Actually contact can matter if the defender doesn't have LGP. Even under the RA restrictions the offense can be called for a PC/charge in certain cases:

I don't have time right now to look for the citations appropriate to this play under NFHS and NCAA but it seems to make sense that a player from Team A can't put an elbow into a player from Team B just because the Team B player hasn't established LGP.

She Blinded Me With Science ...
 

Not sure what you're trying to say here.
The rule you cite is certainly valid, but doesn't really matter if it is the 2nd contact.

In THIS play, the defender first contacted the offensive player who then might have used his arm to push him a little. The main contact was when the defender came through/over the offensive player to get in a spot for the arm to be relevant but he was already going down due to the body contact. The arm is just a distraction. It may be the easiest thing to see, but it isn't the right call.

This, obviously, would be where we differ. I see the intial contact as simultaneous with the second contact being the elbow.

If you have it as the defender making first contact that's cool but I don't think you ignore the elbow. It made, IMO, significant contact with the defender and put him to the floor. He probably got there a little faster because he was off balance but, again, I can't ignore the elbow flashing out to create space.

So what's your call? PC? DF? Block?

So, you're saying the elbow was 2nd to contact. So the initial contact makes the ball dead and the elbow doesn't matter.

During a dead ball (which the first contact causes), it doesn't matter unless you're going to make it intentional. And if you don't decide to call the first contact as a foul, it would really not be fair to call the 2nd contact a foul.

Foul on the offensive player. That was my first post early on :)

I'll clarify: instead of simultaneous I should've said incidental regarding the first contact. My mistake there. At any rate, going back to my first post on this - the second after the video was put up - I said I would've been willing to let things go if I hadn't seen the elbow come up.

Also, why wouldn't it have been fair to call the second contact a foul? The offensive player shot out an elbow that made contact. It's hard to let that go, dead-ball contact or not.

Even if I had felt the defender commited a foul when the players first came together in the lane I would've had a tough time letting the elbow go unpunished.

Why? Because it was a response to the defender coming into him in a way that was not legal. You may have ruled it incidental in its direct effect but if it draws that reaction from the offense, it really isn't incidental any more. You have to judge the whole play, not the parts in a vacuum.

Which is what I'm doing. There's no level of contact. illegal or otherwise, that justifies putting an elbow into someone's chest.

Watching it in real time, I had a Team Control from the C position, probably a Team Control from the L position.

I didn't think he had the ball for player control, but couldn't tell with the video.

Watching it a second and third time, I'm okay with a no call. As the contact looked more incidental as I watched it more.

On the shot attempt, I have a no call. So basically, I'm fine with this ugly play and the two no calls that the officials had.

But since we officiate in real time, i would have blown and punched it up north, from the initial contact.

Maybe not, but I think in time you'll find you get a lot of grief if you only call the responsive contact and not he first contact. It is not in the spirit of the game to let someone get mauled and call them for a foul for fending of their opponent.

I Second That Emotion ...
 

Agree. I change my call to a team control foul on Blue #1. That was a nasty elbow.

Blue #1 didn't exactly get mauled during this play (I realize you're speaking generally, though). But again, even if he did as far as I'm concerned the elbow would have to be dealt with. If his coach didn't like it I'd have no problem explaining my thought process but my explanation would start with, "Coach, #1 hit the other kid with an elbow."

When I first saw the clip I had an issue with the elbow. The more I look at it, the more I think Blue #1 did it on purpose to clear space as opposed to being an involuntary action.

I had a screen shot I made of the middle of that play but I seem to have misplaced it...perhaps on my other machine. It shows blue coming over white's leg (in mid-stride) and side to get to the position where the elbow could make the contact it did. And prior to that, long before the elbow is involved, white is reaching across blue to hold him from cutting...then the elbow comes up to get that arm off of him.

A defender doesn't get to fly into an opponent and get bailed out because the contact happened to involve an elbow...one that was never extended....it was just there. It didn't knock the player over, the hip/body contact was already doing that.

To call the elbow rewards a defender who was out of position, late to the play, and illegal in more than one way. The elbow is easy to see and is an easy way out....but not the right call.

How many times do we (correctly) get accused of getting the 2nd, sometimes bigger, foul because it gets our attention, even though it was a reaction and retaliation to the first one. In this case, that is the 2nd foul (maybe even the 3rd). And, short of it being ruled intentional, is nothing since the first foul(s) made the ball dead.

Another perspective
 

I sent the clip to one of my mentors who I respect a great deal. He also happens to be a longtime IAABO interpreter as well as an IAABO life member. Here are his thoughts: