Maybe we are envisioning different scenarios, but if dribbler A1 cuts off a defender, the only contact between them is tangling of feet and A1 is the only player to hit the floor, I can't imagine calling a foul on A1. Now, if A1 isn't the player that is creating the contact, then I agree with you that it's a foul.

If A is the only player to hit the ground and the contact didn't cause B a disadvantage, then it's a perfect example of a no-call...

Why not? It fits as well or better than any other signal we have.

Um, lemme see if I got this right. A1 created the contact by cutting off the defender and tangling feet. You can't imagine calling a foul on A1. But if B1 creates the contact, you say that it is a foul? My question is "A foul on who- A1 or the defender?"

Follow-up question--"If you say that the foul is on A1, what's your rationale for giving a foul to a player who did <b>not</b> initiate the contact?

Follow-up follow-up question--If you say that the foul is on B1, what is your rationale for calling a foul on B1 for initiating contact, but you wouldn't call a foul on A1 for initiating contact in the initial scenario?

Defender, when A1 is put at a disadvantage.

My rationale is that B1 isn't responsible for creating a disadvantage in the initial scenario.

I am now officially totally confused.

http://1000smilies.com/animated/surrendering.gif

When I read the thread title, for some reason I thought it would be about Bill Walton. ;)