SI: NBA's new flopping policy the best response to a difficult problem

Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
The NBA's decision to punish floppers after the fact -- by issuing penalties
from the league office after the game has been decided -- is the best response
to a difficult problem.

This new day-after system of flopper punishment is absolutely going to be
controversial because there is as of yet no public agreement on what constitutes
a flop. When Ginobili stands in front of a hard-driving power forward, is he
showing bravery or cynicism? We will find out what the NBA thinks soon enough,
and the league's rulings will create a definition that has never existed
before.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...flopping-david-stern/index.html#ixzz27nzZOEXV
 
I like the fact that they are addressing the issue but I don't like the way they're going about it with fines.

Why not just no call the flops? If a player is flopped on the floor, it's now 5 on 4 until he gets up. Let the game manage itself by just no calling flops. Players will stop doing it once they realize they can't get away with it. I mean there are the blatantly obvious ones like the Chris Paul and Bosh flops but what about the inbetweeners that are difficult to spot? Eventually someones going to get knocked down for real and the NBA is going to fine them and it's going to cause a **** storm.
 
ESP47 said:
I like the fact that they are addressing the issue but I don't like the way they're going about it with fines.

Why not just no call the flops? If a player is flopped on the floor, it's now 5 on 4 until he gets up. Let the game manage itself by just no calling flops. Players will stop doing it once they realize they can't get away with it. I mean there are the blatantly obvious ones like the Chris Paul and Bosh flops but what about the inbetweeners that are difficult to spot? Eventually someones going to get knocked down for real and the NBA is going to fine them and it's going to cause a **** storm.
Click to expand...

i think you sorta answered your own question: the nba has likely determined that its far too difficult to distinguish a flop from a legitimate foul in real-time. instead of generating all kinds of additional on-court controversy, hopefully a hardline and consistent fining system will be harsh enough to eliminate the work of serial floppers, while discouraging everybody else who flops at their convenience...
 
Padrino said:
i think you sorta answered your own question: the nba has likely determined that its far too difficult to distinguish a flop from a legitimate foul in real-time. instead of generating all kinds of additional on-court controversy, hopefully a hardline and consistent fining system will be harsh enough to eliminate the work of serial floppers, while discouraging everybody else who flops at their convenience...
Click to expand...

I don't think I answered my question at all. No calls in games happen all the time. Guys get fouled and the refs don't blow the whistle. Other players don't do anything and get called for fouls. It's the human part of the game. If the NBA ends up handing out a fine on a play where it looks like the player flopped but he really didn't, it's going to cause a much bigger problem than it would if it was just a bad call during the game.

Just let them play and stop blowing the whistles every 2 or 3 times down the court. How many times do players go for layups and purposely land on their butts and go sliding for the effect? Instead of fining them, just don't call it and let them be late to get back on defense. I don't see the point in all this other than the NBA being greedy and needing money. If they wanted to put the best show on the court, they'd loosen up the contact rules and let them play.
 
ESP47 said:
I don't think I answered my question at all. No calls in games happen all the time. Guys get fouled and the refs don't blow the whistle. Other players don't do anything and get called for fouls. It's the human part of the game. If the NBA ends up handing out a fine on a play where it looks like the player flopped but he really didn't, it's going to cause a much bigger problem than it would if it was just a bad call during the game.

Just let them play and stop blowing the whistles every 2 or 3 times down the court. How many times do players go for layups and purposely land on their butts and go sliding for the effect? Instead of fining them, just don't call it and let them be late to get back on defense. I don't see the point in all this other than the NBA being greedy and needing money. If they wanted to put the best show on the court, they'd loosen up the contact rules and let them play.
Click to expand...

well, i certainly don't disagree with that. i've long said that the nba has been their own undoing with respect to the way they officiate. they invite controversy where there was none previously by overlegislating the game. they put too much power in the hands of the referees, and then balk at all criticism heaved their way on the subject. if you want less controversy, then revise the rule book so that the referees have less impact on the way the game is subjectively called. basketball is a contact sport, whether the nba wants to admit it or not. the 80's were the golden era for a reason: the best of the best were not encumbered by an overbearing rule book. they were allowed to shine, rather than be force-fed their own luster at the free throw line. as you say, just let them play...

however, given the rule book as it stands, i think the nba has done the right thing. you want the players to stop flopping? then hit them where it hurts their ego the most: their wallets. if you prompt the refs to swallow their whistles every time they think there's a flop on-court, then its just additional pressure to manage a game that's already so difficult to manage. just wait until the end of a close game, when a ref no-calls a legitimate foul with both teams in the penalty. there is your controversy. its a tough call in real-time, and while we're in agreement that the refs should be put in a position to succeed as much as the players should be put in a position to succeed by stripping back some of the legislation so that they game can be played, rather than called, i think, with the way things are, you have to trust your refs to call the game as they would without additional interference from the nba. most fans don't care so much about the controversy of fines off-court. what they do care about is the controversy of the calls on-court, and there's enough of it already without piling on the detriment...
 
Pretty cool they did a video series of examples of what will be penalized and what won't be:

http://www.nba.com/official/ - there's a link to the video at the end of the Explanation of Anti-Flopping Rule section.

The only question I have is that there were two things they called flops that could have been caused by coming down awkwardly on an ankle and trying to avoid putting weight on it. One was Dwyane Wade and the other was just after it I think. They have to be careful not to penalize people for going down to protect themselves from sprained ankles or other injuries.
 
I love the video... this will be interesting to see. Of course from a philosophical perspective it is a bit sad if not ludicrous. The problem is that players are exaggerating or faking contact AND refs are biting at the bait. Let's face it flopping would no exist if refs ignored it. So rather than improving the refereeing of the game, the NBA will just add a second layer of refereeing that makes calls after the fact. No doubt after the fines come in there will also be an appeals process. I guess some folks think the problem to unenforced laws is to write more laws, some folks think the solution to unenforced laws is new enforcers.
 
The difference between the uncalled flops and the called flops is ambiguous. The only type of flop that this new rule will cut down on are the Gallinari type flops, faking injury to try and slow the game down.

The fines take place outside of competition, so competitive players will still flop like fish, and absorb the fines without a second thought.
 
damn flopping was Miami's entire defensive gameplan last year in the playoffs. how will they get another championship now
 
mac said:
You may want to be a little concerned about our own Demarcus Cousins as well..
Click to expand...

I hope those don't fall under the rule. Demarcus exaggerates a little when he is hit, but if he didn't he would NEVER get the charge calls. Usually when he goes down on a charge its the correct ruling even though he puts a little extra on to get the refs attention. What pisses me off is the ghost stuff. I wish they could find a way to shut Pau Gasol up too, I can't stand the way he throws his hands up and screams like a child EVERY TIME he goes into the paint.
 
1) Where does this fine money go?

2) DMC HAS to fall backwards on charges.
If he stands firm and allows the guy to plow into him, he'll get the foul called on him, and possibly a technical for trying to injure someone.
I can't think of anyone on the Kings remotely in danger of this new rule.
 
A "flop" is an attempt to either fool referees into calling undeserved fouls or fool fans into thinking the referees missed a foul call by exaggerating the effect of contact with an opposing player.

The main factor in determining whether a player committed a flop is whether his physical reaction to contact with another player is inconsistent with what would have been expected given the force or direction of the contact. For example, a player will be considered to have committed a “flop" if he falls to the floor following minimal contact or lunges in a direction different from the direction of the contact.


So here's a problem. The ref has to psychoanalyze the player: Did he try to fool me or didn't he? The ref has to make a series of inferences from the actions of the player to determine whether the player is trying to fool him. Good luck with that. It is a very subjective judgement call, a call that will invariably be dependent upon the "reputation" that the player has for flops, or with the particular history the ref has with a player.

