Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: New flop rule

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by 53n206 View Post
    i am tired of all the instant replays. They take too much time. I understand the need fo most of them, I just don't want to add more.
    I was with you until the understanding the need. The players need consistency by the rwfs, not perfection in every call. Also, the clock down to less than tenths of a second is ridiculous. Play the damn game and get over yourselves.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    I remember this was how many teams defended Jahlil Okafor because he was so good in the post. Slightest bit of contact on a post move and they'd topple.
    Same with Zion.

    If it was a decade or two ago, this rule would hurt Duke, as, let's be honest -- Duke was drilled hard to "take charges" and had it down pat. I thought the smiley face under the basket has done a good job of dissuading too many flops since. But Duke has appeared to move away from taking phantom charges or at least that's my perception.

    I THINK I like the new rule from a sportsmanship viewpoint, but it should maybe be a WARNING first then a TECHNICAL (almost like a yellow card then red card approach). Because there is so much dependent on interpretation or opinion as to the intent of the flopee.

    It might be an overreaction to what's happened in soccer have this rule, but I think giving refs more options to clean up the game is good to at least test. Whether or not this works well in execution won't be known until it comes up in a big game in the NCAAs and changes the direction of a game -- and creates more drama.

    What's interesting is that even though the smiley face under the basket has helped to cut down on controversial charges under the basket. None of these rules are addressing a major contributing factor, which is that the offense player is now afforded so much leeway with the pack-your-bags-and-travel-euro-step that it has given offense such a tremendous advantage that even if the defensive player WAS in position to take a charge -- the offense player can take 3 even 4 steps with the "gather" to avoid the "set" defense player. The defense player is having to move / shift sideways just to take the lesser contact and they have to sell it more, because that's their only last option other then hacking. That's honestly why you see more defense selling the contact or phantom contact -- because the offense gets all the breaks.

  3. #23
    What defines a flop? I, of course, know what a "flop" is but there are areas of gray. Does it have a clear definition? Exaggerated reactions to medium-sized contact could be a flop. Or essentially no contact falls is a flop?

    I agree with the above posters that the fact that defenders basically HAVE to fall down to get a charge call is silly. It's been ingrained in these guys' heads forever though so don't see that changing. It's also unfair to some degree if a weak player falls over because a heavy guy gives him some contact - could be considered a flop but the guy isn't strong enough to stand his ground. Conversely, if you had a big beefy guy who COULD stand his ground but chooses not to, he also could be "penalized." The point is that there is definitely a HUGE variance in being able to absorb contact so the "flop" is REALLY hard to judge as you basically do it based on the reaction/contact. It's not like there's a gauge of force available to standardize it.

    So, I may agree with the thought to try to remove it, but see a lot of challenges in enforcement and foresee video reviews forever. I think I'm in favor of calling it when somebody is grazed/not touched and falls over. That to me, is a CLEAR FLOP. Otherwise, calls as usual.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Dur'm
    Quote Originally Posted by AZLA View Post
    I THINK I like the new rule from a sportsmanship viewpoint, but it should maybe be a WARNING first then a TECHNICAL (almost like a yellow card then red card approach). Because there is so much dependent on interpretation or opinion as to the intent of the flopee.
    In soccer, the refs seem to see it as a binary choice: Either a player was fouled or they flopped. I think it would help that game if the refs could both call the foul and call a flop for egregious exaggeration. That would see a lot more players just toughing it out and limit the "role around like you've been shot" mentality. Similarly, being able to do that in basketball would change players' (and teams') willingness to fall on the floor as if hit by a truck. That won't change anything about the Dolezaj's of the world, but might help some others.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    What defines a flop? I, of course, know what a "flop" is but there are areas of gray. Does it have a clear definition? Exaggerated reactions to medium-sized contact could be a flop. Or essentially no contact falls is a flop?

    I agree with the above posters that the fact that defenders basically HAVE to fall down to get a charge call is silly. It's been ingrained in these guys' heads forever though so don't see that changing. It's also unfair to some degree if a weak player falls over because a heavy guy gives him some contact - could be considered a flop but the guy isn't strong enough to stand his ground. Conversely, if you had a big beefy guy who COULD stand his ground but chooses not to, he also could be "penalized." The point is that there is definitely a HUGE variance in being able to absorb contact so the "flop" is REALLY hard to judge as you basically do it based on the reaction/contact. It's not like there's a gauge of force available to standardize it.

    So, I may agree with the thought to try to remove it, but see a lot of challenges in enforcement and foresee video reviews forever. I think I'm in favor of calling it when somebody is grazed/not touched and falls over. That to me, is a CLEAR FLOP. Otherwise, calls as usual.
    I agree that this should be reserved for the truly egregious flops, where the defending player is barely even touched. In general, the application should be "when in doubt, don't call it" as I agree with others that this should not slow the pace of the game. As much as Duke tends to benefit from it, I think that charges are too influential a part of the game.

    However, though I think the calling of the charges that we normally think of should be limited, I do think that some emphasis should be placed on players who aggressively use their off hand to ward off defenders - I am a broken record but I recall Cassius Winston of Michigan State being really bad about this.

