1. Flopping has been a problem for a long time.

2. "If you don't falll over you don’t get the charge but if you fall over you get the flop warning". What a massive contradiction to your first sentence where you implied that people are flopping. Now you are saying it doesn't happen. Which one is it?

End of the day people are exaggerating the contact and are rightly being called for it.

The rule is a joke, what do you teach now?

It's correct, if you don't fall you don't draw a charge, so do we have to teach appropriate acting skills to not over sell the contact and get a flop, but just enough of a sell to get the call? Pro teams will get stuntman in soon to teach the fall just as they do in soccer, and that's not even a joke.

If the refs just paid charges when there is strong contact taken by the defensive player in correct position without falling things would be fixed, and players would learn to keep their feet and play strong D.

I don't understand why there needs to be a penalty for flopping?
If its left as a no-call, with the defender on his back, isn't that enough of a penalty?

Is this all down to NBL refs not calling charging fouls correctly? If a charge is there call it, regardless of the effect it has on the defensive player.

Perhaps NBL refs need to be educated on the difference between cause and effect.

If they called based on "cause" they'd be basing the call on the contact initiated by the offensive player.

As it’s currently called, it looks like the refs are making calls based on the “effect” the contact creates in the defensive player.

Maybe if the refs watched the type and force of the initial contact and concentrated on that (to the exclusion of the “effect” on the defensive player) they could judge on the actions of the offending player alone. Ie illegal use of contact or force would be called regardless of whether or not the defensive player sells the contact through bad acting.

If defensive players had confidence that a charging offence would be called regardless of what their reaction was, there would be no incentive to sell the contact through bad acting or flopping.

Yep.

Players' need to sell calls comes from the lack of calls defensive players had been getting historically.

Selling has happened on offence & defence to get calls in favour. Problem is, a ref then has the extra task of discerning whether a player is selling because he WANTS the call his way or he KNOWS it should be his way.

Refs at all levels have long been inconsistent with charge calls, so its no surprise that many players want to sell their cause to get the call.

Hand push offs & elbow push offs by offence players have come to such a point of not being correctly called that they become a surprise when they are actually called .. like the one against Cairns last night.. but by then the damage had been done by questionable officiating way before then.

There is no "illegal D".

Not un fiba rules obviously but my point was on the penalty for flopping should be the same. Sorry for not been so technical

Has the flopping rule reduced the amount of flopping in games? To me players seem to be landing on the ground as much as ever. i.e., it hasn't done what it was intended to do. If that's right, then either change it to something that works or get rid of it.

That said, I don't watch as much NBL as others on this forum.

Yep, call illegal contact by the attacking player consistently and the flopping issue largely goes away.

'Flopping' targets only the defence, though I think I did see a shooter collapsing after a 3-point attempt called for it a few weeks ago.

If we must have it [and as above, I'd ignore it and focus on aiming to call illegal contact accurately and consistently] let's go to 'simulation' so all acting to gain advantage, including hand and head throws by attacking players, comes under scrutiny.

However, recent history says that would be a recipe for disaster, given the quality of our officials.

Let's keep it simple - or as simple as it can be - and go back to calling the actual rules of the game. That's a tough enough gig without complicating things by asking refs to make even more subjective - and so inherently inconsistent - calls.

For me , I think the player that Randle unsportsmanlikely fouled flopped as much as garlepp did...

I don't mind the idea of fines, but if the fines are paltry, you might just have rich owners saying "Keep taking risks, I'll pay the fines."

An alternative is a warning and then single-game suspensions for the worst floppers.

The whole concept still does my head in.
You're penalising a player for attempting to deceive a Ref, by exaggerating the effect on contact.
But, you judge this exaggeration based on your assessment of both the contact and the effect??
So why not just ignore the 2nd part and just concentrate on calling the contact correctly in the first place.

Exactly D 2.0, if someone flops let them lie on the floor. If there is contact while they're on the ground it's a blocking foul. That's the best way to get rid of flopping.

Re the original question, no it's not getting worse it's just being talked about a lot. What we think of now as flops used to just be charges not so long ago.