11 replies to this topic

[MichaelPina]

Here's my piece on Kevin Martin and flopping. Thoughts?

http://www.red94.net/9619/9619/

[Lyfestyle]

That was a great read. It's certainly not good times as a Rockets fan to consider Martin's trade value today vs. a year ago.

[rockets best fan]

I agree martin is an oscar winning actor on fouls. I also agree his productivity will drop, but its so hard for refs to see in a split second situation he will still get calls. maybe not as many as b4, but his acting skills will get him some. I am so glad we have finally reach a point where it appears he will be traded. unlike many others I don't believe he has low trade value, maybe not as high as last year I will admit, but still high. martin is still a player who will be able to score. sure his stats will drop, but on the right team he can be dangerous( say minny). I am still of the belief minny will find a way to trade us for him. they want him badly. rick adleman knows how to use martin's skill set. its just a matter of them offering something we want, and they do have pieces we like.

[Rahat Huq]

Great piece. Like 'rockets best fan' said, hopefully Martin's value isn't as low as I believe it is.

Acquiring Martin really completed the complete emasculation of the Rockets. Remember when they used to be known for their toughness?

[majik19]

One thing about Martin's flopping: most of those are genuine fouls. Yeah, he over-dramatizes them, but what he is excellent at is getting the defender in the air and making contact. Go look at Charles Barkley - he did this a ton too, and no one called him a flopper (or soft).

Plus, let's be honest, Kevin Martin is a twig - maybe he does get hit that hard.

[Stephen]

In the right system Martin can still be an effective scoring SG,even w/out the foul calls.
He still is a good 3pt shooter and he's excellent running off screens and getting the quick stop-n-pop jumper.
Put him in an offense that gets him open 3pt looks and sets multiple screens for him to use and he'll still put up close to 20ppg.
He quit moving on offense this yr,first because he was hurt because of the trade,later because his shoulder hurt to much to take the contact necessary in rubbing people off screen.

[rockets best fan]

In the right system Martin can still be an effective scoring SG,even w/out the foul calls.
He still is a good 3pt shooter and he's excellent running off screens and getting the quick stop-n-pop jumper.
Put him in an offense that gets him open 3pt looks and sets multiple screens for him to use and he'll still put up close to 20ppg.
He quit moving on offense this yr,first because he was hurt because of the trade,later because his shoulder hurt to much to take the contact necessary in rubbing people off screen.

totally agree. this is why I think he still has high trade value. its not that martin can no longer play, its that we no longer run the type of plays that get him open and he is not good at producing quality shots on his own. in an offense where they run a lot of screens martin will still do ok. this is the reason I said rick adleman knows how to use martin. he will creat these type of shots for martin.

[Forrest Walker]

I think consternation about flopping is a good impulse but often somewhat misplaced. The flopping itself is a symptom, not a disease. And the disease is the difficulty in officiating such a complex, high speed game.

The two things you can call flopping are A) creating contact/foul where there was none and exaggerating a legitimate foul to sell it to the ref. I don't see anything bad about B, really, except that it kind of sucks that the refs need to be sold on fouls. Take Dwight Howard, for instance. Let's forget all his shenanigans for a minute and look at his play. He gets hit. A lot. But because he's big and he powers through, he doesn't get many fouls. (This may be for the best given his shooting at the line, but this is a different discussion.) If he screamed or flailed or was smaller, he might get more calls. Should he stop fighting through and flop a little? Uh... I think he maybe should consider it.

A is a bit more complicated. Essentially what you have here is an exploit. These come up all the time in video games, and in competitive circles, they're just part of life. The onus is not on the players to leave an advantage on the table. The onus is on the game to eliminate their rules problem. Flopping may be disgraceful, silly, shameful, etc. But last season when Martin did it, it worked. It got points and got the other team in foul trouble. If you can do that, as a player in it to win games, do it. I think lots of teams get away with sneaky fouls and flops and mauling players. But the NBA needs to fix this by making officiating more doable, not chastising players for playing the meta-game.

As for fixing officiating? That's tough. My theory is that having an extra 2-3 officials at the scorer's table looking at footage at all times would help. The floor refs can blow the whistle, then the table refs have 5-10 seconds to decide what the call actually was. Anything you do to make the calls better is going to add a few seconds to each call, but I think that's not unreasonable.

In any scenario where calls are more accurate, flopping will become its own penalty. If you don't get your whistle, you're on the ground, useless to your team. I love JVG, but all this talk about fining floppers would be, in fact, harder to officiate than just letting them fall over when the ref isn't buying it. If we can't even agree on which fouls are flops and which aren't, there's nothing to be gained from fining people.

