Fines will be imposed for clear cases of flopping

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
And in a move to make both Brick and Slim happy:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3416579


The NBA announced to its teams this week at its annual pre-draft camp that fines will be imposed on players starting next season for clear cases of "flopping," ESPN.com has learned.

The league office has yet to determine exact fine amounts for offending flops and how fines might escalate for repeat offenders, but in-game arena observers and video reviewers will be instructed to report instances of theatrical flopping for potential punishment as part of postgame reports on officiating and other matters.

The league's pledge to crack down on flopping was conveyed to team representatives at Tuesday's competition committee meeting in Orlando.

NBA executive vice president of basketball operations Stu Jackson confirmed the new policy Wednesday night saying: "What was clearly expressed to the committee is that we would begin imposing fines next season for the most egregious type of flops. When players are taking a dive, for lack of a better term."

Because a precise penalty system has not yet been structured, it is not yet known whether serial floppers will be subject to possible suspensions after a certain number of fines for flopping, as seen with the league's protocol on technical fouls. Players who accrue 16 technicals during the regular season are hit with a one-game suspension when they get to No. 16 -- the limit is seven technicals during the playoffs -- and receive one-game suspensions for every other technical thereafter (No. 18, 20, etc.).

Detroit's Rasheed Wallace, a player who has 15 technicals this season and has been suspended in the past for being over the limit for technicals, gave his opinion of floppers to ESPN after the Pistons' 106-102 loss to the Boston Celtics in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals on Wednesday.

"All that bull(bleep)-*** calls they had out there. With Mike [Callahan] and Kenny [Mauer] -- you've all seen that (bleep)," Wallace said. "You saw them calls. The cats are flopping all over the floor and they're calling that (bleep). That (bleep) ain't basketball out there. It's all (bleeping) entertainment. You all should know that (bleep). It's all (bleeping) entertainment."

In other Orlando business:

• The competition committee considered changes to both the current playoff seeding format as well as the format for the draft lottery but ruled against recommending alterations to either.

Both subjects will be discussed again at the next Board of Governors meeting in October, but changes typically aren't made by team owners at those meetings without a prior recommendation from the competition committee.

After another season of great imbalance between teams in the West and East, league officials agreed in April to consider changes that could be implemented in time for next season's playoffs. But NBA commissioner David Stern said from the start that "it's unlikely anything will happen."

The current system sends the top eight teams in each conference to the postseason. That excluded No. 9 Golden State in the West in spite of the Warriors' 48-win season and forced two 55-win perennial powers -- San Antonio and Phoenix -- to meet in the first round.

The West's dominance -- and the fact that only three teams in the East (Boston, Detroit and Orlando) had a higher win total than Golden State -- led to a new round of calls for re-seeding after each round of the playoffs as seen in other major professional team sports, or even sending the teams with the best 16 records to the playoffs irrespective of conference.

But Stern has long maintained that re-seeding is "very difficult when you have the television obligations that we have" because the league's TV partners (ESPN and TNT) would then be required "to wait for every series that can affect the re-seeding to be over." The commissioner has also said that he's comfortable with the idea of a lower seed inheriting the playoff path of a higher seed if it can win a seven-game series.

There is also naturally considerable opposition from teams in the East to sending the clubs with the 16 best records to the playoffs. The current format enabled several sub-.500 teams this season -- such as Indiana, New Jersey and Chicago -- to stay in playoff contention well into April, giving them something to sell to their fan bases in spite of sub-par records and constant reminders from the media about the West's superior depth.

Making overall record its primary playoff consideration would also likely force the league to change the format of its entire regular-season schedule. West teams would have a valid complaint if the 16-team playoff field was determined strictly by record and East teams retained the advantage of playing 52 games against other East teams and only 30 against West teams.

There was likewise no consensus reached by committee members on tweaking the draft lottery. Grumblings about the current system have grown louder with Chicago (ninth-worst record in the league) and Portland (sixth-worst record in 2006-07) winning the past two lotteries, but Stern is said to be strongly against any lottery changes.

• As Stern promised earlier this month, changes were considered by the committee to the league's rules regarding intentional fouling away from the ball, which is more commonly known as the Hack-A-Shaq strategy.

Yet it appears that Hack-A-Shaq will be back next season, too.

