It's not a non-contact sport, it might be compared to Aussie Rules..

Go back to netball then please. The good Dr James Naismith created that sport for this reason

Refs calling fouls is the only way we'll see less contact. And even then, it hardly discourages players.

Is the injury rate also going up, following the trend in contact increasing over the years? I have no problem with legal contact in hoops, but some of the blatent, unsportsmanlike garbage allowed on court these days concerns me too!

We played non contact Church juniors and were surprised at the contact watching first district game with Mike Dancis playen and I just laughed.

Likeable character Dancis . A high centre of gravity.
Interesting to watch,

My understanding is that Basketball WAS a non-contact sport, and has become (outside of the NBA) more of a 'non-collision' sport. The game is refereed in the context of player advantage/disadvantage.

Not sure I like the level of contact either: I cringe at the hooking calls made during games, since the perpetrator of the foul is essentially guessed every time by the refs.

Flops are called inconsistently - case and point: Jesse Wagstaff (ADE-PER).

Players in the NBL are allowed to grapple with one another in the post and when setting screens - Petrie vs. Wagstaff/Redhage, much?

Too much physicality takes away the entertainment value, IMO, and the NBA - a billion-dollar industry - agrees with me.

@Isaac - if the refs call fouls, then the players will definitely be discouraged. Why? Because if they can't stay on the court (foul trouble) then they won't have a job...

Great call Ricey

Basketball has officially been characterised as a contact sport for the past 50+ years. How anyone got the idea that it wasn't befuddles me.

The laws of the game are exceedingly clear in clarifying that contact is allowed unless one opponent gains an unfair advantage over another.

Lawn bowls is a non-contact sport.

Yeah I hate the tech foul call on flops, the idea is to tech players and stop them from trying to trick the refs in to calling a charge. Yet if you fall down on minimal contact you are then completely out of the play and left your team at a disadvantage.

Personally I thought the Wagstaff tech was rubbish, there was definately contact with Cadee dropping his shoulder into Wagstaff and if Wagstaff is of balance and falls over from that contact why should he be teched. He is already sitting on the ground and playing no part in the play, just make it a no call.

I think hire flops with far less contact outside the 3 point line later in the game yet no call, the commentators even mentioned it at the time. So no consistency.

I have always thought that basketball is better described as a non-tackling sport, rather than non-contact.

The referees called 61 fouls yesterday, the players werent discouraged at all!!! Do you want to see 90 called?

One get's called and you all bitch and complain. Wagstaff is a serial flopper plain and simple

The issue with foul calling is rather than call to the Rules there is a shifting emphasis on certain areas to focus on. Each year the refs get directives on areas to hone in on, rather than calling the game as it flows!

Anyone who still uses the 'no contact sport' line probably has been looking some dust covered BA material that is still on a counter at their local stadium!

@Anon373/Isaac - if there were 90 legit fouls in a game, then yes they should be called... what kind of question is that? If the fouls are there, call it.

Of course players aren't going to adapt their playing style over the course of one game - while they should be able to, being professionals, many are just too thick-headed.

I don't agree that coaches would use longer benches to "soak up fouls". That makes no sense.

As new rules and interpretations have been integrated into the game, the way the game is played changes as players and coaches adapt.

If refs called the game a certain way consistently throughout a season or two, then coaches and players would have to adjust, or they would be conceding too many cheap points from free throws, not be able to play their best players enough minutes due to foul trouble, lose games, and hence be out of a job.

If you want to watch people grapple, throw elbows etc, go watch MMA. If you want to watch people flailing their arms, yelping over little/no contact and generally acting like a bitch, go watch WWE.

That's just not basketball.

Coaches would use their benches; they already do. They will play beyond the rules if they can get away with it and take risks.

Basketball is actually termed a 'semi-contact' sport, anyone who has watched a gmae of basketball knows it is not a non-contact sport, what do you think a big man does in the post all game, how does a 'non-contact' screen work etc? The rules allow contact and always have.
You can have 2 players standing still right next to each other in contact without either breaking any rule.
You can argue that there is too much physicality if that is what you think but don't try and say basketball is supposed to be non-contact.

If you want non-contact then take up backgammon.

I have no problems with some contact, legal contact is part of basketball, no issues there.

Where the problems lie are with the interpretations and inconsistent application of the rules in relation to what is or is not ADVANTAGE/DISADVANTAGE!

I reckon' that if I see a skill based player trying to post up and get the ball to make a nice move he/she has been taught by a coach and score for their team, only to find some lesser talent hold, push and semi-tackle them, then that should be called a foul...

It is clearly disadvantaging the skill player, is it not?

Once again, the issues are inconsistent interpretations of the rules related to contact resulting in advantage or disadvantage.