NBA games, block/charge plays are a lot easier to arm-chair referee than in the college game. The restricted area in the NBA doesn't explain the entire difference, but it goes a long way.

[Classof06]

Or, if you don't want to get a charge called on you, attack the rim with the proper body control. Most of the time when a charge is called, it's because the player is driving to the basket out of control. If you're under control, you'll be able to avoid the person setting up to take the charge.

I personally don't think Duke teaches flopping; I think they teach help defense in the halfcourt and I think they probably teach it better than any program in the country. Does Duke get away with flops at times? Of course they do. But there's a reason for that. It's because Duke players are usually in a position to help a teammate who's man has penetrated. Duke plays extremely aggressive in every aspect of defense from ball pressure to help. So when a man gets beat, Duke players are taught to aggressively step up and help.

Like HumboldtDevil said earlier, part of taking a charge is anticipating contact; if you cannot do that, you probably won't get the call unless it's someone like Hansbrough plowing Paulus. Are there times when the contact you expect is nothing like it actually is, and you end up flopping? Yes. But the bottom line is, I find nothing at all compromising about teaching players how to get in position to draw an offensive foul. It's simply a part of the game. That's like saying it's unsportsmanlike to tell your team to drive the ball to the hoop hard and try and draw a foul because the opposing center has 4 fouls. It's totally within the context of the game. If a team is attacking the rim out of control, use it against them.

And I love the fact that refs, the ones paid to call the game, are conveniently left out of this discussion. Like they can't tell the difference between a flop and a charge but they're smart enough to ref the rest of the game. This is why this whole Duke flopping phenomenon goes hand-in-hand with the "Duke gets all the calls" theory. Both are bogus claims because they completely ignore the fact that refs are trained and paid to call the game. It implies Duke has the power to coerce refs into buying into our cause, like it benefits them one way or another. It's utterly ridiculous. Obviously officials are humans and are prone to mistakes, and they have to make a split decision on plays that happen in the blink of an eye, but that's why I'm not a ref. If you can't consistently tell the difference between a flop and a charge, then you shouldn't be a ref.

[camion]

I disagree on giving the offensive player virtual carte blanche. There has to be a balance here. I am annoyed by flopping, but I'm equally annoyed when an offensive player jumps sideways into a defender and draws a blocking foul. Isn't that just as unethical as flopping, and just as common?

No matter where the rules are set there will be a gray area between a clear charge and a clear block. It will always be up to the referees to make the determination which side is at fault and this type of discussion will just move to the new boundary line.

Or you could just let them play, in which case basketball becomes more like rugby.

[CMS2478]

I disagree on giving the offensive player virtual carte blanche. There has to be a balance here. I am annoyed by flopping, but I'm equally annoyed when an offensive player jumps sideways into a defender and draws a blocking foul. Isn't that just as unethical as flopping, and just as common?

No matter where the rules are set there will be a gray area between a clear charge and a clear block. It will always be up to the referees to make the determination which side is at fault and this type of discussion will just move to the new boundary line.

Or you could just let them play, in which case basketball becomes more like rugby.

If I am an offensive player and jump into the defender, that is not a foul on the defender. However, it is called 99.9% of the time. Flopping is no worse!!!

[calltheobvious]

If I am an offensive player and jump into the defender, that is not a foul on the defender...

Care to back up this claim with a rule citation? It's not nearly so cut-and-dried as you make it appear.

[heavy g]

If they would call ALL fouls, we wouldn't have this problem. Refs have gradually allowed more and more "incidental contact" over the last twenty years. I believe the usual excuse is "the players are bigger and faster and you have to let them play a little bit." Thats BS.

A few theories on how this has happened.
1) Players and coaches whining about "ticky tack" calls eventually grinding down on both the rules committee and the "style" of an individual ref
2) Money/TV interests demonstrate that fast, aggressive, physical play sells better. Maybe those conferences get more TV contracts? Better recruits?Ever see an ACC team lose a "brawl-fest" to a Big East team in the tourney?

We are now forced to watch a game in which the better players are the ones who know how to foul and get away with it. On the perimeter it's hand checking vs the windmill. Down low, it's "holding your ground" vs "fighting for position". On the break, it's "drawing the charge" or "flopping".

The "grey areas" in the foul rules used to be fairly narrow. Now you can argue there should have been a foul called on every play. Because there probably should have been. But nobody wants to see Michael Jordan foul out.

[CDu]

If they would call ALL fouls, we wouldn't have this problem. Refs have gradually allowed more and more "incidental contact" over the last twenty years. I believe the usual excuse is "the players are bigger and faster and you have to let them play a little bit." Thats BS.

A few theories on how this has happened.
1) Players and coaches whining about "ticky tack" calls eventually grinding down on both the rules committee and the "style" of an individual ref
2) Money/TV interests demonstrate that fast, aggressive, physical play sells better. Maybe those conferences get more TV contracts? Better recruits?Ever see an ACC team lose a "brawl-fest" to a Big East team in the tourney?

