If the contact is slight, and it's questionable whether it caused the fumble, I'm probably passing on the contact and giving B the ball. If the contact is slight, but clearly caused the fumble, I'm probably passing on the contact and giving the ball back to A. For this particular play, I'll referee it that way in the first quarter and in the fourth quarter.

I'm not likely to factor time and score into the decision. Nor am I likely to factor in the offender's star power. However, if the offender is a problem child...that's likely going to be considered. Heavily. ;)

I don't believe it does. The OP says "slight bump" and that slight bump becomes a hard judgement call. It could be up for total debate whether it was a foul or not. I'm not missing anything that is a no brainer foul

This seems to be the prevailing opinion in my association, so I'm working on making the adjustment. I'll add that score does become a factor in their recommendations. I'm not particularly opposed to it, it's just an adjustment. Coaches don't have problems with it around here either; I've never heard them make a complaint about it.

I don't take foul counts into consideration, though.

I voted for call the foul, because that's my preference. It's a 55/45 preference, though.

There's an intersting article from Mary Struckoff on the NCAA-W site, that talks about "Preventative Officiating". Here's a portion:

There has been some discussion recently regarding “preventative officiating” and what to do when that concept/practice conflicts with strict enforcement of the playing rules. First, I think it’s important to re-read an excerpt from the CCA Officiating Manual, p. 32, 2.2.4, regarding “Call plays; manage situations.” It reads:

“Fairness and balance must be maintained in each game that is played. As much as possible, every official and crew should strive for consistent application of the rules and procedures. Consistency becomes more obtainable if officials react and make quality decisions based on the actions being presented to them — for instance, calling a violation or foul based on the actions of the player. Officials can also manage dead-ball situations to improve the game and the overall experience — for instance, dealing with a clock issue effectively and efficiently, encouraging a team out of a timeout huddle, talking to players on the floor after a held ball. An official must not succumb to managing call selection — that’s when managing turns into manipulation.”

Officials do not have a choice when it comes to applying the rules during live action and when observing and adjudicating “basketball plays” – the rules book is the “bible.” However, an official is taught early in his or her career to use “preventative officiating” in specific situations to manage and assist with administering the game. It’s not only encouraged, it is often expected by fellow officials, coaches and administrators.

Some examples she gives on managing situations would be the R going over to check the book at the 12:00 mark before the game; there is no rule that says the R should do this, nor does it conflict with any rule, but doing so can prevent any book issues, in that they can be corrected before the required 10:00 mark. Another example involves subs coming in the game - sometimes they forget to report, or don't wait for the official to beckon them on. Common practice is for the administering official to stop the player and have them go back to report, or simply beckon them after the fact to prevent a T from being assessed. Obviously doing either is inconsistent with the letter of the law, but still consistent with the spirit of the law. She also gives other examples on putting the ball in play after a TO, and about bench personnel standing, and how things are handled "in practice" might conflict with the letter of the rule, but not the spirit of the rule.

So, at least at the higher level of NCAA-W, the call in the OP will be the same at the beginning of game as it will at the end. It is a live ball play, it should be called the same no matter what. If the official chooses to pass because they think it was marginal contact, then so be it. If they choose to go the route of giving back to the same team to prevent both the foul and violation, so be it. Just make sure it's the same call, close game or blowout.

So you could go both ways on a judgement play and it wouldn't necessarily be wrong but missing a blatant Out of Bounds play is ABSOLUTELY incorrect, at the beginning and end of the game.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not arguing about whether the call should or shouldn't be a foul, or a simple OOB call. That would be someting the calling official can judge while seeing the actual play. I'm simply pointing out that, at least in NCAA-W, the "peripheral stuff", as you called it, does NOT matter in how this call is made. It will be the same call in the 1st half of a close game as it will be in the second half of a blowout. It SHOULD NOT matter if the team that got bumped and lost the ball OOB is ahead or behind by 30 points.

Again, if you get a chance to read her full article, she talks about the difference between managing situations vs. managing calls. Managing situations, even if it goes against the "letter" of the rule, is not only expected, but encouraged. Managing calls, which is what is being discussed here, is strongly discouraged. Managing calls turns into manipulation.

Maybe the philosophy really is different in NCAA-M, or NBA. I would be curious to see if anyone can post anything in writing that verifies this philosophy. Or, could that philosophy be another addition to BillyMac's Myth list?

I agree totally with her. I believe in managing situations and NOT in managing calls. Im not advocating doing that in this OP either but I think on a borderline play where you have a chance to be right whether you choose option A)calling a foul or option B) not calling the foul, you let the "peripheral stuff" play a role. For example, I wanna get a block/charge play right all the time bc I PERSONALLY believe it is such an emotional play in which coaches and fans act out the most at, but if I have a play on the sideline similar to the play in the OP, this is not a play in which a coach could lose his cool over more than a block/charge EXCEPT in a rare case such as the OP by calling a foul on a guy's high scorer (the person in the OP was using this factor not me) and on top of his team getting beaten by 30 ( I would use this as a factor). When you can be right either way, why not be right for the team getting the crap beat out of them? Now that being said if you truly believe a whistle must be blown then go ahead, you would still be right and I would support it as an advisor or a partner, but my question would be what do you think would be best for THAT game in particular?

Remember as has been stated, this was a slight bump not a bump that knocked the player to the floor.

Dave Libby said it best I believe when he said you can call the same play two different ways at different times in the game and still be right. I believe for the most part this is correct.

This is coming in my CCA Manual

Philosophy of officiating women's basketball

2. Call obvious foulds and rough play

Basketball is a game of contact, both legal and illegal. Illegal contact that is obvious in nature must be called regardless of the score, time remaining or foul count. Obvious fouls take precedent over everything.

4. Call plays; manage situations

Fairness and balance must be maintained in each game that is played. An official must not succumb to managing call selection---that's when managing turns into manipulation

Well, which is it? You don't "agree totaly with her" if you do allow some of the peripheral stuff to play a role in how a foul call is made. You certainly don't agree if you can call the same play diferent ways at different times in the game, and still be right each time.