If there is legitimate contact then it's not a flop...

Are they in the no charge area under the basket?

I think something else that is missed is that just because the defender doesn't fall over, doesn't mean its not a charge either.

If a small player goes barrelling into a bigger player who doesn't fall over (purely because he is big enough to take the hit), it should still be a charge. I never see these calls. In fact usually the bigger defender gets called for a defensive foul.

Agree, Jason, and that's where 'referee interpretation' becomes such an issue, instead of just sticking to the rules.

People who flop to gain an advantage for their team, in my opinion, are cheats. They are applying an action that does not proportionally match the force in the contact. Ask any player that plays against or even with a flopper, it's not an admired attribute. They serve to frustrate the offensive player and team who's purpose is score or create offensive. But as a team mate of a flopper, it also frustrates and embarrasses because no one wants to be associated with a cheat. Getting a tech is light IMO. Integrity and faking arnt words usually used in the same sentence. For cheating, you should get a yellow card. Reoffend, red card and have a week off to think about how good flopping is for the game.

flopping occurs 90% of the time as a result of no ref having the brains to realise that you don't have to end on your ass for it to be a charge.. if refs called games correctly then it wouldn't happen as much

So if Seth Scott takes a dribble into Luke Schenscher and pushes him back a step, and then does it a few more times in order to get close to the basket, then who would consider that legal or say that the refs are doing their job by not calling it?

Seth would be causing contact, would be breaking Luke's plane, and would be putting Luke at a disadvantage. Doesn't sound legal to me.

So why is it allowed so much in the NBL and NBA?

In a flop/charge situatipn, was told to look and see if the head leads or follows the body. As the head is so heavy, it will trail the body in a genuine hit, or lead the body if the player is trying to magnify the contact. It's a good indication IMO

It's not necessarily the officials' fault, but they - & those coaching/directing them - are part of the issue.

Relying more on the rules, which are designed to ensure the game is played on an 'even footing', with a fair balance between offence & defence, with players using their skills and abilities rather than brute strength, would go a long way to addressing the issue, which is far more complex than 'flopping'.

At present it seems every change in approach requires officials to make yet another subjective assessment. They not only have to see the hold, push or whatever, but decide whether it has an 'effect'. It's hard enough to see and react to illegal actions without having to guess at what effect each one might or might not have. This in fact not only makes it hard for officials to make decisions, it has the effect of discouraging them from making calls [it's too hard!]. It also provides a ready excuse for any no-call, wrong or right.

Every illegal physical action does have an effect - a physical impact on the recipient - even if there is no immediate direct gain or benefit [like a turn-over or missed shot].

Every no-call on an illegal action has a direct impact on the game because it means the player not called stays in the game long after his [or her] fifth foul. The five-foul limit is there to ensure players who use illegal/unfair measures don't stay in the game!

To go to the complexity ... falling over on contact is far from the only issue.

What about the guard who throws his head & 'off' arm up as he drives past a defender? He's clearly trying to convince the officials he was contacted, whether or not he was. Might not be 'flopping', but he is trying to gain an unfair advantage by deceiving the referees. This is not a hypothetical.

And just to put the argument in context - what about the player driving to the basket who dips his or her shoulder into a defender, who is in legal position travelling parallel to him/her? The attacking player makes the contact but, when a call is made, the defender invariably gets the foul.

Guess that in some ways that's a parallel with the post player driving into the defender. I'm pretty sure failure to call that [charges in post clashes] is a major contributing factor to the holding and 'arms around' defence we see so much of in 'low post' situations in particular. It's the defender's way of trying to 'level the playing field'. Stop the charging and you remove the excuse/reason for that sort of 'defence' - if that's what you call it.

As I said - not simple!

As has been said on previous posts, the game should just be called as it is seen in line with the rules.

There should be no need for the advantage/disadvantage rubbish or evening up foul counts etc.

If I get hit and no foul is called than I would argue that I have already been disadvataged even if there is no obvious advatage in the play. The player has broken the rules. The player may avoid being fouled off later in the game because of this no-call. That's a pretty big advantage if you ask me.

Also a foul being called would otherwise lead to foul shots or a side possession - usually better alternatives than continuing play after being hit. Thus, the team is disadvantaged by the no-call.

In my opinion, a foul (or any other violation) anywhere on the court, in any situation should be called as it is a breach of the rules and the player and their team should be appropriately penalised.

The only time I would use the advantage rule is if the violation is stopping an open layup.

And the first [& I assume primary] 'fundamental principle' is

• The spirit and intent of the rules and the need to uphold the integrity of the game.

That, surely, is the crux of the issue.

There is so much subjectivity that it seems to me the primary objective - and so the primary respopnsibility of the officials - of upholding the spirit and intent of the rules and the integrity of the game has been almost completely lost sight of.

To put it succinctly & colloquially; we've lost the plot.

The game is in need of a good dose of objectivity [the letter of the rules, in this case] to balance what has [obviously to me] become an excessive reliance on the subjective personal opinions of the officials.

"The officials should not seek to interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily in order to penalise incidental personal contact"

The sh.t I'm annoyed by is way beyond incidental contact! Incidental contact is brushing past someone, and I'd never want that called.

What gets my goat is the intentional hard contact. A dribbler charging at the defender's hip will usually get a blocking foul, even if the defender had position and didn't move. A low-post player slamming into a defender to move him back a metre. A rebounder pushing someone sideways to get him out of the way. Sticking the bum out when setting a screen, just to make the defender's job harder. Holding the attacker as he's going round you.

I'm with you, POP

No wonder the refs have so much trouble given the rules they have to enforce.

I agree with Pop and hoopie

Charging into the hip of the defender who had good position early enough?

Whoever initiated the contact and hadn't established position or direction early enough, in this case the attacker.