50+ replies later, and the first one is still the best one (the one I agree with most)

If it would have been PC if he'd "manned up" it can't ever be correct to call a block. No calls are fine. Often the falling back reduces the contact to incidental. But the defender isn't doing anything to lose his LGP by falling back.

I'm sorry but there is a point that it's just flopping and no way in hell am I calling a PC or a no call. Although a T is a bit harsh. The happy medium is a block.

No, it's not a happy medium. If it's a flop, T it. If it's not enough contact for a PC, no call it. But by calling a block, you are wrong. And you're making it harder for everyone else who has to referee after you who actually observes the rules.

Unfortunately the penalty is to harsh and for the most part not accepted among peers. There hav been other examples of this and the fed has changed the penalty. They should do that here. I'm not going to swim upstream a block will suffice.

Had such a call last Friday. Easily explainable to my supervisor if he were to ask.

You called a T?

No, the happy medium.

Yup. I knew what you meant. And, yup.

The 2 of you are making it harder for the guys that have to officiate after you...

We can disagree all we want on what the rules say this is technically supposed to be treated as. But the expectation at the higher levels is that you do not reward the defense for this type of action (yes, it is flopping). That is the expectation of most coaches and supervisors, whether you think it's fair or not.

I don't think anyone actually disagrees with what this is supposed to be treated as. Most people are suggesting that it should be treated as a block instead because their isn't sufficient support for actually calling the technical.

As a spectator at a high school boys varsity game, I once seen a kid throw himself into the wall 3 feet out of bounds without contact from the offense. I consider that sort of behavior a "flop". A technical foul was called.

It's not even that. There are cases that even if you can support your call with the rulebook you won't get much push back. You will just get the label as "that guy". Assignors at the college level (at least the levels I have worked) don't like having to answer coaches consistently about the same guy over and over again. Even if you are right by the rule you are more of a headache for the assignor.

I'm not saying if you do this once or maybe twice it will cost you but if there is a pattern that you are more trouble that you are worth then so be it. That's up to your judgement on how you want to adjudicate certain plays. That dictates the direction, as an official, you will move.

The rules for an official change once they "make it" but that's like a handful of guys in the country. At one point they were in this same spot and there are rules and there are expectations. For the most part (I'd say 95% or more) the rules and expectations walk hand in hand. But there are some areas that they split up.

I used to think "just call it by the book", and I will advise newer officials to do so, however I have tried to be less dogmatic in my approach and deal with the situation based on the level.

The higher up the more "by the book" I work, also taking into account local tradition, expectation, assignors expectation, etc.

If you are starting off or trying to move up and you are faced with a dilemma the safest way to tackle it is by the book.

For anyone interested . . .
It took me a year-and-a-half, but I finally tracked down the source of this citation. It was Caseplay #38 on p.121 of the REFEREE SPECIAL EDITION PREP BASKETBALL 2017-18.