Every year at our NFHS interps meeting I ask this question: "when will the NFHS implement a Restricted Area semi-circle marking under the basket on the floor of highschool gymnasia? Like they have in college and nba?"

And, each year I get the canned response from whomever is leading the discussion: "we don't need one because our refs have good judgement."

In this present video case the officials would have been greatly aided by having such a reference marking on the floor. It appeared that the defender established LGP far enough from the front end of the rim (i.e., was not under the rim). Although spectacular, the dunk was a charge. I call "charge", then "taunting" T--as the taunt was egregious.

I know they aren't your words, but I don't think the NBA and NCAA implemented the RA because their officials weren't good enough to adjudicate block/charge plays.

So what? Did the defender have LGP? Was there advantage/disadvantage?

The defender's location on the floor tells me absolutely nothing, as it isn't relevant at all on whether contact is a foul (*in an NFHS game*).

In that thread there was A LOT of disagreement about HAVING to have a whistle simply b/c bodies are on the floor. I know many assigners who do not subscribe to that flawed philosophy.

And that was about MULTIPLE bodies on the floor. Here, there is one.

I have a good dunk (a No Call) followed by taunting.

I'm with MTD on this one, PC then TF. I don't see it as much as embellishment as ducking for protection. Have we forgotten about Rule 4-23-3e?

“e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact”

And, if the defender "turning and/or ducking, to absorb the shock of imminent contact," reduced the contact to a level of "incidental contact," then no call would be made. I've seen defenders "turn and/or duck" so much that the imminent contact never occurred, and it was evident that it wasn't an attempt to flop or embelish the contact.
The camera angle on this play is less than ideal. From the Lead's position, the contact apparently seemed to be incidental in severity, and his partners apparently trusted his judgment.

I agree, "bodies on the floor", is a flawed philosophy. It takes experience and temerity to not pop your whistle when this occurs. We all know the type of plays this occurs in--e.g., both player pursuing a ball wherein each has equal access to, etc...
Even here, I frequently hear Assignors say: "if bodies are on the floor, then pop your whistle on something".
All, it wil take one good ref at a time to dislodge (no pun intended) this very staid mis-belief.

good dunk, no foul. then Tech. IMO

Correct in this case, but not in general. A foot on the OOB line would be relevant by the defense as you could not have a LGP.

What I've heard more recently (which I like a lot better) is: "if bodies are on the floor you need a whistle or you should know how they got there." Contact can be severe and not necessarily mean a foul occured.

The only thing he referenced was this case. Why muddy the waters? For what it's worth, I'm with the no-call followed by a T. And I don't care how great this official is, you don't go chasing the ball. Good dead ball officiating is critical after a play like this.

You know, I've heard this too, but I disagree. This statement implies that if you have bodies on the floor but don't know how they got there, then you need to have a whistle. Doesn't that imply that you need to guess???

Just leave it at that. This was the worst part of the video IMO. Leave the ball alone, somebody will go get it!

Good point. I updated my post.

I'm not looking to whack players, but I make a point to keep a close eye on a player just after and on the trip down the floor after he completes a monster dunk. That kind of taunt is step one towards a bigger problem I might have to deal with.