A1 is driving to the basket. B1 is set to take the charge. Never moves. Hands straight up.

 

A1 while jumping moves his body to the side and clips B1 in the shoulder area knocking both down.

 

What do you have?

A1 is driving to the basket. B1 is set to take the charge. Never moves. Hands straight up.

 

A1 while jumping moves his body to the side and clips B1 in the shoulder area knocking both down.

 

What do you have?

 

You already proved your myth statement wrong with this Clyde:

 

There is a general statement regarding Ts and one of the possibilities is "faking a foul".

 

No need to bring up scenarios. I asked if there was a rule about a technical for faking a charge. You said, no that is a myth. Two officials were asked, both refuted your myth statement. Then you even said, yes you can get a technical for it. Debate over.

I will just chalk this response up to you not being able to admit that you were wrong this time. I asked/made a statement:

 

 

 

Turns out, that I was right. Whether it is never actually called or not, doesn't make my post in #2 a myth.

 

And just for good measure, the official I spoke to has called it twice in his career.

 

 

 

 

10.3.6 includes "faking being fouled" in regards to shooting a FT that's not entitled to you. That tells me the intent is clearly in regards to that specific scenario.

 

At best it's open to interpretation. It's certainly not stating that flopping is a T. You asked if there is a rule about faking a T being a charge. There is none. Myth.

10.3.6 includes "faking being fouled" in regards to shooting a FT that's not entitled to you. That tells me the intent is clearly in regards to that specific scenario.

 

At best it's open to interpretation. It's certainly not stating that flopping is a T. You asked if there is a rule about faking a T being a charge. There is none. Myth.

 

I didn't ask if flopping on a charge was a technical. I asked if the official had the ability to call a technical on it. If we have to get technical (no pun intended) on the wording, I will play along with your posts: In the right scenario, an official has the ability to call a technical for faking a charge. Your own posts tonight say that?

 

I will take the word over two active (assuming Thunderbirds guy is active) officials over yours. But I could take yours in post #41 as well.

 

And for the record...I never commented on the call in your little scenario, so not sure how I could be wrong if I didn't give my opinion on it.

 

We are all wrong on here sometimes...but it's not a myth.

I didn't ask if flopping on a charge was a technical. I asked if the official had the ability to call a technical on it. If we have to get technical (no pun intended) on the wording, I will play along with your posts: In the right scenario, an official has the ability to call a technical for faking a charge. Your own posts tonight say that?

 

I will take the word over two active (assuming Thunderbirds guy is active) officials over yours. But I could take yours in post #41 as well.

 

And for the record...I never commented on the call in your little scenario, so not sure how I could be wrong if I didn't give my opinion on it.

 

We are all wrong on here sometimes...but it's not a myth.

 

You asked if "blatantly faking a charge" is a T. Nothing in the rulebook addresses it specifically. My "faking a foul" comment was subsequently explained as to what is was lumped with in the rulebook. That matters.

 

I have no doubt some officials will interpret it that way. I do not. Many do not and that's backed up by the fact you never see it called.

 

Active? You and others have spent this entire thread bashing ACTIVE officials for not calling something. Now being "active" is the end-all-be-all?

 

I'll leave you with this. There is no rule in the book that prevents a player from falling backwards on defense when he/she anticipates contact. So tell me again how I'm supposed to justify calling a T?

Clyde...I'm sorry I didn't word my question exactly as it's written in the rulebook.

 

But at the end of the day, even yourself has said that an official does have the ability to call a technical. A very simple question, with a very simple answer...Yes. Does it ever happen? No. Will you ever see it? Maybe once in your lifetime. But that doesn't take away that they do have the ability to call it, which is all I was asking. If you want to make the question much more difficult, go for it, but it was simple. You said it was a myth... it isn't which even you have said yourself in one of your posts.

 

Active? You and others have spent this entire thread bashing ACTIVE officials for not calling something. Now being "active" is the end-all-be-all?

 

I'll leave you with this. There is no rule in the book that prevents a player from falling backwards on defense when he/she anticipates contact. So tell me again how I'm supposed to justify calling a T?

 

Not once in this thread have I bashed an official, not sure where you're getting that. In fact, I said it was their judgement call in a post.

 

To answer your last question...you tell me. You said yourself in post #41:

 

There is a general statement regarding Ts and one of the possibilities is "faking a foul".