Another problem that I've already wondered about: Does the charging call vary depending upon the mass of the guy taking the charge? So if we really want to get into the physics of it, if IT takes the charge at X newtons of force and reacts by falling down, but Cousins takes the same charge at X newtons of force and takes a minor step back for balance, are they both charges? Or is the charge call literally dependent upon the size of the player taking the charge so that the smaller player has an advantage over a bigger player?
 
Kingster said:
A "flop" is an attempt to either fool referees into calling undeserved fouls or fool fans into thinking the referees missed a foul call by exaggerating the effect of contact with an opposing player.

The main factor in determining whether a player committed a flop is whether his physical reaction to contact with another player is inconsistent with what would have been expected given the force or direction of the contact. For example, a player will be considered to have committed a “flop" if he falls to the floor following minimal contact or lunges in a direction different from the direction of the contact.


So here's a problem. The ref has to psychoanalyze the player: Did he try to fool me or didn't he? The ref has to make a series of inferences from the actions of the player to determine whether the player is trying to fool him. Good luck with that. It is a very subjective judgement call, a call that will invariably be dependent upon the "reputation" that the player has for flops, or with the particular history the ref has with a player.

Another problem that I've already wondered about: Does the charging call vary depending upon the mass of the guy taking the charge? So if we really want to get into the physics of it, if IT takes the charge at X newtons of force and reacts by falling down, but Cousins takes the same charge at X newtons of force and takes a minor step back for balance, are they both charges? Or is the charge call literally dependent upon the size of the player taking the charge so that the smaller player has an advantage over a bigger player?
Click to expand...

This is why they are doing the flop fines by review of the game after it is over, so the refs don't have to worry about it during the game.

With replay review they can see that Thomas got knocked back because he's tiny, but Cousins whipped his head and flailed his arms when going down from a small bump, so Cousins' is a flop and Thomas' isn't.
 
uolj said:
This is why they are doing the flop fines by review of the game after it is over, so the refs don't have to worry about it during the game.

With replay review they can see that Thomas got knocked back because he's tiny, but Cousins whipped his head and flailed his arms when going down from a small bump, so Cousins' is a flop and Thomas' isn't.
Click to expand...

And that's good that they are doing replay. But another point that I have is that if Cousins is being hit with the exact same force as IT, then why should Cousins not get the action called as a charge whereas IT does get the action called as a charge? With Cousins it looks like a "bump". With IT is looks like he got ran over by a car. Same exact force exerted upon players of different size. Should it be called differently?
 
Kingster said:
And that's good that they are doing replay. But another point that I have is that if Cousins is being hit with the exact same force as IT, then why should Cousins not get the action called as a charge whereas IT does get the action called as a charge? With Cousins it looks like a "bump". With IT is looks like he got ran over by a car. Same exact force exerted upon players of different size. Should it be called differently?
Click to expand...

For charges, no, it probably shouldn't be called differently. But that's a tough one to judge. Part of the point of a foul is whether the contact dirupst the play in some way. Obviously if you are bigger and can absorb the same amount of force without noticing it then it won't disrupt the play as much. But ideally roughly the same amount of force should get a call regardless of how much it affects the person getting hit.
 
Kingster said:
And that's good that they are doing replay. But another point that I have is that if Cousins is being hit with the exact same force as IT, then why should Cousins not get the action called as a charge whereas IT does get the action called as a charge? With Cousins it looks like a "bump". With IT is looks like he got ran over by a car. Same exact force exerted upon players of different size. Should it be called differently?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not sure if this helps or not, but the fact is that guys usually take blows from similar-sized players. IT is going to be getting whacked or shoved mainly by Chris Paul and Steve Nash, not Kendrick Perkins and Blake Griffin. That's where most flops occur - when the opponent takes a little poke on defense or swings the ball a little on offense and the player acts as if he got clotheslined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top