Stern himself has said he doesn't like "the idea that [players can say], 'Hey, look at me, I'm going to hit this guy as soon as the ball goes into play, even though he's standing under the other basket.' "

San Antonio made extensive use of the Hack-A-Shaq tactic in its first-round series with Phoenix after Spurs coach Gregg Popovich had shunned the strategy for years. The Suns later conceded that the strategy not only took advantage of Shaquille O'Neal's poor foul shooting -- he missed half of his 64 free-throw attempts in the series -- but also frequently interrupted their offensive flow.

Such intentional fouling is legal until the final two minutes of regulation or any overtime, when intentional fouls result in one free throw and the team whose player was fouled retaining possession.

"We had a pretty spirited discussion on the subject and we talked prospectively about how we might change it," Jackson said, declining to elaborate on the potential alterations.

"But in the end, there wasn't enough support to change it. ... There was a feeling that by changing the rule you would be essentially rewarding a player for a lack of skill by allowing him to stay in the game."

• The committee had extensive discussions about expanding the use of instant replay for next season and voted to recommend a proposal which calls for the use of replay to assist referees in determining whether a basket or a shot on which a player is fouled is taken from behind the 3-point line.

The committee, as expected, is also backing the league's wish to use instant replay to resolve discrepancies on clock malfunctions, after a major clock issue during the Detroit-Orlando series in the second round.

The league was forced to admit earlier this month that a 3-pointer made by the Pistons' Chauncey Billups at the end of the third quarter of Game 2 against Orlando should not have counted. There were 5.1 seconds remaining in the quarter when the ball was inbounded, but the clock froze at 4.8 seconds as Billups dribbled into the frontcourt. The whole play actually consumed 5.7 seconds, meaning that the buzzer should have sounded before Billups' shot went up, but the play was not reviewable under current rules. Referees are presently allowed to use instant replay only to rule whether a shot goes in before the end-of-quarter clock expires.

"We still need to refine the procedures involved, but it's expected that Board of Governors will vote on those proposals [in October]," Jackson said.
 
Some very good things in there, especially if they give the flopping thing teeth -- will have to see if they have the will to actually stand by that rule or not. Never thought I would agree with a Rasheed Wallace quote, even if its self serving given presence of the Masked Flopper on his own squad.

However leaving the hack--a-shaq in is just ridiculous. "Rewarding players for a lack of skill" -- wth? If the guy is just standing out on the court, wihtout the ball, how should his skill supposed to matter? His lack of skill could, and perhaps should,. prevent him from being passed the ball for fear of being fouled, but its ridiculous to allow teams just to run over and jump him when he enters the game.

Here's a proposal: on hack-a-shack strategies you call the foul, and give the foulee (i.e. Shaq/his team) the CHOICE of whether to shoot FTs, or take it on the side.
 
Last edited:
Some very good things in there, especially if they give the flopping thing teeth -- will have to see if they have the will to actually stand by that rule or not. Never thought I would agree with a Rasheed Wallace quote, even if its self serving given presence of the Masked Flopper on his own squad.

However leaving the hack--a-shaq in is just ridiculous. "Rewarding players for a lack of skill" -- wth? If the guy is just standing out on the court, wihtout the ball, how should his skill supposed to matter? His lack of skill could, and perhaps should,. prevent him from being passed the ball for fear of being fouled, but its ridiculous to allow teams just to run over and jump him when he enters the game.

Here's a proposal: on hack-a-shack strategies you call the foul, and give the foulee (i.e. Shaq/his team) the CHOICE of whether to shoot FTs, or take it on the side.

I say just make it one shot and the ball.
 
I'd prefer a flop be a technical foul, but I'm guessing they are worried about adding one more judgement call for referees to have to make.

There was likewise no consensus reached by committee members on tweaking the draft lottery. Grumblings about the current system have grown louder with Chicago (ninth-worst record in the league) and Portland (sixth-worst record in 2006-07) winning the past two lotteries, but Stern is said to be strongly against any lottery changes.
:eek: Any lottery changes should go the other way. Those results are a good thing.
 
While my initial reaction is "It's about time!" I have to wonder if this will indeed take place. IIRC, we were all very happy when the league announced they would no longer put up with whining and crying about every call. Watching this year's playoffs, especially in the WCF, I have to wonder if that was simply thrown out the window because of teams involved.

I'd rather see them toss technicals for whining than for things like Perkin's frustration gesture.
 
umm venom that wouldn't work cause teams "hack a shaq" in hopes that you miss one or both free throws so they can limit the production on a certain ppssesion and getting the ball back. A tech and the ball wouldn't make sense cause they keep the ball regardless which is the complete opposite of what you would initially be trying to do
 
If they actually enforced this, Derek Fisher and Manu Ginobili would end up owing the league more than they make.