We are now forced to watch a game in which the better players are the ones who know how to foul and get away with it. On the perimeter it's hand checking vs the windmill. Down low, it's "holding your ground" vs "fighting for position". On the break, it's "drawing the charge" or "flopping".

The "grey areas" in the foul rules used to be fairly narrow. Now you can argue there should have been a foul called on every play. Because there probably should have been. But nobody wants to see Michael Jordan foul out.

I agree that the game has progressively gotten more physical. I think you've touched on a number of key reasons. Some others I'd include are:

- the progression of athletic attacks at the rim (the Jordan effect) has led to more contact than in previous eras in which players looked to avoid heavy contact
- the development of coaching physical play to minimize disadvantages in skill (Pistons/Knicks/Big East basketball), to the point where so much contact was occuring that you couldn't call everything or else everyone would foul out.

In any case, I agree. The game is generally far less open and pleasant to watch as it used to be. There are of course exceptions at the top (in which great athleticism is joined with great skill), but as a whole the game is much more physical than it used to be.

[camion]

It actually is pretty much a charge/block call. What I was describing was, to borrow terminology from the rule book, when a player is in a legal guarding position and the offensive player with the ball initiates contact to gain advantage.

If the defensive player is in a legal guarding position as in Article 6 below from the NCAA rules the call should not be a block, but it usually is called as one.

Art. 6. To maintain a legal guarding position after the initial position has
been attained the guard:
a. Is not required to continue having the torso face the opponent.
b. Is required to have either one foot or both feet on the playing court
(cannot be out of bounds).
c. May raise the hands or may jump within his or her own vertical
plane.
d. May shift to maintain guarding position in the path of the dribbler,
provided that the guard does not charge into the dribbler or otherwise
cause contact.
e. May move laterally or obliquely to maintain position provided
such a move is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
f. Is not required to have the feet on the playing court when shifting
in the path of the dribbler or when moving laterally or obliquely.
g. May turn or duck to absorb shock when contact by the dribbler is
imminent. In such a case, the dribbler shall not be absolved from
the responsibility of contact.

[calltheobvious]

It actually is pretty much a charge/block call. What I was describing was, to borrow terminology from the rule book, when a player is in a legal guarding position and the offensive player with the ball initiates contact to gain advantage.

If the defensive player is in a legal guarding position as in Article 6 below from the NCAA rules the call should not be a block, but it usually is called as one.



I'm going to take issue with the use of the word "usually." During the next four games you watch, count the number of times the defender has a legal guarding position, the offense initiates contact, and a block is called. You'll probably find that the right call (usually a no-call) is made a very large percentage of the time.

I think that the perception that this call is so often missed is a function of availability bias. The calls that you notice the most are plays that stick to your memory because they're replayed 20X more often than no-calls. A fun side experiment would be to count the number of times each broadcast that a replay is shown on a no-call for the purposes of giving the audience a second look at the quality of the official's judgment on the play.

The play you're talking about does get missed, but not often enough to warrant it's share of the general complaints.

[greybeard]

I agree that the game has progressively gotten more physical. I think you've touched on a number of key reasons. Some others I'd include are:

- the progression of athletic attacks at the rim (the Jordan effect) has led to more contact than in previous eras in which players looked to avoid heavy contact
- the development of coaching physical play to minimize disadvantages in skill (Pistons/Knicks/Big East basketball), to the point where so much contact was occuring that you couldn't call everything or else everyone would foul out.

In any case, I agree. The game is generally far less open and pleasant to watch as it used to be. There are of course exceptions at the top (in which great athleticism is joined with great skill), but as a whole the game is much more physical than it used to be.

Seconded as to the first and last, agreed as to those in the middle. Say what? :confused:

[phaedrus]

tonight, you saw what real flopping was. and it wasn't our guys doing it.

[CatfiveCane]

Anyone see Washington from Virginia tech. Flop city. How bad did he look after his 10th flop!!

Not only do the refs stop giving him the benefit of the doubt but a player can't defend when his butt is on the floor after a flop.

[dukestheheat]

phaedrus

agreed on what the true flop looks like, and i haven't seen anyone on duke do anything close to what washington did, repeatedly, tonight. that was absolutely the weirdest, strangest act i've ever seen on a basketball court. yes, i am being serious.

dth.

[johnb]

Washington's flops were absurd, mostly because his acting was so bad. While I don't believe we get all the calls, I am beginning to notice that either we do flop on a regular basis or our boys need to spend a little more time in the weight room. If you haven't seen it, here's the youtube view of our falls in the Clemson game.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QeuuS2HiYEM

[crimsonandblue]

phaedrus

agreed on what the true flop looks like, and i haven't seen anyone on duke do anything close to what washington did, repeatedly, tonight. that was absolutely the weirdest, strangest act i've ever seen on a basketball court. yes, i am being serious.

dth.



Washington is and was an idiot, but you've seen nothing from Duke in the way of flops as bad as Washington's? Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0upQDkY-pg&NR=1 (Please pardon the source.)