[cdaref]

Since you asked, how about 10-6-7:

"A dribbler shall neither charge into nor contact any opponent in his/her path.."

Just on the language of the rule alone it is a foul. Lets not forget that the foul rule itself does not reference advantage/disadvantage. Obviously, as officials we read advantage/disadvantage into that equation (based on the Intent of teh Rules and on 4-27). But advantage/disadvantage is only one of the important aspects of officiating judgment. It comes from "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules," which reads:

"The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behaviour and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill wihtout unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense."

"Therefore it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so taht it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

Further, 10-6-9 places the responsibility for contact on the dribbler in this situation:

"When a dribbler in his/her progress is moving in a straight line path ... if an opponent is able to legally obtain a defensive position in that path, the dribbler must avoid contact by changing direction or ending his/her dribble."

Clearly, the dribbler is at fault here and has violated the rules. We use advantage/disadvantage as a guide in deciding what to call. But that is not hte only guide, as noted above.

Also it is clear that contact alone does not mandate a foul call. See 4-27 (the other rule source for advantage / disadvantage).

In my view the contact here is by the dribbler against a defender who had legal guarding position and the obligation is on the dribbler to avoid the contact or discontinue his dribble.

I am not willing to say the contact here was incidental since it would have knocked over any other player who wasnt as massive as B1.

Plus, the intent of the rules includes, in addition to advantage and disadvantage: "to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behaviour and fair play."

I dont think permitting conduct that would otherwise be a foul but for the size of B1 is something we should permit. The rules want us to provide equal opportunities, not punish a guy for being big.

Also, I dont think it promotes or provides reasonable safety or protection for B1. It instead promotes reckless abandon by A when they see that severe of a contact is a no call. Furhter, I dont think you need to wait for B1 to be injured before you find disadvantage or a foul.

You may disagree. You may say this is a no call. That is fine. I agree, and have agreed from the beginning that I would make this call but probably agonize about it. But dont pretend there is no rule support for making the call.

In my view, the rules intend for this to be a foul. The strange circumstance that B1 is so huge as to not be knocked over is one of those things that the Intent of the Rules means when it says: "A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

That said, its alot like officiating Shaq. Its tough to call fouls when they have no effect on the guy, or call a charge when the guy doesnt move. But at the HS level I think this needs to be a foul.