Flopping... who's to blame?

[kingfish]

Robert Horry

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ukde193ivM

Horry got more in common with Will Smith other then just lookin like him.

[Multi-Billionaire]

Referees have NO motive to "reward" floppers. The fans hate flopping, many players hate flopping, and the league supposedly hates flopping. If they know a player is intentionally flopping, they have no reason to hold blow their whistle. Here's the problem- There are only 3 referees in a game looking at essentially 5 different 1-on-1 matchups. These players are professional athletes, and when you watch an NBA game in-person and have a close proximity to the action, the game speed is astonishing. Everything happens in a split second. They do not have the benefit to instant replay every foul, they don't have the benefit of seeing each foul from different angles, and most of the time they only catch a foul out of the corner of their eye. A foul takes place in the fraction of a second. Basically what I am getting at is refereeing an NBA game is harder than ref'ing any other sport, and in person it can be very, very difficult to determine what's a legit foul and what may be a flop. And what if a player reacts in a way that looks like he's flopping, but he is actually hit hard and just exaggerating the foul a little bit. Should a ref swallow his whistle because he assumed that player was flopping when in reality he was legitimately hit?

 

There are also 3 refs in soccer, but only 1 is actually on the field among players and who decides to give yellow/ red card to players. And the field is 17x bigger than a basketball court. The other 2 refs in soccer work on the sideline to watch for offside and ball possession/ foul/ turnover. In direct contrast, there are 3 NBA refs on the court among the players who can issue a T or flagrant foul or make impact decisions on a working field 17 times SMALLER than a soccer field.

 

Everything in soccer also happens in a split second, ball kicked from one end of the court to the other, you (if you're the ref) have to run from one end of the (SOCCER, not basketball) court to the other just to catch a better look at plays.

 

Soccer refs also don't have the benefit of instant replay when the NBA refs at least do in the last two minutes of every quarter.

 

This really says you don't watch much soccer. Watch one game, bear through it, and see that the floppings that are ignored when you see on replays are true flops that deserve to be ignored. When they blow the whistle and when you see the replays they're usually the right call... hard tackle, etc. In contrast, how many times have you seen replays in an NBA game where the TV commentators say "that's a horrible call... that's not a foul"?

 

Soccer refs usually make the right calls, when you see a player falling to the ground being ignored, it's usually a flop when you see the replay. And when they call it, it's a illegal tackle. The degree to how right the calls these soccer refs make is off the chart when you consider the lone soccer ref makes decisions all by himself and doesn't refer to/ discuss with the other two refs working the sideline on a much bigger working field than a basketball court to cover.

 

So I can't see how:

- NBA game is hardest to ref in any sport, especially not when you compare it straight to a soccer game which features more flopping

- NBA refs can't distinguish between real foul and flops when a soccer ref (all by himself) makes correct calls at a very high percentage on a much bigger court and one that features more flopping than basketball

[Nitro]

There are also 3 refs in soccer, but only 1 is actually on the field among players and who decides to give yellow/ red card to players. And the field is 17x bigger than a basketball court. The other 2 refs in soccer work on the sideline to watch for offside and ball possession/ foul/ turnover. In direct contrast, there are 3 NBA refs on the court among the players who can issue a T or flagrant foul or make impact decisions on a working field 17 times SMALLER than a soccer field.

 

Everything in soccer also happens in a split second, ball kicked from one end of the court to the other, you (if you're the ref) have to run from one end of the (SOCCER, not basketball) court to the other just to catch a better look at plays.

 

Soccer refs also don't have the benefit of instant replay when the NBA refs at least do in the last two minutes of every quarter.

 

This really says you don't watch much soccer. Watch one game, bear through it, and see that the floppings that are ignored when you see on replays are true flops that deserve to be ignored. When they blow the whistle and when you see the replays they're usually the right call... hard tackle, etc. In contrast, how many times have you seen replays in an NBA game where the TV commentators say "that's a horrible call... that's not a foul"?

 

Soccer refs usually make the right calls, when you see a player falling to the ground being ignored, it's usually a flop when you see the replay. And when they call it, it's a illegal tackle. The degree to how right the calls these soccer refs make is off the chart when you consider the lone soccer ref makes decisions all by himself and doesn't refer to/ discuss with the other two refs working the sideline on a much bigger working field than a basketball court to cover.

 

So I can't see how:

- NBA game is hardest to ref in any sport, especially not when you compare it straight to a soccer game which features more flopping

- NBA refs can't distinguish between real foul and flops when a soccer ref (all by himself) makes correct calls at a very high percentage on a much bigger court and one that features more flopping than basketball

 

My post had NOTHING to do with soccer besides 1 comment saying how basketball is the hardest sport to referee. Basketball is its own entity, and I was treating its situation of flopping as such. Which leads me to...

 

STOP COMPARING SOCCER TO THE NBA!!! Basketball is on an entirely different level of physicality and action. Besides offsides, there is nothing to call in soccer except for fouls and hand-balls. In the NBA you have to deal with shot-clock violations, 8-second rule, 3-second rule, travelling, double dribble, carrying, on-ball fouls, off-ball fouls, shooting fouls, blocking fouls, charging fouls, goaltending, backcourt violations, etc...

 

In soccer, there is very little physicality on-ball or off-ball...the NBA requires physicality each and every possession down the floor. To give you an example, in yesterday's USA-Ghana soccer matchup, there were 30 fouls. In Game 1 of the NBA Finals, there were 54. Per minute, that equated to .3 fouls per minute in FIFA, and 1.1 fouls per minute in the NBA.

 

THAT is why the NBA game is so much harder to referee than a soccer match, especially from the position of fouls/flops, which is the point of this topic. There's just a LOT more going on to have to pay attention to, and there's a lot more physicality, which makes judging fouls that much harder. And yes, there may be only 1 referee in soccer on the field, but do this...Take a random soccer match, and watch just 5min of it. Any 5min of the game. Now, watch an NBA game for 5min, once again any 5min. What do you notice? That referees have very little to actual referee in those 5min of soccer. Meanwhile, in the NBA, there's a ton of calls to be made in that same 5min span.

 

So, the fact that soccer has only 1 on-field ref really makes no difference in this topic IMO.

[Multi-Billionaire]

^How can you say with certainty basketball is more physical than soccer when soccer players go down hard (not every fall is a flop okay) and grabbing their legs in genuine pain? Basketball may be more physical upper body wise, but soccer is more physical lower body wise with all the tackles going on and during free/ corner kicks players are fighting for positions, pushing and exchanging elbows... and the header can target anything but the ball.

 

There were also NBA games with 25-35 fouls. I remember the Nuggets had a playoffs game last year where there were only 25 fouls committed between the two teams. You took a sample of one NBA game of 50 fouls and another sample of soccer game of 30 fouls and think they are the standard? It doesn't work that way.

 

How can you keep saying an NBA game is harder to ref than a soccer game when it's blatantly clear:

- There are three (3) NBA refs who can discuss calls together vs. only one (1) soccer ref who makes all on-court decisions

- The NBA court is 17 x smaller than a soccer field

- Bonus: there are 22 players on soccer field to ref (by ONE ref!) vs. only 10 players to ref on basketball court (by THREE refs)! Average wise, a soccer ref has to watch over 22.0 players while an NBA ref only has to watch 3.3 players. LMAO It's not even a contest here.

 

 

You said I should take a 5 min sample of both NBA game and a soccer game. You're definitely missing the Germany-Serbia game where the ref dished out 9 yellow cards and 1 red card. That's equivalent to 9 technical fouls and 1 ejection in NBA. But the real reason why in soccer there're less calls than NBA is: soccer refs ignore flopping while NBA refs reward/ buy into flopping. In fact, if you flop in soccer and it's a bad acting, and the ref sees that, you're gonna get a yellow card... something that is not done in basketball/ NBA.

 

 

How can 1 ref on a very big field vs. 3 refs on a small court "makes no difference"? If you're being offered one job to ref a soccer game where you ref alone and have to run like crazy on a massive field vs. another job to ref a basketball game where you know you don't make ALL MAJOR decisions by yourself, but you're accompanied by 2 other refs to see things that you miss. Same pay. You're lying if you say you prefer reffing a soccer match...

Edited June 27, 2010 by Snake

[Nitro]

^How can you say with certainty basketball is more physical than soccer when soccer players go down hard (not every fall is a flop okay) and grabbing their legs in genuine pain? Basketball may be more physical upper body wise, but soccer is more physical lower body wise with all the tackles going on and during free/ corner kicks players are fighting for positions, pushing and exchanging elbows... and the header can target anything but the ball.

 

1) The biggest player on the US team in soccer is 6'4'', 210lbs. That's an undersized SG in the NBA. Most players on the US roster are below 6ft, 180lbs. Let's say the physicality was 100% equal in both sports (which it absolutely is not, but play along), just different...who do you think is going to feel the affects of a foul more? A player getting hit by a 5'10'', 180lbs athlete, or a player getting hit by the 6'8'', 260lbs athlete?

 

2) NBA players don't get tripped up? You consider falling on the soccer field a nastier fall than falling on the basketball court from a few feet in the air after getting fouled hard going to the rim?

 

3) Yes, there are OCCASIONS where soccer players have to use physicality. But all players on the soccer field do NOT have to be physical virtually the entire game. In the NBA, everytime down the floor you have to deal with elbows, blatant fouls, jersey pulling, tripping, hip checks, and whatever punishment a player like Dwyane Wade has to take on his hard drives to the rim. And that's every single player...on every single possession. In soccer it's just the players with the ball, and whenever there is a free/corner kick. There is FAR more physicality in the NBA because the punishment is dished out on a consistent basis the entire game.

 

There were also NBA games with 25-35 fouls. I remember the Nuggets had a playoffs game last year where there were only 25 fouls committed between the two teams. You took a sample of one NBA game of 50 fouls and another sample of soccer game of 30 fouls and think they are the standard? It doesn't work that way.

 

It was an example, not to set a standard. If I used 5 different soccer games, and 5 different NBA games, completely random, and accumulated the averages, the fouls per minute will always come out to over 2:1 in favor of the NBA. In that example it happened to be over 3:1.

 

How can you keep saying an NBA game is harder to ref than a soccer game when it's blatantly clear:

- There are three (3) NBA refs who can discuss calls together vs. only one (1) soccer ref who makes all on-court decisions

- The NBA court is 17 x smaller than a soccer field

- Bonus: there are 22 players on soccer field to ref (by ONE ref!) vs. only 10 players to ref on basketball court (by THREE refs)! Average wise, a soccer ref has to watch over 22.0 players while an NBA ref only has to watch 3.3 players. LMAO It's not even a contest here.

 

 

You said I should take a 5 min sample of both NBA game and a soccer game. You're definitely missing the Germany-Serbia game where the ref dished out 9 yellow cards and 1 red card. That's equivalent to 9 technical fouls and 1 ejection in NBA. But the real reason why in soccer there're less calls than NBA is: soccer refs ignore flopping while NBA refs reward/ buy into flopping. In fact, if you flop in soccer and it's a bad acting, and the ref sees that, you're gonna get a yellow card... something that is not done in basketball/ NBA.

 

 

How can 1 ref on a very big field vs. 3 refs on a small court "makes no difference"? If you're being offered one job to ref a soccer game where you ref alone and have to run like crazy on a massive field vs. another job to ref a basketball game where you know you don't make ALL MAJOR decisions by yourself, but you're accompanied by 2 other refs to see things that you miss. Same pay. You're lying if you say you prefer reffing a soccer match...

 

1) You're not getting my point...I explained to you how much more involved the NBA game is, and how much there is to ref ON EVERY POSSESSION. In soccer, there is very little to referee except offsides (when once in a blue moon a team is actually in scoring position), hand-balls and fouls (which as I showed are far less common in soccer than the NBA). So yes, there may be only one referee in soccer, but there are at least 3x more penalties to enforce in the NBA. That is why I said that the NBA having 3 refs and soccer having only 1 makes no difference. You can't possibly have 1 referee in an NBA game...you can in soccer, even if the results leave something to be desired.

 

2) Soccer is more spread out than the NBA, yes...that doesn't mean much. Except for on free/corner kicks, there is really no physicality to enforce in off-ball situations in soccer. All the penalties to enforce are where the ball is/is going. In the NBA, you have to pay attention to every single player on the floor, and have more penalties to enforce. Also, the ball also isn't going back-and-forth every 24 seconds on the dot either like in the NBA, and when the teams do trade possessions there are no rules to enforce whereas the NBA has the 8-second clock and such. Yes, a soccer ref has more area to cover than an NBA ref, but the NBA ref has more responsibility and areas to pay attention to than a soccer ref.

 

 

 

 

*MOST IMPORTANT* One final thing- We can argue all day about which game is more physical, which game is harder to ref, all these things...and it DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Why? One word...

 

Context.

 

Basketball and soccer are two totally different sports. Have a totally different set of rules. What constitutes a foul in basketball is a lot different than in soccer. You admitted this yourself by saying soccer is all about the lower body, basketball is moreso the upper body. The refereeing situation is totally different in terms of responsibility. FIFA is not the NBA, either.

 

What does all that mean? Using what happens in soccer and comparing it to what happens in basketball is completely pointless and misguided. They are two totally different sports, two different orginizations (FIFA and NBA), and both have issues with flopping. It starts and ends there. The NBA's problem with flopping stands completely alone from FIFA's. They should not be compared or contrasted.

 

So, can we please get off this soccer crap and get back to the NBA?

[Erick Blasco]

Some people say owned, I say refuted. Snake just got refuted.

[Multi-Billionaire]

^Let's say I just got lazy replying.

 

 

So, can we please get off this soccer crap and get back to the NBA?

 

No. You clearly missed this...

 

Let's talk about flopping, not only in NBA, but also sports in general.

 

Flopping happens in contact/ physical sport, not just NBA.

 

 

---

 

 

3) Yes, there are OCCASIONS where soccer players have to use physicality. But all players on the soccer field do NOT have to be physical virtually the entire game. In the NBA, everytime down the floor you have to deal with elbows, blatant fouls, jersey pulling, tripping, hip checks, and whatever punishment a player like Dwyane Wade has to take on his hard drives to the rim. And that's every single player...on every single possession. In soccer it's just the players with the ball, and whenever there is a free/corner kick. There is FAR more physicality in the NBA because the punishment is dished out on a consistent basis the entire game.