I could forgive Ginobili for any flop he takes as long as the opponent goes into his chest and he has position. Course, how rare is that? Regarding Fisher, all of your Kingsfan friends here voted in a poll before you registered, the results were unanimous that he was NOT a flopper. That vote was straight from the hearts and minds of your fellow fans, I didn't cast a vote in order to maintain impartiality.

However, they need to clean up S like bumping into a defender and flailing and running into a guy's path at the last second and flopping. Fines are doomed to fail, but at the very least, we'll get to see what Stupid Stu considers a flop (make a running list for future reference).

(oh, crap...he registered in 2001)
 
I really have no idea what Gargamel is talking about. Fisher has been one of the most notorious floppers in the league for a decade now, Used to call his favortie flop "the atomic flop" because of how hard he threw himself backward in an attempt to trick the refs.
 
I don't agree with this decision. Setting up league-endorsed post-game tattling doesn't solve the problem with referee discernment. As long as flops are rewarded by referees during the game, I doubt that any fines assessed thereafter are going to prevent such activity.
 
I don't agree with this decision. Setting up league-endorsed post-game tattling doesn't solve the problem with referee discernment. As long as flops are rewarded by referees during the game, I doubt that any fines assessed thereafter are going to prevent such activity.

It might if there are some teeth at the end -- i.e. a suspension after a certain number. And the mere presence of such a rule, if actively enforced (a real question since this could just turn out to be lip service) might start the ball roling on changing the culture/marking the flop as what it is -- a cheat -- rather than anything to do with basketball.
 


Oh, we've still got somebody who will have to make significant alterations to his game if this rule is actually enforced, but that's ok. I think it will make him a better player if he gets back to trying to actually make shots rather than play the refs all the time.
 
Last edited:
Oh, we've still got somebody who will have to make significant laterations to his game if this rule is actually enforced, but that's ok. I think it will make him a better player if he gets back to trying to actually make shots rather than play the refs all the time.
I so agree with this. I partly blame Muss, who emphasized to this player he should work on getting to the line a lot more. Just play aggressively and the trips to the line will come.

Oh, and Fisher has always been a major flopper.
 
HOORAY!!! And 5 fines you sit out a game!! that won't be needed but if this improves the game, I'm all for it.

What about looking at a flop, and if ruled one that drew a foul, assess that floppy player a foul to begin the next game!!!! I love that idea. Controversial for sure but why not?

Second only to my suggestion, that David Stern didn't accept, that at the 2-minute mark at the end of each half, any non-shooting foul results in one foul shot AND that team gets another possession, ie., brings the ball inbounds after the foul shot.
 
I really have no idea what Gargamel is talking about. Fisher has been one of the most notorious floppers in the league for a decade now, Used to call his favortie flop "the atomic flop" because of how hard he threw himself backward in an attempt to trick the refs.

It was a joke that missed.
 
This is stupid! Fines for flopping? Why not just not call it? I mean a player flops, the ref doesn't call it and he's out of the play for the next couple seconds. After a few months of the refs letting them play and not calling flops, they'll stop doing it because it's hurting their team by taking themselves out of the play. Fining them for it is just ridiculous.

Refs need to let them play instead of enforcing every ticky tack thing that goes out there, whether its with a whistle or a fine. I'd rather neither happen and the game just get played freely.
 
I would prefer the league take a stance against the Bruce Bowen type dirty players, than the Manu Ginobili types. Ginobli at least manages to be entertaining.

That said, if the NBA does nothing about flopping, it may be a slippery slope towards soccer-style theatrics.
 
I could forgive Ginobili for any flop he takes as long as the opponent goes into his chest and he has position. Course, how rare is that? Regarding Fisher, all of your Kingsfan friends here voted in a poll before you registered, the results were unanimous that he was NOT a flopper. That vote was straight from the hearts and minds of your fellow fans, I didn't cast a vote in order to maintain impartiality.

Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? Polls don't change the truth that Fisher has been fighting Ginobili for the MVF award every year since Vlade left the league.

Ginobili is really the master now. He's of the "a guy brushed past me and I flew into the third row" variety of flopper, where Fisher is more the "no one is near me at all, so I'm going to fall down" variety. Subtle differences, but both are extraordinarily annoying. It almost goes without saying that Vlade was an absolute artist.