    One other somewhat related change is that if two players dive for a 50-50 loose ball and there is contact, there doesn't always have to be a foul. If they are both legitimately pursuing the ball and not the opponent's body, let them play. Too often the refs feel the need to call a foul because there is contact.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    In soccer, the refs seem to see it as a binary choice: Either a player was fouled or they flopped. I think it would help that game if the refs could both call the foul and call a flop for egregious exaggeration. That would see a lot more players just toughing it out and limit the "role around like you've been shot" mentality. Similarly, being able to do that in basketball would change players' (and teams') willingness to fall on the floor as if hit by a truck. That won't change anything about the Dolezaj's of the world, but might help some others.
    yeah the flopping is my least favorite part of soccer. to see these grown men and incredible athletes flopping around on the ground like babies. It's great that we have a lot of americans playing in the top levels in europe, but embarrassing to see the simulation (I get that it works, and thats why it's done). To largely see the NBA follow in its footsteps on that front is disappointing.

    (On another note, the players gathering around the ref and arguing is another thing I hate. I like the rugby rule...only the captain talks to the ref)
    1200. DDMF.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth&Justise View Post
    This seems like a well-intentioned rule that is going to be applied terribly.
    Yes, that sounds right. It's such a judgment call, and plays will look different depending on the ref's angle of vision. Plus it is going to be hard to get any kind of consistency in the way different officials call flops. As someone else pointed out, sooner or later one of these calls is going to affect the outcome of a big game--which will only increase the pressure to go to the replay cameras every time the call is made.

    Quote Originally Posted by 53n206 View Post
    i am tired of all the instant replays. They take too much time. I understand the need fo most of them, I just don't want to add more.
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    I was with you until the understanding the need. The players need consistency by the rwfs, not perfection in every call. Also, the clock down to less than tenths of a second is ridiculous. Play the damn game and get over yourselves.
    Agree replay is slowing down the game in a bad way--and the clock reviews at the end of halves and games are absurd. For 95% of the game, little bits of time run off here and there on out-of-bounds plays, and no one check to make sure the clock is perfect. But the other 5% of the game, it matters?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by AZLA View Post
    Same with Zion.

    If it was a decade or two ago, this rule would hurt Duke, as, let's be honest -- Duke was drilled hard to "take charges" and had it down pat. I thought the smiley face under the basket has done a good job of dissuading too many flops since. But Duke has appeared to move away from taking phantom charges or at least that's my perception.

    I THINK I like the new rule from a sportsmanship viewpoint, but it should maybe be a WARNING first then a TECHNICAL (almost like a yellow card then red card approach). Because there is so much dependent on interpretation or opinion as to the intent of the flopee.

    It might be an overreaction to what's happened in soccer have this rule, but I think giving refs more options to clean up the game is good to at least test. Whether or not this works well in execution won't be known until it comes up in a big game in the NCAAs and changes the direction of a game -- and creates more drama.

    What's interesting is that even though the smiley face under the basket has helped to cut down on controversial charges under the basket. None of these rules are addressing a major contributing factor, which is that the offense player is now afforded so much leeway with the pack-your-bags-and-travel-euro-step that it has given offense such a tremendous advantage that even if the defensive player WAS in position to take a charge -- the offense player can take 3 even 4 steps with the "gather" to avoid the "set" defense player. The defense player is having to move / shift sideways just to take the lesser contact and they have to sell it more, because that's their only last option other then hacking. That's honestly why you see more defense selling the contact or phantom contact -- because the offense gets all the breaks.
    I don't see the Eurostep as a "travel" - it's a move where you fake one way on one step and then step in the opposite direction, and since it's delayed, it "feels" like a travel, but usually isn't. The jump stop, to me, was a much more egregious traveling violation - almost always had an uncalled foot shuffle or a pivot after the stop.

    But the Eurostep does make the block/charge call soooo much harder. A defender might be set and in position, but if the offensive player sidesteps and gets a glancing blow, then it goes from charge to block.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    I don't see the Eurostep as a "travel" - it's a move where you fake one way on one step and then step in the opposite direction, and since it's delayed, it "feels" like a travel, but usually isn't. The jump stop, to me, was a much more egregious traveling violation - almost always had an uncalled foot shuffle or a pivot after the stop.

    But the Eurostep does make the block/charge call soooo much harder. A defender might be set and in position, but if the offensive player sidesteps and gets a glancing blow, then it goes from charge to block.
    IMO once you change direction after you stop dribbling, you defeated the purpose of getting 2 steps before shooting. the euro-step will always be a travel in my book, even if the rule is written for it to be legal. At the top levels, offense is too powerful, and it makes for a crappy game...points are cheap when everyone can score a billion of them. But that's one of the reasons I don't care for the NBA game. I don't fault the players for playing to the written rule as its called...but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
    1200. DDMF.

