Mark T - I will disagree with your premise, but love your plays.
As it was once explained to me and I agree with it more every year:
"Basketball IS a contact sport. Basketball is NOT a collision sport".

Play 1: Foul. HATE calling it, but I don't make em just call em. This type of play is excplicitly gone over every year.
Play 2: Incidental.

I would much rather have the NFHS go back and review some of the "questionable" (and I'm being nice) interpretations they've released recently rather than make an editorial change that 1.) no one will notice, and 2.) won't change how the play is called because there's only one person in the officiating community who has any problem with the universally accepted application of this rule.

Oh, I wasn't prioritizing. I agree completely with you.

Scrapper:

Like most coaches who do not ever read the entire definition of guarding, you did not read the next two sentences of my post:

Basketball is a "non-contact" sport. What does that statement mean? It means that a player is not allowed to illegally contact an oppenent to gain an advantage not allowed by rule.

Of course there is going to be contact in a sport played by ten players on a court only 50 feet wide and 84 or 94 feet in length.

MTD, Sr.

Judtech:

Let me direct you to my response (See Post #79, 03:14pmEST) to Scrapper who expresses the same sentiment as you do. You did not read the next two sentences of my post to which you are responding.

MTD, Sr.

APG:

If you don't notice it you are not doing your job of studying the necessary material to be a competent official.

If you are a competent (and I assume you are because you do care enough to read the stuff that is posted here and to make your opinions known) official you will officiate the game per the requirements of the interpretation. Because if you do not, then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

MTD, Sr.

Then it's not "non-contact", is it?

Golf is a non-contact sport. Tennis is a non-contact sport. Basketball, by definition, allows lots of contact, including some types of "severe" contact.

Your previous statement is simply not true and perpetuates a myth, just like officials who talk about "over the back" fouls.

In reference to the two sentences that attempt to define "non-contact", all I can say is that what you wrote is not what "non-contact" means, which is why I ignored it.

No, only one, and he can't seem to let it die.

Perhaps you didn't get the point I was trying to get across.

If for some reason, NFHS decided to make an editoral change in regards to changing "calling" to "preliminary signal" the general officiating would hardly notice because it's never been an issue for just about anyone.

And I never said I wouldn't officiate the game according to the interpretations given by NFHS and quite frankly I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't. All I said is the NFHS has handed out some silly interpretations recently (backcourt violation anyone) and that I would rather them spend time fixing those than an unnecessary editorial change.