Disagree somewhat. The definition of a foul also includes illegal contact without regard to advantage/disadvantage. That contact might be off-ball and really not put any player at a disadvantage, but if the contact is illegal it should be called.

A prime example might be a rebounder badly displacing an opponent under the board while a shot is in the air. If the shot goes in, that contact obviously had nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage...the contact never does affect anything... but it still has to be called. If it isn't, you're gonna have open warfare out there. Or maybe should you use a "patient whistle" on this one too? :D

And what kind of disadvantage is there really if an airborne shooter charges into a defender after his shot is released if the ball goes in? After the basket, the ball has to be corralled, taken OOB and thrown in to start play again. I can't see how anyone can say that the charge has hindered the defender from performing any normal defensive movement. You gotta call the obvious charges though. Or do you use of them "patient whistles" on that play also? Or does that "patient whistle" theorem only apply to the defender in a block/charge situation instead of both players.

Instead of trying to solely use advantage/disadvantage, methinks all of the the concepts outlined under both the definition of a "foul" and "incidental contact" need to be used.

I'm good with a no-call. From our angle not easy to tell how much contact there really was between A1 and the secondary defender. Primary defender looked like he had some contact on the A1's arm.

Wasn't really a "crash" IMO. 2 bodies ended up on floor due to tangled feet.

"Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without illegally contacting an opponent."

No way this is a no-call by NFHS standards. Somebody got their spot taken illegally. That would be true even if it did involve a flop.

A player gets hit square between the tits there better be an obvious reason it is not a PC foul. There are only 3 ways to lose legal guarding position once obtained (which he had done as pointed out in a previous post):
1) offensive player gets head and shoulders around front of torso of defender (which clearly didn't happen)
2) defensive player is out of bounds (which he is not)
3) defensive player is moving towards offensive player. The minute forward motion involved by the defensive player bracing to absorb impact is not the same as moving forward.

By rule one does not lose LGP by initiating a flop; however, when one flops so that the contact doesn't occur, or the subsequent contact does not interfere in any way with their legal guarding position, there can be no foul.

It was a charge, plain and simple.

Our association has clearly stated that advantage/disadvantage is not an acceptable way to call a game, and that all illegal contact should be called.

The bolded parts are what I'm talking about.

As for the video, I wish I had a better angle, but it looks like PC to me. I don't think you can no-call this and the defender did not initiate the contact.

I thought the defender obtained LGP either the instant before, or at the same time as the shooter left his feet. I agree with those who say it's PC or nothing, and I also agree with those who think the defender flopped a little.

It looks like there's definitely contact, but it's not like it was a hard collision. Would defer to L's judgement there.

This statement makes no sense. Most contact is illegal precisely because it puts an opponent at a disadvantage.

Disagree also with a caveat.....

If your association is telling you that that advantage/disadvantage is not an acceptable way to call violations, then I agree with them. Of course, even that blanket statement has some minor but but fairly universally accepted exceptions a la 3 seconds and 10 seconds on a FT shooter.

Advantage/disadvantage is an accepted way to determine if contact is illegal or not in a lot of situations though. But after you determine that the contact is actually illegal by using advantage/disadvantage, then that illegal contact should be called.

Thoughts?

Agree. That's exactly what the definition of a "foul" says in both NFHS and NCAA rulesets when they state it's a foul if the contact hinders normal offensive or defensive movements. That basically is advantage/disadvantage.The definition of "incidental contact" also uses the same concept.

It's the "most contact" part of your statement above that makes our job difficult at times. Sometimes we have to call some contact that is excessive but didn't really put an opponent at a disadvantage or reach the stage of intentional/flagrant also.

Is that them little fish egg things?

It's why I said "most contact". Some fouls you just gotta get. I don't think this one fits that category.

My only absolute is that there will usually (see, it's not really an absolute) be a foul if both players go to the floor. One player? I'm not willing to make that statement.

Charge?? seriously!!!
 

There is no way this is a charge, the secondary defender clearly is late, the drive has begun and the SD defender arrives late. Although he is not moving means nothing, the drive to the basket started. The contact is on the shoulder not the middle of the chest, the lane was not covered. Now for the real question, block or no call. I stand by the no call.

Who taught you this?

learning
 

not sure who taught me this, there are only two of us refs in this small rural town where we do 4 or 5 games a year

The defender does NOT have to be in place before the drive starts. He only needs to be there before the shooter leaves the floor. I can understand those who think he's slightly late (I don't), because it's close. But really, this play is only close if you truly know the rule.

And he doesn't need to be stationary, either.

not there
 

I have watched this video numerous times with stop and go, the offensive player's left leg is clearly in the air when the secondary defender arrives. Although the secondary defender is stationary it is too late as the OP is well into his shooting motion. Agreed that you do not need to be standing still, you just need both feet legally in front of the dribbler, this video is not about that however. great no call