 

To me the act of blatantly trying to fool an official is my justification. Much like in soccer, a player can be given a yellow card for faking a foul (sorry if the wording isn't exactly from that rulebook either). But I believe that to be the case in that sport as well, if I remember right.

 

I know you won't admit you were wrong about your myth comment, so I will just let this one die.

Clyde...I'm sorry I didn't word my question exactly as it's written in the rulebook.

 

But at the end of the day, even yourself has said that an official does have the ability to call a technical. Does it ever happen? No. Will you ever see it, maybe once in your lifetime. But that doesn't take away that they do have the ability to call it, which is all I was asking. You said it was a myth... it isn't which even you have said yourself in one of your posts.

 

 

 

Not once in this thread have I bashed an official, not sure where you're getting that. In fact, I said it was their judgement call in a post.

 

To answer your last question...you tell me. You said yourself in post #41:

 

 

 

To me the act of blatantly trying to fool an official is my justification. Much like in soccer, a player can be given a yellow card for faking a foul (sorry if the wording isn't exactly from that rulebook either). But I believe that to be the case in that sport as well, if I remember right

 

You keep referring to 41 even though I added onto it later. Don't ignore that.

 

Here's the reason I say it's not clearly spelled out.

 

A defender , once he has legal guarding position, is allowed to anticipate contact and move obliquely (start falling backwards). Now you're saying that's a blatant attempt to fake a foul just because there's no contact? Not supported in the rulebook. That's why I say it's a myth. It's not addressed specifically. Heck, 99% of the time you guys say there are "flops" involve contact. You will NEVER see that supported in the rulebook.

 

To me the act of blatantly trying to fool an official is my justification. .

 

Give me a real-world example of "blatantly" that you've seen in a game.

I didn't ask if flopping on a charge was a technical. I asked if the official had the ability to call a technical on it. If we have to get technical (no pun intended) on the wording, I will play along with your posts: In the right scenario, an official has the ability to call a technical for faking a charge. Your own posts tonight say that?

 

I will take the word over two active (assuming Thunderbirds guy is active) officials over yours. But I could take yours in post #41 as well.

 

And for the record...I never commented on the call in your little scenario, so not sure how I could be wrong if I didn't give my opinion on it.

 

We are all wrong on here sometimes...but it's not a myth.

 

My guy is no longer active but judgement calls like this and how he would if called it is why he was(is) one of the best around still to this day. You would be hard pressed to find somebody more educated on this issue than Ernie Liggett. Even Clyde knows that!

My guy is no longer active but judgement calls like this and how he would if called it is why he was(is) one of the best around still to this day. You would be hard pressed to find somebody more educated on this issue than Ernie Liggett. Even Clyde knows that!

 

Ernie was a legend without question.

This thread has been a fun read.

 

MJ proving Clyde wrong, and he can't admit it. I love it! :popcorn:

Here's another example of why you can't just read one rule or part of a rule and say definitively what the intent is.

 

If a defender steps across the line or has any part of his/her body across the line during a throw-in it is a violation. First time it happens it is a warning and then it's a T after that.

 

It is also an "unsporting T" if the defense does not allow a live ball to be made live promptly...

 

Our association had a spirited debate on an end-of-game situation where the defense was out of timeouts and wanted to set up their press. They had not had any delay of game warnings issued. Coach told that after they scored and then went on D the person guarding the ball was to step over the end line in order to get a delay of game warning which would stop the clock and allow them to set up.

 

Many thought this should be a T because its intent was to stop the clock. They hung their hat on the 2nd rule I cited. Many others said the rulebook says the coach gets one D.O.G warning so how can you give him a T.

 

Who was right? Who knows. Very experienced officials differed on the interpretation.

 

It's the exact same thing here. It's not spelled out clearly because there are always other rules that you have to also read and then get interpretations from. Ernie Ligget may think it's a T. He would have a ******* time explaining to a coach why it's not a delay of game warning.

 

This issue is not as cut-and-dry as some think - even experienced and talented officials.

A1 is driving to the basket. B1 is set to take the charge. Never moves. Hands straight up.

 

A1 while jumping moves his body to the side and clips B1 in the shoulder area knocking both down.

 

What do you have?

 

Should be a no call in my opinion but that will always be called one way or the other.

Should be a no call in my opinion but that will always be called one way or the other.

 

Agreed

How is the charging call defined in the rule book?