Bogut's been flopping for a lot longer than he's been in the NBL:

Interestingly, Torrey Craig was asked recently about whether the NBL was physical and he said:

"Yes, it is. It is a lot more physical, and they allow a lot more (contact) than the NBA."

https://www.denverstiffs.com/2018/10/4/17938264/how-torrey-craigs-path-through-the-nbl-has-shaped-his-game-in-the-nba

I think that tells the story of NBL refs have traditionally let go the niggly type of contact which should be called, where they often call incidental contact on bigs that should be let go.

Says Bogut with the big flop today on Jawai.

Come on guys, whenever a superstar player says something like this it is with a clear agenda towards getting some calls to go his way, really.....obvious!

Full might be an overstatement.

But what is true, and something he should have scouted a bit better, is that the refs are very tough on Big guys. Jawai's been getting short-changed for years.

Video reviews after each game.

First offense: Warning.

Second offense: Fine.

Third offense: Miss a game.

3 strikes, you're out. If they really want to stamp it out, this would be very effective.

CG floppy 3. Where are you?

Of course he flopped! Jawai goes harder than that just opening his lunchbox.

I have never liked the call! the flopping warning then the subsequent tech(s).

Why call anything other than a foul (if there is one)(and I don't mean calling a flop as a tech either, let it go)? If a player flops and play is allowed to continue, it is the flopper's team that suffers, who now have to play 4 on 5 or a fast break scenario with a loose man on O.

Besides that, I honestly think, sitting in my chair and watching the action, that a lot of flops aren't that at all. I don't mean that they are all fouls but simply that players do lose balance at pace, sometimes the slightest touch can send you tumbling, heck, we even applaud when a cross-over "breaks ankles" and the defender falls, do we want those called as flops? Let it go. If a player wants to accentuate his flop by staying down and playing really, really hurt, blow the whistle, insist on an "injury" sub for the "flopper" (once again his team suffers) and get on with the game (if the downed player is really hurt, he should be glad to get off and fixed up and back after treatment). Self regulation may save this issue in the end.

And then the game can flow again as everyone says they want.

Totally agree with Robt. Refs just need to call what they see & let the game proceed.

I think we're starting to realise that when it comes to the refs we're pretty much stuck with what we've got & that there's no such thing as perfection, so call the block or charge or simply ignore the contact [the apparently much-loved 'no call', which I detest because it favours the player who infringed and so should have been fouled]. If nothing else that approach means officials don't have to guess about whether contact was sufficient to knock a player off his or her feet, and let's face it, they are guesses.

Interestingly it seems to me that supposed 'flopping' is a much bigger issue in the men't game than the women's. Not sure why, but to me that definitely seems to be the case.

As someone who has regularly been accused of flopping in social comp, all I'll say is that the only way to get rewarded for good defence is to 'fall down'/'exaggerate contact'/'give up your position' to actually get a call (much like Jawai on Bogut yesterday). It was good D, it was a charge (took shoulder directly in the chest), but if Bogut stays upright, refs just play on.

I hate to blame refs for this, but if it didn't get rewarded, it wouldn't happen. Occasionally you might see an offensive player called for hooking, or an illegal screen (which is a crap shoot these days considering the amount of side/butt screens), and apart from that do you ever see a charge without a guy going to ground? Defenders have a difficult time getting (non-)calls as it is. Fines/tech fouls will do little to change this. Has it stopped those considered serial offenders yet?

The thing about flopping and the 'no charge' calls or letting it go as many ref's tend to suggest they do is that the end result is exactly what is being debated.

Funny thing about that is where most of the flopping and charging issue is centred around, which is of course the paint.

I have at times challenged the officiating, not to criticise it unfarely, but to encourage the contact to be called when it should be and for the paint to be an area where fouls are actually called so players can play with more freedom.

I get it, they are big burly blokes and don't mind some banging of the body, but the interpretation of rules changes in the paint, the end result of this is the symptoms of 'no charge' v 'flop' and it won't change until the officiating starts to be done according to the rules, not an inconsistent interpretation of them...

Oops, can you fix that Isaac.........?

I kind of agree with the above, but its a very difficult thing to call.

If you have correct defensive position, and your opponent bumps your chest, with no obvious disadvantage, there is generally no call.
Otherwise there would be calls every time somebody went into the paint.

So some defenders choose to accentuate the impact. That's a gamble, and if they get caught out they should be penalised.

Realistically, if the defender wind up on his butt ostensibly as a result of the impact, then there needs to be a call. Either charge, block, or flop.

I reckon you could make quite a strong team out of the guys who have a reputation for flopping and kicking their legs out - provided they actually concentrated on PLAYING rather than the other skill they're known for.

For starters:
Ware
Cotton
Goulding
Wagstaff
Bogut

Other nominations?