Report: NBA considering penalizing players for flops

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Report: NBA studying flopping
ESPN.com news services

Flopping is already illegal in international play. Now, it might become illegal in the NBA, as well.

The NBA is studying how often flopping occurs and whether officials can tell the difference between flops and actual fouls, Stu Jackson, the NBA's executive vice president for basketball operations, told Bloomberg News in a story published Thursday.

"They're really difficult to determine in real time. They're meant to fool an official," Jackson said. "Are we going to be wrong more times than not? It's tough, but we're looking at it."

Jackson said the NBA is considering whether to allow its officials to impose technical fouls for flopping, which FIBA, the governing body of international basketball, allows its referees to do. Other sports, such as hockey and soccer, also allow referees to penalize players who flop.

"We have so many more plays than you do in a football or soccer game and in a more intimate environment," he said.

Jackson didn't give a timetable for the league to make a decision. </div>

This is awesome! That's one thing about Stern and the NBA -- they try to evolve with the game and stay on top of their league. The new ball wasn't working; Stern took his lumps and admitted he was wrong. Not many people in positions of power can admit when they're wrong.

But this -- I've been begging for it for years. Hopefully they figure out a way to do it.

Hmm... there goes Dunleavy's defense.

 

Doesn't make sense to me. Why don't they just not blow the whistle when a guy flops? To me the issue is not flopping, but how little contact is allowed in the NBA before a whistle is blown. If the refs were more lenient on physical play it would solve the flopping problem AND stop those incredibly ridiculous calls Kobe/LeBron/Wade get, if you practically sneeze on them you'll get called for a foul.

But yeah, I'm sure Dunleavy is sweatin bullets.

 

<div class="quote_poster">AnimeFANatic Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Doesn't make sense to me. Why don't they just not blow the whistle when a guy flops? To me the issue is not flopping, but how little contact is allowed in the NBA before a whistle is blown. If the refs were more lenient on physical play it would solve the flopping problem AND stop those incredibly ridiculous calls Kobe/LeBron/Wade get, if you practically sneeze on them you'll get called for a foul.

But yeah, I'm sure Dunleavy is sweatin bullets.</div>

I am assuming that you are on the same page as Jim Barnett on this, which I totally agree with. I am not sure how effectively this will work, that is if they follow the FIBA rules and use technicals as the penalty. But it is a move in the right direction. Also it is still in the discussion stage. It is good to hear that the NBA is working on this, like AlleyOop added.

 

Dunleavy actually does take charges legitimately most of the time. There are times when he flops but he's good at anticipating where the ballhander is going to be and gets there and plants his feet.

I agree though, that the refs should just let them play. For chrissake, it's like impossible to play any sort of real defense these days.

 

That's the first thing I thought -- Dunleavy is doomed .

It sounds like a good rule. Call a technical and the flopping should slow down. Of course, it could make the floppers even better at their craft.

<div class="quote_poster">Kensaku Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Dunleavy actually does take charges legitimately most of the time. There are times when he flops but he's good at anticipating where the ballhander is going to be and gets there and plants his feet. </div>

Can I interest you in a nice used 1975 AMC Pacer, the first wide bodied small car?

 

The reason I like the technical over the no-call is this: trying to take charges and flopping is dangerous. How many times have I seen a player banged up or injured because someone steps under him in mid-air and then falls down, making for the most awkward contact-and-fall for the shooter.

In my opinion charges should occur very rarely, and when they do it should be inadvertently, like when a guy just tries to barrel over someone else, or Shaq clobbering someone with his elbow on purpose, or an offensive player using a hook and pushing the defender away noticably.

Defenders should not try to take charges. That's not good defense. Defenders should try to play defense, moving their feet, denying the lanes, hassling the ball handler, and trying to block the shot.

If an offensive foul happens, it should be because of the offensive player making it happen, not because of the defender trying to create it.

I really believe the flop should be penalized, so players will start playing defense again.

Barnett makes a great point: did you ever see Bill Russell try to draw a charge, lol? Sounds crazy, yet just the other game they telestrated 7-footer Zadrunas Ilglauskas trying to draw a charge on 6-footer Monta Ellis. He tried to create a charge by holding his groin and moving his shoulder in an area where Monta might run into it. Monta went right around him for an easy lay-up. What a shame to all 7-footers in the history of the game.

 

<div class="quote_poster">AlleyOop Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Defenders should not try to take charges. That's not good defense. Defenders should try to play defense, moving their feet, denying the lanes, hassling the ball handler, and trying to block the shot. </div>

Getting to a spot and drawing a charge IS good defense. If you're able to anticipate a ballhandler's destination before he reaches it, that's good defense and more importantly, bad offense.

What you suggest -- Defenders should try to play defense, moving their feet, denying the lanes, hassling the ball handler, and trying to block the shot -- can be done but a lot of these drawn charges, ala Dunleavy, is a result of the ballhandler on a fastbreak not knowing where the heck he's going...it's bad fundamentals and lack of offensive awareness. It's a separate situation from...say Monta Ellis playing man on so-and-so and drawing a charge.