 

 

How can you say in the NBA they are constantly physical when you touch Dwyane Wade and he goes to the free throw line. When NBA institutes 0-contact/ no-hand-check on perimeter? When floppers like Ginobili and Wade himself will flop everytime the opposing defense gets rough and in penalty situation they go to the free throw line? This is not the 1980's NBA. This is not the Bad Boy or 90's Knicks era anymore.

 

 

---

 

 

1) The biggest player on the US team in soccer is 6'4'', 210lbs. That's an undersized SG in the NBA. Most players on the US roster are below 6ft, 180lbs. Let's say the physicality was 100% equal in both sports (which it absolutely is not, but play along), just different...who do you think is going to feel the affects of a foul more? A player getting hit by a 5'10'', 180lbs athlete, or a player getting hit by the 6'8'', 260lbs athlete?

 

2) NBA players don't get tripped up? You consider falling on the soccer field a nastier fall than falling on the basketball court from a few feet in the air after getting fouled hard going to the rim?

 

 

This is coming from you who attached "crap" as a noun to soccer. You pretty much hate or don't watch soccer... that's easy.

 

Soccer can be physical in fact can produce some of the gruesomest injuries in sports. Here are some pictures, I don't load it here as it turns your stomach. Click to view it (warning: it makes Shaun Livingston's injury seem mild in comparison):

 

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02/eduardoinjuredAI_450x300.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd108/willp666/images1399442_David-Busst.jpg

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/ballhype/story_preview/2009/05/26/the_most_horrific_soccer_injury_oupa_ngulube_break.jpg

 

 

Again, you're going back to how much more physical basketball is than soccer, but your mistake is you're going back to how much physical it is upper body wise. I'm sure the strongest players in NBA like Shaq, Artest, Nene, Yao would cringe if they see these soccer injuries and how the legs can at any moment be injured like that. Muscle building has always been about upper body, rarely it's about lower body. So it's easy from that standpoint of view to say basketball is more physical than soccer. But soccer's lower body physicality is off the chart... if you think every soccer player that falls to the ground is just flopping, then you're naive. Some of them are really hurting in pain. You can go through a full NBA season without serious injuries... some NBA players are injury prone yes, but some NBA players are iron men as well: John Stockton, Karl Malone, Andre Miller, Arron Afflalo, etc. Can you go through 10 games of soccer without at least a bruise in your leg? Rarely. Doesn't matter if you're the star like Messi or defensive player or keeper, you're going to get your bruises. It's how physical it is.

[Nitro]

No. You clearly missed this...

 

Flopping happens in contact/ physical sport, not just NBA.

 

And you clearly missed that you posted this topic in the, "General NBA Discussion" forum on a website devoted to basketball. No one cares about flopping in soccer here except you and maybe 1-2 other people.

 

 

How can you say in the NBA they are constantly physical when you touch Dwyane Wade and he goes to the free throw line. When NBA institutes 0-contact/ no-hand-check on perimeter? When floppers like Ginobili and Wade himself will flop everytime the opposing defense gets rough and in penalty situation they go to the free throw line? This is not the 1980's NBA. This is not the Bad Boy or 90's Knicks era anymore.

 

Three things...

 

-Stop generalizing. For every "touch foul" Wade gets called for him, he gets hit hard legitimitely about 5 other times. When you take it to the rim at a rate that ranks among the all-time greats, you're going to get hit hard a lot. That's why despite his very thick physical frame, he's had his fair share of injuries. Then you have players like LeBron and Shaq who are physical marvels and take enormous punishment yet manage to stay relatively healthy.

 

-How many superstars are there in the league? 5-7 MAYBE? For every "superstar" call, and for every foul called because someone flops, there are about 35 other legit fouls called in the game. That's what you're really overlooking.

 

-The hand-check rule is called rarely. It does get called, but not that often. The entire Lakers-Celtics series when Kobe faced up he was getting hand-checked. T-Mac always used to get hand-checked. And again, most of the physicality in the NBA is OFF-BALL! Take a look at that Celtics-Lakers series and watch all the physical play going on in and around the paint.

 

Soccer can be physical in fact can produce some of the gruesomest injuries in sports. Here are some pictures, I don't load it here as it turns your stomach. Click to view it (warning: it makes Shaun Livingston's injury seem mild in comparison):

 

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02/eduardoinjuredAI_450x300.jpg

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd108/willp666/images1399442_David-Busst.jpg

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/ballhype/story_preview/2009/05/26/the_most_horrific_soccer_injury_oupa_ngulube_break.jpg

 

 

Again, you're going back to how much more physical basketball is than soccer, but your mistake is you're going back to how much physical it is upper body wise. I'm sure the strongest players in NBA like Shaq, Artest, Nene, Yao would cringe if they see these soccer injuries and how the legs can at any moment be injured like that. Muscle building has always been about upper body, rarely it's about lower body. So it's easy from that standpoint of view to say basketball is more physical than soccer. But soccer's lower body physicality is off the chart... if you think every soccer player that falls to the ground is just flopping, then you're naive. Some of them are really hurting in pain.

 

So you are using the absolute worst case scenario injuries to prove your point? In soccer, will you see a soccer player breaking his leg every game? Every 5 games? 10 games? No. All of what you just said does nothing to refute...

 

*That in an average NBA game there are more than twice the number of fouls compared to soccer. That NBA players are bigger and stronger in both the upper AND lower body, which makes taking a hit from an NBA player a lot more painful. And most importantly, as opposed to soccer, ON EVERY POSSESSION NBA players with and without the ball have to deal with physicality.

 

If you refute those points, you may have a case for FIFA being as physical as the NBA. Maybe.

 

Also, you know NOTHING about an NBA training regimen...even Kobe, a shooting guard, has been seen squatting over 400lbs for reps. I highly doubt there are more than 5-6 pro soccer players that can squat over 400lbs...many NBA players can. Why? Because vertical jump is cloesly associated with overall power output, and power = strength x speed. You need to have incredible lower body strength to defend post players, cut through traffic, finish strong at the rim, etc...

 

You can go through a full NBA season without serious injuries... some NBA players are injury prone yes, but some NBA players are iron men as well: John Stockton, Karl Malone, Andre Miller, Arron Afflalo, etc. Can you go through 10 games of soccer without at least a bruise in your leg? Rarely. Doesn't matter if you're the star like Messi or defensive player or keeper, you're going to get your bruises. It's how physical it is.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...wow...REALLY?!?

 

First off, how do you go from Stockton/Malone to Arron Afflalo, a 3rd year player who's played 75+ games only once? I know the answer, don't bother. But it doesn't make you saying that any less mind-blowing.

 

Secondly, you REALLY think NBA players can go 10 games without many bruises to their entire body?!?! Think Dwight Howard doesn't have bruises from getting hacked all the time? Or his defenders don't have bruises from all of Howard's elbows, hipchecks and other tactics? You don't think that players like D-Wade or LeBron, who get hit HARD a few times every game don't have a ton of bruises? You think because Wade and LeBron get a few "superstar" calls a game that they don't also a ton of clean shots each and every game?

 

 

 

 

AND ONCE AGAIN REMEMBER- CONTEXT! STOP COMPARING THE SITUATION OF FLOPPING IN THE NBA TO THE SITUATION OF FLOPPING IN SOCCER! JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH CONTACT SPORTS MEANS NOTHING! NO COORELATION!

Edited June 28, 2010 by Nitro1118

[Multi-Billionaire]

You wanna make your own rules regarding how I should stop comparing soccer and NBA, then I suggest you get out of my thread and make your own flopping thread.

