The other "dive rule"

[LaxRef]

Under NCAA rules, it's illegal procedure to take a dive to try to get the officials to call a foul:

SECTION 6. Any action on the part of players or substitutes of a technical nature that is not in conformity with the rules and regulations governing the play of the game shall be termed illegal procedure. The following are examples:

/snip/

v. Taking a dive or feinting a slash to the head or body in order to deceive the official and draw a penalty.

Can you envision a situation in which you would, say, call player A1 for a slash and--at the same time--call player B1 for this illegal procedure foul?

The reason I ask is that, according to my wife, they're making this call in NCAA hockey this year. It seems like if you're calling the foul on player A1, then it's really hard to call the foul on B1 even if you're convinced he's doing an acting job trying to convince the official to call it.

I've never made this call--nor seen it made--although I saw a play in the NCAA playoffs one year in which goalie A1 shoved B1 to the ground from behind (the officials missed this call). Then B1 jumped up, didn't do anything wrong, but his shoulder slightly bumped the goalie, who went down like a. . . . well, let's just say he fell right to the ground for no good reason, and the officials flagged B1. This would have been the perfect opportunity to make this call (although I think it might have been the year before the rule, and maybe even the reason it was enacted).

[Snake~eyes]

Under NCAA rules, it's illegal procedure to take a dive to try to get the officials to call a foul:



Can you envision a situation in which you would, say, call player A1 for a slash and--at the same time--call player B1 for this illegal procedure foul?

The reason I ask is that, according to my wife, they're making this call in NCAA hockey this year. It seems like if you're calling the foul on player A1, then it's really hard to call the foul on B1 even if you're convinced he's doing an acting job trying to convince the official to call it.

I've never made this call--nor seen it made--although I saw a play in the NCAA playoffs one year in which goalie A1 shoved B1 to the ground from behind (the officials missed this call). Then B1 jumped up, didn't do anything wrong, but his shoulder slightly bumped the goalie, who went down like a. . . . well, let's just say he fell right to the ground for no good reason, and the officials flagged B1. This would have been the perfect opportunity to make this call (although I think it might have been the year before the rule, and maybe even the reason it was enacted).
Interesting move.

Actually, something similar is happening NFHS basketball this year. You know when a player is going to the hoop and we have a possible charge or a block call. Well if a player "flops"(fakes taking the charge) then we are suppose to call a technical foul. That is a POE for this winter in Basketball.

I think it's an interesting rule, acting is not part of playing sports and it should be removed from the game. I know I don't have any problem looking down on a player who falls over because of a little bump, shaking my head usually ends that. I have no problem calling the kid offsides because he overexagerated and stepped offsides because of a little bump.

[Laxref_36]

Under NCAA rules, it's illegal procedure to take a dive to try to get the officials to call a foul:



Can you envision a situation in which you would, say, call player A1 for a slash and--at the same time--call player B1 for this illegal procedure foul?

The reason I ask is that, according to my wife, they're making this call in NCAA hockey this year. It seems like if you're calling the foul on player A1, then it's really hard to call the foul on B1 even if you're convinced he's doing an acting job trying to convince the official to call it.



Laxref,

If there is a slash on one team and the other team commits a technical foul, you merely end the "flag down" situation.

[CoachRob]

Can you envision a situation in which you would, say, call player A1 for a slash and--at the same time--call player B1 for this illegal procedure foul?

Yes, I could. If A1 slashes B1, and B1 makes it appear much worse than it is. For instance, B1 moves his head in such a manner as to make it appear his head was hit to try to get A1 to serve a longer penalty for a vicious slash.

Now we are into simult. fouls. Since the team in possession (B) committed only a technical foul, no time would be served by B1 according to the current rules. If it were reversed and the team in possession commits the PF, then all players serve time.

This is no different than any flag down/slow whistle. These are simultaneous fouls when the possession team commits a technical foul to end the FD/SW. No time is served by the possession team, they keep the ball, and the offending defensive player is sent off.

When you think about it, ALL FD/SW's that are terminated by a penalty against the possession team are actually simult. fouls, although we don't like to think of them that way. :crying:

[RockStar]

Under NCAA rules, it's illegal procedure to take a dive to try to get the officials to call a foul:



Can you envision a situation in which you would, say, call player A1 for a slash and--at the same time--call player B1 for this illegal procedure foul?.....

Just FYI - I've seen it in pro hockey and pro (box) lacrosse as well.

Player may have been tripped/hooked/slashed etc., but there was no need to sell it to the official.

So, they call the first infraction, then call an unsportsmanlike conduct on the diver.

[LaxRef]

Laxref,

If there is a slash on one team and the other team commits a technical foul, you merely end the "flag down" situation.

Not if the slash occurs during a loose ball. In that case, you might be looking at A1 serving 1:00 for the slash and then team A getting the ball due to B1's dead ball techincal foul.

But, again, I'd have to be really sure B1 was acting trying to get the call before I'd call it this way.

You are right, though: if the acting job occurs with possession, it ends the flag down. It would, of course, also be a turnover if you ruled there was no foul by team A and called B for "acting."