Players like Dunleavy, who are good at anticipating an opponents intentions, get to the right spot at the right time.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Run BJM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'd rather have Stern focus on consistency in the officiating and getting rid of "superstar calls" and "rookie calls" but this is a step in the right direction.</div>

This one irks me the MOST. It's a fact that officials give "superstar calls" and "rookie calls", which is TOTALLY UNFAIR. Officials are there to make sure things are fair, but it's completely unfair when they give the benefit of the doubt to superstars/veterans. Theres hundreds of times that I've seen Biedrins get called for a phantom foul. Whenever that happens I think "if that was Tim Duncan would he have gotten that whistle?" And the answer is a big fat NO.

 

Bob Fitzgerald made a funny comment on the radio after the Lakers game.

"Something weird happened on my way to the locker room...Kobe Bryant was there with his wife and kid...I looked at him and I got called for a foul..."

 

Getting to the spot is one thing. Trying to take a charge is another.

For instance, on a fast break, the first and foremost responsibility for the primary defender is to "STOP BALL." You hear every highschool coach yell it. You have to "get to the spot" where you can alter the course of the fast break.

However, the defender should actively and aggressively try to stop the ball, getting in front of the dribbler and getting in good defensive position to force him either to a) pass or change direction.

The defender should NOT, however, plant their feet on the ground and resign themself to not moving. When you stop ball, that doesn't mean you get in the way and try to get knocked over. That means you get your butt down, chin up, hands out, and feet moving, and you try to impede the dribbler's movement and force him to change direction SO THAT HE CAN'T GO AROUND YOU. I love the caps. But that's the difference. A good defender can accomplish both -- stopping the ball and preventing an easy alternative. A guy who just tries to jump in the way and hold still -- a)he's hoping to get the call b)if he doesn't get the call he's sh!t out of luck c)either way he's risking injury to himself and/or the dribbler d)he becomes a stump on the court and good players simply go around/over you for the score anyway.

Getting to the spot is one thing. Once there, however, you continue to defend the opposition, rather than suddenly stand still and hope for a collision.

Just my opinion.

Now, you make a good point about offensive players today just going out of control. No doubt, I totally agree.

 

I agree. I think we're on the same page here.

 

Yeah, Fitz is great on radio -- it's completely different from TV.

My favorite is Steinmetz though. I think he'll be a national sports TV guy eventually, like TNT or ESPN. He's awesome.

 

I think Bob is doing a nice job this season. I haven't had a problem with Bob this season compared to other ones. Maybe part of it is that Don Nelson is such a frank and honest guy, unlike the last two seasons with Monty as head coach. As the voice of the Warriors I suppose you have to somewhat support the coach and the team so maybe that is why he seemed kind of off the last two seasons or more. By supporting the coach and franchise maybe it's not surprising that he always just seemed out of touch with reality the last two seasons or so. Steinmetz is ok. Steinmetz kind of takes things to like sports radio talk shows level, which is like Joe Buck broadcasting football and baseball which drives me nuts. I really hate Joe Buck's broadcasting because it takes away from the game that is playing with all of this talk and focus on storylines and other things not critical to what is happening on the field. But since Steinmetz only comes in every once in a while, so it is not bad and sometimes nice to get his perspective. He also gets some good stuff from the sidelines. However during the Lakers game he seemed a little to over zealous to see what Kobe was going to do in the 4th quarter.

As far as charges and blocks go, I think the NBA is probably going to try to limit the type of play that James Posey put on Monta Ellis when he hurt his shoulder. I remember reading something earlier in the season about the NBA being upset about the amount of injuries and were reviewing this type of play. So maybe these discussions is an extention of these earlier talks. I think they might try to penalyze players who step under players to take a charge which are dangerous plays that can cause injury (again the Posey/Ellis play comes to mind). Then of course there are the flop plays that players like Horry, Cassell, Vlade and others were/are masters at. I really don't know what to anticipate from these discussions but it should be interesting to see what they come up with. It may be something that will be implemented next season. It may be too late to start it now.

 

I think that's what the producers want Steinmetz to do. He's FSN's "NBA Insider." He's supposed to find the hiden story lines, comment on personal stuff with the players, possible trades, etc.

I agree about Buck. Not a big fan myself.

 

I think most small contact plays should be no-calls, and if there's a question about a call that leads to a four point swing or such, coaches should get a certain number of times to contest that call. Especially for goal-tends or blocking fouls/charges.

For fouls, people realize for free throws those are basically 50% fg type plays for even the worst free throw shooting team.

 

No need to call a T. It doesn't have to be that big of a deal. Simply call a block every time it's a flop. People get 2 or 3 of them, and get taken out of the game, then they'll eventually stop. No need for more technicals. It slows and stops the game. I personally would take away as many technicals as possible. I hate how soft the game is getting. But that's just me. I hate the idea of a ref getting the chance to throw out another T at a crucial moment because he's on his high horse and wants to T someone up.

 

<div class="quote_poster">CohanHater Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No need to call a T. It doesn't have to be that big of a deal. Simply call a block every time it's a flop. People get 2 or 3 of them, and get taken out of the game, then they'll eventually stop. No need for more technicals. It slows and stops the game. I personally would take away as many technicals as possible. I hate how soft the game is getting. But that's just me. I hate the idea of a ref getting the chance to throw out another T at a crucial moment because he's on his high horse and wants to T someone up.</div>

I feel ya. Calling a block every time sounds good to me.