Based on what rule?

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.

I would not say that the defender was put at a disadvantage, she really didn't move....like I mentioned, the only disadvantage would have occurred if one of A's teammates recovered the loose ball under the basket and shot a layup when B1 was in great position and made a good play...BUT I realize that this is not the way that we call advantage/disadvantage, it only applies to the actual play, not subsequent action...again the thing that bothered me is that B1 COULD have just flopped in this case and there would have been more than enough contact for any official to call the PC foul - it is almost like we penalize her for NOT flopping....

You started to go the right direction when you referenced 4-27. The 10-6-7 tells you who the responsibility is on. 4-27 defines the foul, not 10-6-7. (I'm assuming it's 4-27 where the definition of foul is found, as my rule book is in Colorado and I'm with my folks in Iowa.)
Let me ask this. How is he being "punished" for being big when he wasn't put at a disadvantage? His intent is to stop the dribbler from penetrating towards the basket. He's done this.

Again, if the pg is flying into the defender like a Kamakaze pilot and it's a safety thing; go ahead and get it. But don't think it's a foul just because the player goes against 10-6-7. There's a number of other sections of rule 10 that make other plays a foul, by your interpretation, without any contact. You can't just use rule 10 to determine what's a foul. You need to combine it with rule 4.

How? She did her job, right? She stopped the dribbler. She wasn't hurt. She wasn't put at a disadvantage. She isn't punished.

Right, but had she thought to go down she would have done all of the things you mentioned AND she would have drawn a foul on A1, a team foul on A, and guaranteed posession for her team....again, I agree that after further consideration I probably would not call this the next time, but it doesn't sit 100% right with me...

Forget about the advantages of actually getting the foul called.

It's like when the pg gets hacked on the elbow on his way by the defender. Let it go, because there was no advantage gained. You're not penalizing the guard for not losing the ball.

Forget about the fact that the foul call is itself an advantage. It's not. It's a penalty for advantage already gained.

And just because there's contact prior to the flop doesn't guarantee the foul will be called. Over time, officials get good at recognizing this (not perfect, but good.)

This is exactly the correct way to think about this...

If she has to *think* to go down, then it's a flop, and I'd still have nothing.

(I'm not saying I haven't been fooled on a similar play, or that I won't be fooled again -- but I've also seen the flop and had the no-call -- even with contact.)

Yeah but believe me when I tell you that you wouldn't have had a flop on this one given the severity of the contact....but I understand your point...

Clearly the answer is not to encourage the kid to flop or to reward the flop. And how do we do that? By calling the foul when it happens.

The rule 10 cite is in fact the defintion of the foul for illegal contact. The rule 4 cite I provided is the cite for incidental contact. You have to view those in conjunction with each other. You start with rule 10 because if contact doesnt even violate rule 10 in any way, it is definately not a fould. once you have contact that may be a foul under rule 10 you look to rule 4's incidental contact. if the contact is incidental, even if severe, it is to be considered legal. On top of that you then use the judgment given by the introductory Intent of the Rules provision. That is how rules analysis is done regarding contact.

My argument here is that:

1. the contact is illegal under rule 10, that is clear. No one can dispute that. the ballhandler has without question violated the contact rule.

2. incidental contact analysis under rule 4. some could say because there was no advantage/disadvantage it should be ignored or considered legal. i dont find this contact to be incidental, but i agree some could.

3. intent of the rules. all judgment needs to be run through this portion of the rule book in my opinion. here, the rules are to promote safety, equality of skill over physical features, and to not allow a benefit or detriment not intended by the rules. some may disagree with me philosphically, but if i had any hesitation in making the call as a result of 2, above, that hesitation is removed when i consider the requirements of the intent of the rules.

I dont think you are getting what i am saying. You cant have a foul under rule 10 I cited without contact, that is the illegal contact rule. I think perhaps you dont have your books in front of you. Check them, then lets talk. No, you dont just use rule 10, but that is where you start. It defines what illegal contact is that is a foul. You then use rule 4 as I detail above.

I think you and I are saying the same thing, you are just saying that in your judgment it is incidental contact from rule 4 because the big kid didnt move and in your analysis there was no advantage disadvantage.

You're saying one of two things: 1. Advantage isn't required here because the dribbler broke rule 10. 2. There is some sort of advantage/disadvantage I'm not seeing.

You're right on what I'm saying, and you're right that I don't have my rule book in front of me. My rule book is 960 miles away right now, so if you don't think I'm worthy of discussing it with you until I can hold the book in my hands, so be it, it'll have to wait a week or so.

My point isn't with illegal screens. Consider A1 driving to the hoop, B1 reaches through and hacks A1 on the elbow as he drives, but it has zero effect on A1's drive. Are you going to call this foul, or are you going to let it go because there was no advantage gained?

Most here would say let it go and allow A1 the fruits of his drive to the basket. If you're going to call this a foul, why doesn't it fit the "incidental contact" definition?

I'm not sure rule 10 is where you start. Rule 10-6 is a kind of detailed description of legal and illegal contact, but even illegal contact can be no-called if it doesn't fit rule 4. If you start with rule 4, and define a foul as illegal contact that creates an advantage or disadvantage, then the OP is clearly not a foul. Don't even need to look at rule 10.

Geez, no, thats not what I am saying at all. I've read your posts over and over and obviously you know what you are talking about. I'm not questioning you or making personal attacks, for goodness sake. This isnt about being worthy or not worthy. I'm not sure why you have to take it like that. Seems to happen alot on these boards, though. Not sure why.