Why do I get the feeling that instead of seeing the point you're trying to find fault in what is said? I mean, I could spend more time on the post, in order to make things as clear as possible, but the point is simple... Size can often deceive.

I'm not talking about being deceived. I'm talking about contact that is by rule a foul simply vs contact between opponents of similar size that would be incidental.

You are right, the point could not be more simple. You are looking at factors that are irrelevant in determining whether or not a foul has occurred. There is no need to be deceived by the size difference between two players involved in any play. Using the example you first gave, it does not matter that the bigger player barely contacted the much smaller player. If the result is that the smaller player has their RSBQ disrupted or is displaced from their legally obtained position, it is a foul. Nor does it matter that this same amount of contact would have no affect a larger player resulting in a no call. The only exceptions to this allowed by rule are the new absolutes involving two hands on the ball handler, arm bars on the ball handler, continually keeping a hand on the ball handler, and multiple hot stove touches on the ball handler, all of which are automatic fouls regardless of their affect on RSBQ.

My problem with that line of thinking is that the ball handler did the same thing against Player A (aka the small guy) as he did against Player B (the large guy). And that same action is illegal in one case, but not the other. What did the ball handler do wrong in one case that he didn't do in the other?

What if I take the word "deceive" out... A play can look different due to the size of the player(s) involved.

The play can BE different because of the relative size of the players involved. The same level of contact is often ruled differently, rightly so, based on the result. The same action that barely affects a 6-8 beast could easily knock the 5-6 point guard to the floor. One could be incidental because there is zero impact on the play while the other could be a foul for putting a dribbler on his arse.

The short answer is he did the same thing wrong in both plays, but it only affects his opponent in one.

No call on the first contact, but it is close. Anything more would be a PC. Second contact is a PC.

It makes sense when you think of the fact the player was displaced in one scenario, it just seems odd knowing that the offensive player did the same thing in both cases but it is legal in one of them.

He put someone at a disadvantage in one case and not in the other. that's what makes one a foul and the other a no call.

(all said without looking at the video and might not be accurate for the specific plays involved)

It can work the other way, too -- where the defense contacts a strong offensive player and doesn't affect him -- no call; then makes "the same" contact on a weaker player and it's a foul.

Except in the instances where the rule specifically states "contact is a foul" (e.g., contact with an inbounder; maybe some contact on a dribbler, depending on the rules code and the state interpretations), you need "contact that causes an advantage" to have a foul -- both parts are needed; take away one and it's nothing.

#1) nothing

#2) PC

Odd, perhaps, but that is exactly why officials need to use the criteria set out in the rules as the basis for their decisions and explanation to coaches as to whether or not an action is legal, and not be concerned with factors that are not part of the rule.

Jet, your assumption is correct about 2 and three man. 3 man is used for 4A and 5A boys and girls all of the time and 3A during the state tourney only.

As for the calls, the first I have nothing but if someone demands a whistle, PC. The second, PC.

This

I got nothing on the first, possibly block in 2 person, and I have a block, easy, on the second. First appears marginal, but in two person I can see being out of position and making a call. Second defender is not in his oath and moving into offense at time of contact. Easy block call.