MELBOURNE (Paulo Kennedy's View from Downunder) - I read with great interest this discussion between new NBL refs boss Alby Joseph and News Limited journo Boti Nagy about flopping.

It seemed like a very open chat so I decided to give Alby a call myself to talk about a range of things refereeing, but before I get to that, here are my thoughts.

I don't think we have - or have ever had - a problem with flopping, the NBL mistakenly looking at the issue in isolation, rather than as part of the charge/block call, with which it is interwoven.

One leading Aussie referee once said in private discussion there are more charges in the NBL than in many other countries because our players more willingly put their bodies on the line.

But our teams don't take significantly more charges than other national teams at major tournaments, suggesting players put their bodies on the line more in the NBL because they are rewarded more.

Punish them for not clearly getting position before contact and they'll find a different way to defend.

There is no real flopping problem, there is a cultural issue with the way our country governs charge/block from juniors to the pros, giving players no encouragement to stand their ground.

Joseph is largely in agreement with the first part of that statement, and personally I think it's time for the NBL to stop making flopping a talking point.

With that point behind us, we moved on to discussing the real issues of the charge/block, which have massive implications on what the product looks like on the court.

In the dying stages of last night's Melbourne v Perth game, we saw two players holding their ground instead of taking contact and going to ground.

Both situations were well called, hopefully that's a precedent.

While Mal Cooper tried persistently and unsuccessfully to get NBL zebras to call the charge/block in favour of the offence where there was doubt, Alby has a different view.

"The ones that have a bit of a questionable element on, we're deciding those on their merits," he said.

"I have people yelling consistency at me, but I'm just trying to get them accurate. If we can judge the situation on its merit and get it accurate then I think ultimately consistency will follow."

It's an interesting take. There is so much grey area in the charge/block, and I believe the consistency comes from deciding where the grey area should sit.

In the NBA and Euroleague the elevating offensive player gets the benefit of the doubt. That is, the grey area is slanted in one direction, reducing confusion.

The grey area in the NBL is not defined, resulting in referees reverting back to their individual instincts to determine each call, and causing confusion amongst players, coaches, fans and casual viewers.

I guess the success or otherwise of Joseph's strategy will come down to educating the referees how to make those judgments the same as each other, something that is already taking place.

"We've scrutinised charge/block situations, and we do that on a weekly basis," he said.

"I make a determination on whether it was correct or incorrect and I send that back out to all the officials so they get to see it and understand it."

In the Illawarra v Perth game last weekend, Cody Ellis stepped under the elevating Jermaine Beal late, the sideline referee calling a charge despite his vision being impeded for much of the play.

The baseline official had a clear view but made no call, something Joseph said is a directive this year.

"We're asking the referee who owns the drive from the start to keep it until it finishes, that way they get to see the start of the play, the middle of the play and the end of the play," he said.

"We don't want the referee on the baseline to be guessing, they'll only be picking up the middle and the end of the play, and that cuts down their decision making time."

For me, Joseph's reasoning makes sense when the contact involves the defender who is guarding the ball.

However, the defender coming from the weak side is a blindspot for the sideline referee - who is watching the on-ball defender - and should be adjudged by the baseline official in my book.

If we want a league where players attack the basket athletically, we can't allow defenders to step underneath them and we definitely can't reward them with charges.

My personal view is those help side defenders should be pinged with blocking fouls if they don't establish position before the ball-handler elevates, but Joseph has a more nuanced position.

"Yes and no. What we're looking for here is if the shooter has the ability to land, and if they do that's ok. If their landing spot is taken away from them and there is an element of contact, this is a foul," he said.

Joseph said they are hopeful of this reducing the chance of injury, and added that "it essentially gives the offensive team and the defensive team the same rights on the court."

For me, that is a key statement.

Giving offense and defense the same rights makes sense if looking at the NBL as purely a sporting competition, but what about if you're trying to make it an entertainment package?

Put it this way - the NBA didn't get to where it is by giving offense and defense the same rights, and the NBL won't rise unless skilled offensive players can put on a show.

Aside from the charge/block, a huge aspect of that is cutting out the undisciplined contact many players get away with in the name of advantage/disadvantage.

"I'm with you and I think there are a lot of people around the world who say pretty much the same thing now," Joseph said. 

"We probably lost scope and understanding of what [advantage] meant, and then we started using it as an excuse."

There is no doubt the use of 'no disadvantage' over the years has led to a lot of bad habits among NBL players which make both offence and refereeing more difficult. 

"That's not insurmountable, that's about a little bit of a cultural change for everyone," Joseph said. 

"Where I want to take it is making sure the players get to play and we don't interfere, we intervene. That's probably the key to what we want to do but there’ll be a bit of work in it."

Hopefully that work will lead to a consistent and predictable style of officiating which allows for consistently entertaining hoops. Good luck Alby!

Paulo Kennedy

FIBA

FIBA's columnists write on a wide range of topics relating to basketball that are of interest to them. The opinions they express are their own and in no way reflect those of FIBA.

FIBA takes no responsibility and gives no guarantees, warranties or representations, implied or otherwise, for the content or accuracy of the content and opinion expressed in the above article.