[blakecouey]

KMart has made a living off the plays shown. In my opinion, these aren't the type of fouls that are the problem, KMart is drawing contact not flopping. A better example of a flopper would be Blake Griffin, he gets brushed by a PG and falls over, whistle gets blown- this is what we need to end. When a player hits the ground over light contact(and sometimes NO contact) it's either a no call, or needs to be against the actor/player.
There are a lot of possible solutions thrown around the league, more officials, fines, suspensions, more replay, etc.
1. More Officials - Right now with three the league misses a lot of calls, adding another official on the court and one/two at the table might be a good solution. The bad side of more officials is then you might crowd the court, or it may take excessive time to evaluate a play and determine the call(as we see in football at times).
2. Fines - Unless we're talking small amounts, or bracketed levels of offenders, this is absurd. You can't tell me a flop is worth 5k, or 1k even.- Quality players are paid very well, but rookies at 500k a year that's a big hit. You know there will be questionable calls, some that aren't flops that are just bad positioning and off balance clumsiness. So do the rookies get a lower rate per flop than high paid players? That doesn't seem fair either. Fines by bracket 1-9, 10-19, etc. might work better, but you run into the same problem.
3. Suspensions - Really? In most cases you don't get suspended for a flagrant foul, which could seriously injure another player. How can you say a flop is worth a game, or two, or whatever. This might stop the flopping, but it's also going to lead to the superstars playing less games which is bad for business. I'm strongly against this as I see it as a lose lose situation and feel that it would hurt the game even more so than flopping.
4. Expansion of Replay - Two routes to go with this:
4a. Keep the same fundamentals of replay as it is, but reviewing all fouls. Sorry but i enjoy the fast paced game of Basketball, this would ruin that. I forget which game it was, but I remember late in the season there was a foul that took about 6 minutes to be evaluated -ABSURD. The reason I say all fouls to be reviewed is because even the ones where there is no flop, sometimes a foul is called when there was no contact, or contact was on the ball.
4b. NFL type replay, where each team gets a set number of reviews per game. The only problem with this is in a case where a team has used their reviews and a team takes advantage of it by flopping every chance they get.

As for fixing officiating? That's tough. My theory is that having an extra 2-3 officials at the scorer's table looking at footage at all times would help. The floor refs can blow the whistle, then the table refs have 5-10 seconds to decide what the call actually was. Anything you do to make the calls better is going to add a few seconds to each call, but I think that's not unreasonable..

The problem I see with this, it takes more than 5-10 seconds to properly evaluate it, and the more people looking at it the longer it's going to take. Maybe 1 referee, nobody else's input needed. Consistency is what is needed, and the only way to attain that consistency is with one person making the decisions.

Now after all that, if a foul is called and it turns out to have been a flop what is to be done to THE GAME. You can't make the offending player whip out his wallet and pay his fine right there, and ejecting him would be a joke as well. So, take the ball out with the team with possession retaining it?(if it's the offending team, then nothing was lost by their attempt) The other team get's the ball? maybe. Foul shot(s) for the team that was wrongly accused? Seems reasonable, but I don't want games decided on flops or reversed flop calls.

The League has a lot to do, I look forward to seeing what they come up with, but "nothing" is unacceptable. Something must be done.

[rockets best fan]

blakecouey:
you make some valid points. I don't like flopping either, but what can they do. when you try to control something like this you get on a slippery slope its impossible to get off of. I don't want replay(will take to much time). I don't want to see fines(don't want to open that can of worms). I don't want more refs(3 is enough if you have good ones). the only thing I can see is you have to tell the refs to stop calling it, and if you do that it will make the game more physical because players will be allowed to get away with random contact. i'm like you I sure would like to see what they come up with on this one.

[blakecouey]

The only thing I did not mention that has been on my mind(and others I've heard from) is a larger officials group, with better trained more qualified officials. Keep 3 per game, but instead of these guys(such as Joey Crawford) officiting 3-4 games a week, limit them to two to ensure that they are rested, and able to do the best job they are capable of. This will cause the league to have more officials overall, which gives them the ability to cycle them more regularly where the same official isn't at every LA game, or whatever venue. All that leads to is possible issues with bias, or AT LEAST conspiracy of bias by media and whoever. As for the second part, more highly qualified officials, this is a bigger issue. Just like players, officials need time on the court making mistakes, learning on the go, and evaluations to become better at their profession, so it may be that this is a slow transition that takes several years to complete. I don't know how long the officials go to "school" to learn, but based on the issues the entire league has faced with flops, missed calls, etc, it obviously isnt long enough. This is probably the only suggestion that will not change the game fundamentals, which is why it's the most likely solution in my opinion.

[pharmag]

The only thing I did not mention that has been on my mind(and others I've heard from) is a larger officials group, with better trained more qualified officials. Keep 3 per game, but instead of these guys(such as Joey Crawford) officiting 3-4 games a week, limit them to two to ensure that they are rested, and able to do the best job they are capable of. This will cause the league to have more officials overall, which gives them the ability to cycle them more regularly where the same official isn't at every LA game, or whatever venue. All that leads to is possible issues with bias, or AT LEAST conspiracy of bias by media and whoever. As for the second part, more highly qualified officials, this is a bigger issue. Just like players, officials need time on the court making mistakes, learning on the go, and evaluations to become better at their profession, so it may be that this is a slow transition that takes several years to complete. I don't know how long the officials go to "school" to learn, but based on the issues the entire league has faced with flops, missed calls, etc, it obviously isnt long enough. This is probably the only suggestion that will not change the game fundamentals, which is why it's the most likely solution in my opinion.

Set up a farm system for officials and pair it with the D-League? I say this partly in jest, but it might be something to consider. Of course I don't know how it is that one becomes an official at the NBA level so something like this may already be in place.