- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I've seen this in football as well. The problem isn't that we need more refs. Referees are forced, by the nature of the game, to make quick, snap judgements based on a situation. I have seen games where one ref made a quick call, and it was clear, based on the reaction of the other refs, that that call was not considered unanimous. But, the nature of these games is that the refs cannot often stand together and chat about what they saw. This is especially true in basketball.
If someone calls a charge, another ref who might have had a better angle can't say "No no! It wasn't a charge Bob. Keep playing guys!"
But flopping is still a problem. And I propose two solutions. The notion of a foul for flopping is meant as a deterrent. They don't want players to have to stop the game any more than normal. They just want players to stop.
Well, since flopping is, unlike so many fouls, an intentional act -- a conscience decision -- how bout we treat it like an intentional foul. The league can decide, after the game, based on the footage of the game, that a particular play in the game was a flop. Then they can levee a fine against the player, and a warning. Records can be kept, and a player who is fined for flopping 3 times in a season can be subjected to a game suspension or the like.
In this way, it can be made public, highlighting consistent floppers, and penalizing them for it, without putting it in the hands of the already overloaded referees.