 

Obviously, you can compare both sports. Did I laugh at NBA players because they can't dribble with the legs like soccer players? Did I ridicule soccer players for not having the jump vertical like NBA players? No, if I did that, that would be comparing the two sports without true context.

 

But flopping in both NBA and soccer is done in similar, if not the exact same, manner. It is an act to earn advantage both in NBA and soccer. Before you think I'm trolling on an NBA site, check my thread title again. "Flopping"... it's not "flopping in NBA", and in my first post I made it clear that we discuss flopping in not only NBA, but also sports in general. Since the World Cup began, the subject of flopping has become a hot topic on OTR... some members jeered NBA for so much flopping... while other members jeered soccer for so much flopping. I see a correlation all right. Again, if you don't like what is being discussed in this thread and tell me (the thread starter) to amend my thread "rule", then I suggest you stop posting in this thread and make your own "flopping in NBA" thread.

 

Flopping in both sports is the exact same thing. Usually an offensive player gets phantom foul and falls to the floor/ ground to try to sell foul act committed by the defensive player. Like in NBA, flopping can also be done by the defensive player trying to claim the offensive player commits the foul. Both flops in both sports are done in similar manner... with the flopper falling and the refs responding.

 

 

---

 

 

You wanna say NBA is much more physical than soccer, you can't convince me. All I see in NBA thesedays is it's much less physical than it was back in 1980s and 1990s. The NBA has become paranoid of the Malice at The Palace it has really made the refs control the game to the point it's become like exhibition games if you compare them to the old school NBA games. Now if you wanna claim the old school NBA (think of McHale clotheslining Rambis... Detroit Pistons with Rodman, Laimbeer, Mahorn cheapshotting everyone... 1990s Knicks with Ewing, Oakley, McDaniels) was more physical than soccer, then I'd say I agree with it.

 

But I've said it NBA thesedays has become too commercialized. It's focused on the marketing side, players relations with players and fans. If they bring back the old school physical era, Stern is afraid it wouldn't sell. Rasheed once said if you so much as to breathe when Dwyane Wade went past, it's a foul. How can this be a projection of a physical sport?

 

Yes, bigs trade elbows in the paint and many NBA players without the ball play physical. But this says a lot that you don't watch soccer/ hate it if you think soccer players without the ball (during free kicks/ corners) don't play physical.

 

 

 

I said in my post above I was lazy to reply to your post because you basically came into my thread to say to me, "screw your rules" when I'm talking about NBA and another sport. And also you are to me a soccer hater who hates something without knowing the true reason why you hate it. It would be like me who hates ice hockey because I think it is UFC on ice where players are brandished with hockey sticks as weapons to bash opposing players because everytime I see NHL on ESPN, some two guys are fighting and the refs are letting them! But is ice hockey just about fighting? Of course not. But I am (at least now) not willing to be receptive to watching ice hockey to let it show the game's beauty... I do think you're in this position in regards to soccer. All you see is it's a low-scoring game and think the sport sucks.

 

All I am saying is you can't legitimately hate something without having liked it at one point. E.g. I liked the Lakers and was a Lakers fan once and now hate them with conviction. I know what I hate... :glasses:

 

You keep saying soccer is not as physical as NBA when I say it's just as physical, especially compared to today's NBA. And you are a soccer hater and don't observe it much and claim it is not physical. How can you know so much when you don't watch it? It's laughable. It's a true sign of haters who don't know what they hate. They just hate it because:

- their peers hate it too and they just join the hate group without legitimately knowing why they hate it

- their "perception" of the sport tells him to hate it although they haven't got to know the sport, e.g. we have seen many instances where people don't like people when they meet in the first time, but when they get to know each other better, they find the other is not so bad and become fast friends... it's similar...

 

 

I can't discuss with soccer hater like you... it's pointless

[Hawks Fly High]

actually unlike the NBA, FIFA will punish some of the floppers who get away with it, with several match bans.

 

lol at the physicality though. you obviously havent played one game of soccer in your life or your just too ignorant too watch a whole game

[deestillballin]

Its the Player, without a doubt.

 

If you have to feel you have to resort to a flopping tactic to gain then shame on you.

 

You cant blame the ref, because if the player didn't do it in the first place the ref wouldn't call it point blank.

 

The league? Same as the ref if the player doesn't do it, there is nothing to look at.

 

For every action there is a reaction flop + ref seeing = the foul being called.

[Nitro]

First off, before I say ANYTHING, quote me where I ridicule or hate soccer. It's not my cup of tea, sure, but all the points I have made are factual. I do not care if anyone like or hates soccer, nor do I like or hate soccer. I don't watch it every single day, but I'll tune into the World Cup occasionally, and got to see The NY Red Bulls 2 years back. Not to mention I played the sport until 4th grade. With that said...

 

Obviously, you can compare both sports. Did I laugh at NBA players because they can't dribble with the legs like soccer players? Did I ridicule soccer players for not having the jump vertical like NBA players? No, if I did that, that would be comparing the two sports without true context.

 

But flopping in both NBA and soccer is done in similar, if not the exact same, manner. It is an act to earn advantage both in NBA and soccer. Before you think I'm trolling on an NBA site, check my thread title again. "Flopping"... it's not "flopping in NBA", and in my first post I made it clear that we discuss flopping in not only NBA, but also sports in general. Since the World Cup began, the subject of flopping has become a hot topic on OTR... some members jeered NBA for so much flopping... while other members jeered soccer for so much flopping. I see a correlation all right. Again, if you don't like what is being discussed in this thread and tell me (the thread starter) to amend my thread "rule", then I suggest you stop posting in this thread and make your own "flopping in NBA" thread.

 

Flopping in both sports is the exact same thing. Usually an offensive player gets phantom foul and falls to the floor/ ground to try to sell foul act committed by the defensive player. Like in NBA, flopping can also be done by the defensive player trying to claim the offensive player commits the foul. Both flops in both sports are done in similar manner... with the flopper falling and the refs responding.

 

First off, you keep failing to realize where you posted this. You posted it in, "General NBA Discussion" on a site devoted to basketball. You can talk about the issue of flopping in soccer all you want, but very few will follow you in that regard. Most people reading this top care strictly about flopping in the NBA. That is why I said, "Let's get over this soccer crap" or whatever because I didn't even realize we were talking about soccer too, since it's, you know...General NBA Discussion.

 

Secondly, you are continuing to ignore the importance of context. Yes, they are two contact sports, and they both have issues with flopping. It ends there. How can you reasonably compare them or say, "The NBA should do this, the NBA should do that because soccer does..." if they are two totally different sports, have a totally different set of rules (including what constitues a foul), totally different orginization running them, each require a totally different breed of athlete, and each have a totally different refereeing situation.

 

All of these factors have a direct impact on the flopping situation in each sport. To directly compare and contrast is trivial and pointless. Treat each as its own entity.

 

You wanna say NBA is much more physical than soccer, you can't convince me. All I see in NBA thesedays is it's much less physical than it was back in 1980s and 1990s. The NBA has become paranoid of the Malice at The Palace it has really made the refs control the game to the point it's become like exhibition games if you compare them to the old school NBA games. Now if you wanna claim the old school NBA (think of McHale clotheslining Rambis... Detroit Pistons with Rodman, Laimbeer, Mahorn cheapshotting everyone... 1990s Knicks with Ewing, Oakley, McDaniels) was more physical than soccer, then I'd say I agree with it.

 

But I've said it NBA thesedays has become too commercialized. It's focused on the marketing side, players relations with players and fans. If they bring back the old school physical era, Stern is afraid it wouldn't sell. Rasheed once said if you so much as to breathe when Dwyane Wade went past, it's a foul. How can this be a projection of a physical sport?

 

All this is nice, but only proves that the NBA is not as physical as the '80's/'90's NBA. Has absolutely nothing to do with proving soccer is a more physical sport.

 

And yes, some players get superstar calls. But for every superstar call they get, they get hit legitimitely hard about 5 other times. And again, there are how many superstars in the league? 5-7? Maybe include 3 others since they were once superstars and get that benefit? That's 10 players in a pool of over 300. Aka less than 3%. And probably less than 20% of the calls they get are "superstar" calls. That's a very, very low number of "superstar" calls league-wide.

 

And once again...context. How often is a star player in soccer fouled? Not too often, nothing like in the NBA, whether you want to talk old school or new school NBA. If you want to compare players getting superstar calls in the NBA, then compare it to rushing the passer in the NFL for players like Manning and Brady. A much, much better comparison. Still pointless, but it makes so much more sense.

 

Yes, bigs trade elbows in the paint and many NBA players without the ball play physical. But this says a lot that you don't watch soccer/ hate it if you think soccer players without the ball (during free kicks/ corners) don't play physical.

 

What are you talking about? I ACKNOWLEDGED THERE IS PHYSICALITY IN SOCCER, AND SPECIFIED THOSE SITUATIONS!!!! The problem is...

 

Let's take yesterday's England vs. Germany soccer match for example. There were 13 fouls, 0 penalty kicks and 10 corner kicks. In the average NBA game you are gonna get at least 30 fouls, and that's in 42+ less minutes than in soccer where it's a struggle to exceed 30 fouls. Now, in the NBA there is similar physicality to those free/corner EVERY TIME DOWN THE FLOOR!

 

So, those 10-15 corner/free kicks and 13-30 fouls in 90+ minutes are supposed to show me soccer is more physical than constant off-ball physicality and 30-50 fouls in 48min of an NBA game? More importantly, it's supposed to show me that flopping in the NBA and soccer are the same to referee when they are completely different in terms of number of penalties called and scenarios where there is physicality? Totally ignoring the fact that NBA players are much bigger and stronger, further making how they are affected and how they will react when fouled different. Along with ignoring your own point that one sport is more about upper body, another is about lower body, which further complicates the comparison.

 

Where's your logic?

 

I said in my post above I was lazy to reply to your post because you basically came into my thread to say to me, "screw your rules" when I'm talking about NBA and another sport. And also you are to me a soccer hater who hates something without knowing the true reason why you hate it. It would be like me who hates ice hockey because I think it is UFC on ice where players are brandished with hockey sticks as weapons to bash opposing players because everytime I see NHL on ESPN, some two guys are fighting and the refs are letting them! But is ice hockey just about fighting? Of course not. But I am (at least now) not willing to be receptive to watching ice hockey to let it show the game's beauty... I do think you're in this position in regards to soccer. All you see is it's a low-scoring game and think the sport sucks.

 

All I am saying is you can't legitimately hate something without having liked it at one point. E.g. I liked the Lakers and was a Lakers fan once and now hate them with conviction. I know what I hate... :glasses:

 

You keep saying soccer is not as physical as NBA when I say it's just as physical, especially compared to today's NBA. And you are a soccer hater and don't observe it much and claim it is not physical. How can you know so much when you don't watch it? It's laughable. It's a true sign of haters who don't know what they hate. They just hate it because:

- their peers hate it too and they just join the hate group without legitimately knowing why they hate it

- their "perception" of the sport tells him to hate it although they haven't got to know the sport, e.g. we have seen many instances where people don't like people when they meet in the first time, but when they get to know each other better, they find the other is not so bad and become fast friends... it's similar...

 

 

I can't discuss with soccer hater like you... it's pointless

 

You are spending entirely too much time trying to play me off as a hater (which you cannot find proof of) rather than refuting my points (which you haven't). 80% of your post has nothing to do with the points I brought up, and the other 20% I refuted.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Nitro1118

[Multi-Billionaire]

First off, before I say ANYTHING, quote me where I ridicule or hate soccer. It's not my cup of tea, sure, but all the points I have made are factual. I do not care if anyone like or hates soccer, nor do I like or hate soccer. I don't watch it every single day, but I'll tune into the World Cup occasionally, and got to see The NY Red Bulls 2 years back. Not to mention I played the sport until 4th grade. With that said...

You are spending entirely too much time trying to play me off as a hater (which you cannot find proof of) rather than refuting my points (which you haven't). 80% of your post has nothing to do with the points I brought up, and the other 20% I refuted.

 

Factual? Here it is, your "facts" about soccer do not have much value to the guys who truly watch soccer and are more knowledgeable than you. You admit it's not your cup of tea. Watching it occasionally doesn't make you more knowledgeable than the guys who watch it like I do. That's clear as day. Hockey is not my cup of tea either, so I'd be talking out of my [expletive] if I argue that "hockey is nothing but fighting" with people who watch it religiously.

 

I am saying you're ignorant because any guy who watches soccer will say to you that soccer is as physical as NBA/ basketball (especially today's NBA) and saying otherwise just raises eyebrow among these fans. You don't have to go too far to find a member who disagrees with you:

 

lol at the physicality though. you obviously havent played one game of soccer in your life or your just too ignorant too watch a whole game

 

- Shaun Livingston's injury was gruesome indeed. It was probably the worst injury in the history of NBA. Would you agree? But similar injury or even (much) worse has happened on more than several occasions on soccer field. The injuries in soccer can be so much worse that the worst injury in NBA history is pale in comparison. The idea of the worst injury in NBA history being "mild" and can happen occasionally in soccer just shows how physical soccer can get. How you seem not getting this is just you being ignorant.

 

- You keep ignoring how physical soccer can get when the player with ball clashes with defenders or when the ball is lobbed into a sea of both offensive and defensive players inside the box. We've seen offensive players in soccer have their legs too high when they attempt a bicycle or scissor kick and accidentally collide with the defensive players' heads, etc.

 

- Soccer refs have to repeatedly stop plays (sometimes 2-3 times on one single play) during free or corner kicks because the two sides can get very physical in fighting for offensive and defensive positions.

 

 

---

 

 

First off, you keep failing to realize where you posted this. You posted it in, "General NBA Discussion" on a site devoted to basketball. You can talk about the issue of flopping in soccer all you want, but very few will follow you in that regard. Most people reading this top care strictly about flopping in the NBA. That is why I said, "Let's get over this soccer crap" or whatever because I didn't even realize we were talking about soccer too, since it's, you know...General NBA Discussion.

 

Secondly, you are continuing to ignore the importance of context. Yes, they are two contact sports, and they both have issues with flopping. It ends there. How can you reasonably compare them or say, "The NBA should do this, the NBA should do that because soccer does..." if they are two totally different sports, have a totally different set of rules (including what constitues a foul), totally different orginization running them, each require a totally different breed of athlete, and each have a totally different refereeing situation.

 

All of these factors have a direct impact on the flopping situation in each sport. To directly compare and contrast is trivial and pointless. Treat each as its own entity.

 

It's not pointless. The reason why this topic is made here because I don't discuss soccer 100%. This is still about flopping in NBA and other physical contact sports in general, like soccer. I'm not bringing a discussion that is completely irrelevant with NBA.

 

Since World Cup is going on, soccer has become a hot topic on OTR whether it's your cup of tea or not. The subject of flopping especially is the discussion between:

- NBA fans who think soccer players flop too much

- Soccer fans who think NBA players flop too much

 

 

I find it funny you can claim with conviction that "NBA is the hardest sport to ref"... so basically you took a number of sports and compared the refereeing and come up with this analysis. So when I came in to refute your point by saying soccer is harder to ref... you jump in and say, "STOP COMPARING SOCCER AND NBA". How is it fair on your part when you allowed yourself to compare the sports but essentially disapproved other members like me who tried to compare both sports in terms of refereeing? How can you tell me to stop comparing NBA and soccer when you essentially did it?

 

 

---

 

 

All this is nice, but only proves that the NBA is not as physical as the '80's/'90's NBA. Has absolutely nothing to do with proving soccer is a more physical sport.

 

And yes, some players get superstar calls. But for every superstar call they get, they get hit legitimitely hard about 5 other times. And again, there are how many superstars in the league? 5-7? Maybe include 3 others since they were once superstars and get that benefit? That's 10 players in a pool of over 300. Aka less than 3%. And probably less than 20% of the calls they get are "superstar" calls. That's a very, very low number of "superstar" calls league-wide.

 

And once again...context. How often is a star player in soccer fouled? Not too often, nothing like in the NBA, whether you want to talk old school or new school NBA. If you want to compare players getting superstar calls in the NBA, then compare it to rushing the passer in the NFL for players like Manning and Brady. A much, much better comparison. Still pointless, but it makes so much more sense.

 

Again, this just shows you have NO knowledge in soccer whatsoever or at least not as knowledgeable as those who watch it. You keep pretending you know it and base your arguments on it as if you watched soccer regularly. I'll be the first to say you're one of the smartest members here (you're my top 3 in "top 3 experts on OTR" thread) when it comes to basketball. But this pretending to know it all about soccer is a shame. Saying a star player in soccer is not fouled often is laughable because we who watch soccer regularly know better. You can't pretend to be knowledgeable in something and show it to people who truly watch it and therefore are truly knowledgeable. It is truly laughable. You base your argument saying that NBA is hardest to referee (okay, you're very knowledgeable in NBA) on very little merit because you prove you know very little about soccer and saying that "oh yeah I've watched soccer and NBA is harder to ref" when you have little knowledge is baseless.

 

Watch Argentina plays, and see how many times Messi gets hacked whenever he gets the ball. Even the coach Maradona comes out to the media about the lack of calls for Messi (just like in NBA when coaches think their stars are not getting enough calls):

 

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/7444740/maradona-calls-for-fair-play-after-messi-marking/

 

 

---

 

 

What are you talking about? I ACKNOWLEDGED THERE IS PHYSICALITY IN SOCCER, AND SPECIFIED THOSE SITUATIONS!!!! The problem is...

 

Let's take yesterday's England vs. Germany soccer match for example. There were 13 fouls, 0 penalty kicks and 10 corner kicks. In the average NBA game you are gonna get at least 30 fouls, and that's in 42+ less minutes than in soccer where it's a struggle to exceed 30 fouls. Now, in the NBA there is similar physicality to those free/corner EVERY TIME DOWN THE FLOOR!

 

So, those 10-15 corner/free kicks and 13-30 fouls in 90+ minutes are supposed to show me soccer is more physical than constant off-ball physicality and 30-50 fouls in 48min of an NBA game? More importantly, it's supposed to show me that flopping in the NBA and soccer are the same to referee when they are completely different in terms of number of penalties called and scenarios where there is physicality? Totally ignoring the fact that NBA players are much bigger and stronger, further making how they are affected and how they will react when fouled different. Along with ignoring your own point that one sport is more about upper body, another is about lower body, which further complicates the comparison.

 

You watched a one-sided 1-4 beatdown drubbing by Germany of England... a game where England defenders gave no resistance to Germany's offense and gave a lot of operating space to score goals. Are you kidding me?

 

You wanna have a good measure, watch those top teams face each other, e.g. today's Spain - Portugal. I'm sure the fouls are going to be plenty.

 

Furthermore, we're talking about continuous, non stop clock in soccer as opposed to dead clock in NBA/ basketball during dead plays. I watch 3-4 NBA games every week (that's how often they show it here <_< ) + Nuggets streams for every season. Every time, a 48-minute NBA game normally lasts 2:45. A 90-minute soccer game normally lasts 2:20.

 

You're one of the most intelligent posters on OTR regarding to NBA, but you can't say to those who watch soccer that the sport is not as physical as NBA, the star players are not fouled as often as NBA, because we do know better and it exposes you of your limited knowledge and ignorance when it comes to soccer when you say these very things.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Snake

[Nitro]

I'm going to just quote your actual "points" and then sum up the other stuff in the end.

 

I am saying you're ignorant because any guy who watches soccer will say to you that soccer is as physical as NBA/ basketball (especially today's NBA) and saying otherwise just raises eyebrow among these fans. You don't have to go too far to find a member who disagrees with you:

 

Who do you think the 3 most knowledgable basketball people are on here besides me? Blasco? Real Deal? Even though you'll just dismiss them as ignorant as well, let's take a look at what they said...

 

Some people say owned, I say refuted. Snake just got refuted.

 

Because I don't see the point of it. You can't model the sport of basketball after soccer. Referees have much different roles, and the entertainment during stoppage of play (timeout, halftime) is completely irrelevant to all of this. The sport is even less physical. Superstars? Without goalies, every soccer game becomes a double-digit affair.

 

Blasco didn't say that because you gave a half-hearted effort in your post, as neither of our points have changed since that post. He said that because I keep refuting your points, and you have no answer but to say I'm ignorant.

 

- Shaun Livingston's injury was gruesome indeed. It was probably the worst injury in the history of NBA. Would you agree? But similar injury or even (much) worse has happened on more than several occasions on soccer field. The injuries in soccer can be so much worse that the worst injury in NBA history is pale in comparison. The idea of the worst injury in NBA history being "mild" and can happen occasionally in soccer just shows how physical soccer can get. How you seem not getting this is just you being ignorant.

 

- You keep ignoring how physical soccer can get when the player with ball clashes with defenders or when the ball is lobbed into a sea of both offensive and defensive players inside the box. We've seen offensive players in soccer have their legs too high when they attempt a bicycle or scissor kick and accidentally collide with the defensive players' heads, etc.

 

I said this before, and I'll say it again- Using worst case scenario injruies is pointless. Talking about injuries that happen once every maybe dozen or more games in a soccer team's schedule has NO BEARING ON ANY OF MY POINTS. The more relevant point to this topic which I made is the consistency of the physicality. That's the one thing you have not refuted once and has a huge impact on this topic.

 

- Soccer refs have to repeatedly stop plays (sometimes 2-3 times on one single play) during free or corner kicks because the two sides can get very physical in fighting for offensive and defensive positions.

 

This doesn't happen during some in-bounds plays/jump-balls in the NBA? When players are called for defensive/offensive fouls fighting in the post? Did you watch Fisher/Allen pushing and shoving almost every single Celtics possession in the Finals? C'mon...

 

And again, there are only so many corner/free kicks in a game in soccer. Let's say for kicks that soccer players get more physical in those situations of the game than NBA players ever do...that's still only a few minutes worth (if that) of physicality in a 90min game in off-ball situations. In the NBA there's a sustained physical element the ENTIRE GAME, especially in off-ball situations. In soccer, there isn't. Major difference that is completely relevant to the flopping situations and how refs control it. Apples and oranges.

 

It's not pointless. The reason why this topic is made here because I don't discuss soccer 100%. This is still about flopping in NBA and other physical contact sports in general, like soccer. I'm not bringing a discussion that is completely irrelevant with NBA.

 

Since World Cup is going on, soccer has become a hot topic on OTR whether it's your cup of tea or not. The subject of flopping especially is the discussion between:

- NBA fans who think soccer players flop too much

- Soccer fans who think NBA players flop too much

 

And honest to god that is fine...but you can't say, "The NBA should do this because FIFA does that, or FIFA should do this because the NBA does that." Apples and oranges.

 

I find it funny you can claim with conviction that "NBA is the hardest sport to ref"... so basically you took a number of sports and compared the refereeing and come up with this analysis. So when I came in to refute your point by saying soccer is harder to ref... you jump in and say, "STOP COMPARING SOCCER AND NBA". How is it fair on your part when you allowed yourself to compare the sports but essentially disapproved other members like me who tried to compare both sports in terms of refereeing? How can you tell me to stop comparing NBA and soccer when you essentially did it?

 

I mentioned in one line in my first post that it's the hardest to ref because there is so much going on every single possession, basically to show that refs should not get so much of the blame for the flopping.

 

And I only said to stop comparing NBA to soccer because you analyzed my first post, which was strictly devoted to the NBA's issue with flopping, and compared certain aspects to FIFA. I refuted your points, didn't just say, "STOP COMPARING THE NBA TO SOCCER!" If I didn't refute your points, Blasco wouldn't have said that directly after that post.

 

Watch Argentina plays, and see how many times Messi gets hacked whenever he gets the ball. Even the coach Maradona comes out to the media about the lack of calls for Messi (just like in NBA when coaches think their stars are not getting enough calls):

 

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/7444740/maradona-calls-for-fair-play-after-messi-marking/

 

Once again, you're not getting the point. When did I ever say stars in soccer don't get fouled? I said that it doesn't happen nearly as often as in the NBA, and the rewards for getting fouled are so much different. Most star players in the NBA have the ball in their hands most of the time they are in the game, and they usually get fouled on 4-5 shot attempts per game, not including all the non-shooting fouls. They get directly rewarded with points when they get fouled on those shot attempts, and those non-shooting fouls can put a team in the penalty which once again directly awards his team with points.

 

You can fill in how star players in soccer are affected by fouls and see just how different the sports are and why they shouldn't be compared. The ability to give "superstar" calls that affect the game is vastly different. That's my point. Not that soccer stars don't get fouled.

 

Show me how a referee in soccer could directly affect a superstar's impact on the game with fouls nearly as much as they do in the NBA, and then you finally can make an arguement.

 

You watched a one-sided 1-4 beatdown drubbing by Germany of England... a game where England defenders gave no resistance to Germany's offense and gave a lot of operating space to score goals. Are you kidding me?

 

You wanna have a good measure, watch those top teams face each other, e.g. today's Spain - Portugal. I'm sure the fouls are going to be plenty.

 

I used a random game. I could go through all the box scores of the entire World Cup and the fouls are always going to be roughly between 10-30 per game. That's in 90min (and more) of game-time. In the NBA it's usually between 30-50 per game, and that's in roughly half the game-time.

 

Why is that relevent? It's not to diss soccer, or necessarily even to say NBA is more physical...if you want to call soccer more physical, fine, that doesn't even affect my point. The point is that because refs have to call so many more fouls in the NBA game per minute, there is a lot more to referee regarding physicality and foul calls. When you mix in all the other penalties NBA refs have to enforce each and every possession, it makes judging what is and isn't a flop on the spot that much harder. In other words? Apples and oranges, once again.

 

Furthermore, we're talking about continuous, non stop clock in soccer as opposed to dead clock in NBA/ basketball during dead plays. I watch 3-4 NBA games every week (that's how often they show it here <_< ) + Nuggets streams for every season. Every time, a 48-minute NBA game normally lasts 2:45. A 90-minute soccer game normally lasts 2:20.

 

Do NBA refs have to enforce any rules besides in the 48min of gameplay? No. Making what you just said completely irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

As for the rest of your post...PROVE TO ME WHY MY POINTS ARE INVALID! Instead of just saying I'm ignorant, actually refute my points. You haven't done that the entire thread, and when you have tried you took a stance that's completely irrelvant to my point at hand. Read my posts more carefully, look at what I am actually arguing, take in my actual arguement, and then refute it. If you back me into a corner and the points I am making are completely irrelevant and unfounded, then you've won this debate.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Nitro1118

[Multi-Billionaire]

Let's go back to your first post...

 

That brings me back to the league. Players do what they can do to get an advantage, and referees do their best to call the game within its rules. To stop flopping, the league has to A) Allow for more physicality so fouls become more black-and-white than gray, and B) Start fining players more often for flopping. If players start getting fined or suspended for flopping, the flopping trend will slow down tremendously. By tweaking the rules to allow more physicality, it takes pressure off the refs to swallow their whistles unless they see a foul that could not be disputed.

 

I actually agree with these. 100% I think you hit everything on point accurately. And not only I agree, I would sign if this was a petition to the L. So as far as the main subject of this thread, I have nothing to argue with your points.

 

 

---

 

 

But unlike you, I do think referees should also be held responsible... and I'll explain it. For instance, let's go back to the Denver-Utah series where the refs bought into the numerous floppings by Miles, Matthews, Millsap and the whole Jazz team. Their flopping was so effective that Deron Williams, who I had never seen flop before, got one on Melo.

 

So the Nuggets lost and the Jazz advanced to the second round to face the Lakers. And what happened in that series? In the very first game, I saw replays of Jazz floppings that were "executed" in the exact same manner in the previous series against Nuggets were completely, absolutely ignored by the refs. And it went on until they were swept. The Jazz went from being giddy with how "successful" their flops were, to frustrated in Lakers series because the refs suddenly swallowed their whistles. From these 2 series, I came up with the analysis that refs "reward" flopping and that they should be held responsible why flopping is still going on. I do think they should ref the game the way they did in the Lakers series, ignore the flops. But what happened in the Nuggets series? If they could ignore flopping in the Lakers series, why were they loose cannons in the Nuggets series?. Can you see the inconsistency here? Basing on these 2 series, isn't it SO CLEAR that the NBA refs have something to do with the outcome of the game? In one series, they completely call everything in favor of the floppers, in another series they completely stop it. Shouldn't this "evidence" have enough merit to call for refs when flopping occurs?

 

It doesn't matter what the League's decision is, if the on-court decisions ultimately fall in the hands of the referees. Especially if the 2 very contrasting refereeing seen in the Nuggets and Lakers series happens again. Again, to hammer the point clearly, in the Nuggets series they reward the flopping, in Lakers series, they punish it by ignoring it. Two completely contrasting actions. I wouldn't go to "Lakers conspiracy theory" (it's not in my interest in this topic) but my point here is: in the Nuggets series, the refs absolutely "rewarded the floppers". Was it something in their control? Absolutely... they could have just ignored the flops by the Jazz just like they did in Lakers series. If they could swallow their whistles in the Lakers series, they could have done the same in the Nuggets series. But instead, what did they do? They rewarded the Jazz for flopping.

 

 

Here's where our contrasting points emerged:

1. I think the refs should be held responsible for "rewarding" flops

2. You don't think the refs should be held responsible because you think of the following points (taken from quotes in your first post) and I'm going to counter each of your points, comparing NBA refs straight with soccer refs. The main reason I'm doing this is: I do think the refs in soccer, while they have shortcomings particularly with allowed/ disallowed goals, is at least very consistent in regards to flopping. Unlike NBA refs, who can swallow their whistle in Lakers series and then call every flop in Nuggets series, soccer refs correctly ignore flops and call for a foul only when it's legitimate hit/ foul.

 

 

 

If you're still scratching your head why I bring soccer into this, remember, soccer refs are consistent with flopping and NBA refs (as proven in the 2 different series and many other NBA history's "conspiracies" in years past) aren't. You argue they're 2 different sports but in my opinion flopping is still flopping whether it's in NBA or in soccer... 1 player falls trying to sell a foul and the ref takes action: whether to call a foul/ reward the flop, to ignore it, or in soccer you can take it a step further to punish the flop with a yellow card.

 

 

If soccer refs are brilliant in how they deal with the flopping issue, why can't the NBA refs be? They're the same humans. There are more NBA refs on a much smaller court vs. only one ref on a soccer field. Which job is harder? Refereeing in soccer is, without question. But why is a soccer ref handling the flopping issue better than NBA refs when his job is harder when the above factors are considered?

 

 

So let's get to your quotes:

 

 

 

There are only 3 referees in a game looking at essentially 5 different 1-on-1 matchups.

 

There are only 1 referee in a soccer game looking at 10 (excluding goalies/ keepers) different 1-on-1 matchups. Soccer players, just like NBA players, have to fight through defense to get to the ball advanced because they're constantly battling to stay onside. Just like NBA players, they do cut to the goal (slash to the rim), receive pass, and receive contacts on their way to the goal.

 

 

These players are professional athletes, and when you watch an NBA game in-person and have a close proximity to the action, the game speed is astonishing. Everything happens in a split second. They do not have the benefit to instant replay every foul, they don't have the benefit of seeing each foul from different angles, and most of the time they only catch a foul out of the corner of their eye. A foul takes place in the fraction of a second.

 

Soccer players are also professional athletes, and the game speed is also incredible. Look at Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Fernando Torres dribbling from half court to the goal through numerous defenders. NBA refs do not have the benefit to instant replay every foul? Soccer refs can't even look at the jumbo screen to make decisions. FIFA completely strips technology off soccer. In NBA, at least the refs can converge to overturn a call made by one referee... and they're afforded the technology to view instant replay in the last 2 minutes of every quarter. Soccer refs have to make decisions on spot, yet they handle the flopping better than NBA refs.

 

You can never tell me, after the 2 direct contrasting refereeing seen in Nuggets-Jazz and Lakers-Jazz series, that NBA refs handle flopping consistently. Because it's not consistent.

 

 

 

Basically what I am getting at is refereeing an NBA game is harder than ref'ing any other sport, and in person it can be very, very difficult to determine what's a legit foul and what may be a flop. And what if a player reacts in a way that looks like he's flopping, but he is actually hit hard and just exaggerating the foul a little bit. Should a ref swallow his whistle because he assumed that player was flopping when in reality he was legitimately hit?

 

I can only say, watch soccer. At least if you want to see my point that the refs correctly handle the "flopping" issue. When you see a soccer player down on the field and the play continues, see the replay and you will see it is a flop. When they're down and the refs make a call, see the replay and you will see it is a legitimate foul. That's the case most of the time. The soccer referees are consistent.

 

You have to watch Nuggets-Jazz and then switch to Lakers-Jazz series to see my point. The same exact flops done in the same exact manner by the Jazz players were treated in two very contrasting actions by the referees in the different series.

[fish7718]

I can't believe you guys are actually reading and writing all of this...

[Guru]

I can't believe you guys are actually reading and writing all of this...

It's called debating. It used to be the cool thing to do back in the day.

[Erick Blasco]

I was just skimming the posts...

 

Snake, feel free to use whatever points you want for your argument, but don't say that the fouls called in the Utah-Denver series vs. the Utah-Lakers series are due to flops.

 

Utah's defense is perpetually a half step late, and their basic tenement is to not allow layups. You combine that with a team like Denver which spaces the floor very well and likes to attack the rim, and you'll end up with a lot of fouls. Plus, since Denver is comprised of players who don't change their mind when they commit to attacking, the Nuggets commit a bunch of offensive fouls as well.

 

Vice versa, Utah's execution is always precise and they're experts at attacking the middle of the paint if a defender makes a mistake. Denver has an impatient defense so their only recourse is to foul (or surrender layups).

 

Against the Lakers, Utah gives up the same number of free throw attempts (or at least plays the same ineffective defense), but the Lakers were more committed to recognizing Utah's offense and proactively denying the paint. With the basket protected, the Lakers were in position to not foul the Jazz so much.

 

As for basketball's physicality, here's a sample sequence of what happens on an NBA court. You brought up Utah-Denver, we'll use them for this.

 

• Deron Williams dribbles down the court and sets up the offense.
• Carlos Boozer tries to run to the block. Kenyon Martin meets him inside the high post and muscles up with him trying to (legally) bump him out of the paint. (Physicality).
• Boozer then comes out to set a screen for Williams. Chauncey Billups notices this and sits on Williams' hand trying to influence him away from the screen (slight physicality). Boozer then readjusts his screen, Williams drives, and Billups gets screened off (Physicality).
• While this is happening. Wesley Matthews is trying to dunk in and seal at the basket. Arron Afflalo is fighting him off (Physicality).
• Matthews then cuts off a Mehmet Okur screen where Afflalo gets bumped off (physicality).
• Williams drives off the screen, and Nene rotates on time. Williams tries to shoot around Nene, but Nene jumps straight up. There is contact, but not enough to be considered a foul. (Physicality).
• The shot gets tapped out to Matthews at the wing. He shoots a three. Three guys from each team fight for a rebound. (Extreme Physicality). Nene comes up with the ball and Denver goes the other way.

This is roughly 20-25 seconds of game time. There will be a window of 3-5 seconds where nothing physical happens while the teams run up the court (unless K-Mart wants to take a cheap shot at somebody) and then the whole process starts again.

 

Rebounding is physical. Screens are physical. Layups against good defenses are physical. The whole art of sealing and establishing position vs denying and bumping is physical. Everything about post defense is physical.

 

In my perfectly plausible and relatively mundane scenario, I counted seven aspects of physicality in an estimation of 21 seconds. We'll say there's a dead time of 5 seconds to bring the ball up the court of and then it happens again. It will keep happening again for the rest of the game and it has nothing to do with fouls being called or not being called.

 

Does this happen as often in soccer when much of soccer's time is spent kicking the ball up and down the field before you get into any kind of attack position?