  10. #30
    In recent NBA games that I've been watching (and I watch 4 or 5 a week) my impression is that the refs are really, really 'letting them play' around the basket. Well maybe not for the protected few, but for most players. And it isn't just Zion getting hacked. All the players who attack the paint regularly are getting grabbed, bumped and shoved - often multiple times on a single play - but the ref sees nothing. If you are lucky he/she will give you his little play-on wave to let you know he saw it but doesn't care. This is leading to a lot of player frustration, tempers boiling over and a few ejections, even from players who are normally easy going.

    But I get their point - if grabbing an arm is a foul, then why isn't it a foul now? How can it be open season on players driving the paint while perimeter players are still protected like delicate flowers? Not sure why this trend is happening right now but I've seen it enough to know I'm not just imagining it. (Curious if the stats back me up.) Maybe refs are tired and just want to get home. Maybe they are responding to the fans calls for fewer play stoppages. But if so then why are soft calls on perimeter defenders as prevalent as ever?

    I don't know the answer. I just know that if you take the ball inside these days don't be surprised if you are knocked to the floor and your face gets stomped on and there is no call. Just pick your bruised I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. up and run down court and give your opponent a body blow when he gets close to the basket and call it even. Maybe this is the first step to MMA BBall - giving the fans what they want!

    (The above was somehow related to the new flop rule. Not sure how but I'm sticking with it.)

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Carolina Beach
    Quote Originally Posted by COYS View Post
    I’d rather the officials stop requiring a defensive player to fall down to call a charge.
    I completely agree with this.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    IMO once you change direction after you stop dribbling, you defeated the purpose of getting 2 steps before shooting. the euro-step will always be a travel in my book, even if the rule is written for it to be legal. At the top levels, offense is too powerful, and it makes for a crappy game...points are cheap when everyone can score a billion of them. But that's one of the reasons I don't care for the NBA game. I don't fault the players for playing to the written rule as its called...but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
    Shouldn't stop there. If you go up for a shot, don't you dare pass it when the defender times it and it looks like he's about to feed you the ball as your lunch. You went up with the purpose of shooting the ball, you better take your medicine.

    Other things to stop those powerful offenses is to outlook no look passes and shot fakes. Why does the offense have the right to trick the defense by passing where they are not looking or pretending like they are about to shoot? Doesn't the defense deserve to know what and where (in terms of eurostep change of direction) the offensive player is going? Can't stand players think they need to fool defenses.

    Sorry for the hyperbole but that is exactly how the it's not a travel but should be take on the eurostep sounds to me. If the purpose of the two steps was to only go towards the basket then they should have written the rule that way. But how could they foresee that is maybe the response? Maybe the rule was never meant to pigeon hole and the rules were written so people could be creative within them. The game of basketball would be boring on all levels if players didn't innovate and we were stuck watching say 1950's style of play.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Eternal Outlaw View Post
    Shouldn't stop there. If you go up for a shot, don't you dare pass it when the defender times it and it looks like he's about to feed you the ball as your lunch. You went up with the purpose of shooting the ball, you better take your medicine.

    Other things to stop those powerful offenses is to outlook no look passes and shot fakes. Why does the offense have the right to trick the defense by passing where they are not looking or pretending like they are about to shoot? Doesn't the defense deserve to know what and where (in terms of eurostep change of direction) the offensive player is going? Can't stand players think they need to fool defenses.

    Sorry for the hyperbole but that is exactly how the it's not a travel but should be take on the eurostep sounds to me. If the purpose of the two steps was to only go towards the basket then they should have written the rule that way. But how could they foresee that is maybe the response? Maybe the rule was never meant to pigeon hole and the rules were written so people could be creative within them. The game of basketball would be boring on all levels if players didn't innovate and we were stuck watching say 1950's style of play.
    straw, meet man.
    1200. DDMF.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    straw, meet man.
    I think the points are cogent.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by GGLC View Post
    I think the points are cogent.
    I don't recall any point in the history of basketball where "fooling the defense" or "faking a shot" would even be thought to be banned. Not taking steps without dribbling the ball, however, is pretty much what the game is.
    1200. DDMF.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    I don't recall any point in the history of basketball where "fooling the defense" or "faking a shot" would even be thought to be banned. Not taking steps without dribbling the ball, however, is pretty much what the game is.
    Right, but the Eurostep doesn't involve taking more steps without dribbling than are provided for in the rules.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by GGLC View Post
    Right, but the Eurostep doesn't involve taking more steps without dribbling than are provided for in the rules.
    and falling down absent contact doesn't involve taking any action that isn't provided for in the rules either...and yet, here we are.
    1200. DDMF.

Similar Threads

  1. 70 / 30 rule ?
    By gofurman in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-28-2019, 09:12 AM
  2. Greatest Flop Evah'
    By DukeWarhead in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-27-2017, 03:14 PM
  3. Rule Changes
    By Wahoo2000 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 02-11-2015, 09:47 AM
  4. Flop Flop Floppy Flop
    By AIRFORCEDUKIE in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-04-2015, 02:35 PM
  5. The one-and-done rule
    By g-money in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 03:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •