For the 'hoopsters' - the first ting is to stop thinking about the number of fouls called and whether they are 'soft' or 'hard'.
The number of fouls called will - or should - be determined by the way teams choose to play the game. A team that decides they have to 'chop it up' to negate an advantage the opposition has will [should] be prepared to pay for that with more fouls against them than the opposition they are aiming to negate.
In a physical' game there should be a lot of fouls called. In a game where both teams are prepared to try to play according to the rules, which are there to ensure a fair [not even] game, there should be many fewer fouls.
'Soft' and 'hard' fouls are also a flawed premise. An elbow tip on a shot is not a 'hard' foul, but it is a highly effective [and illegal] way of preventing a score.
The current 'biggie' overall is consistency, which I believe is compounded by the focus on subjective calls.
Calling instinctively, in line with the rules, allows as near as one can get to an instant, and most often right, decision. Having to work out whether or not to call something means the ref has to work through a process [even if it is sub-conscious] before s/he can make a decision. This more complicated process ensures more errors and delay in decision making, which with the speed of the game means many fouls are not called simply because it is too late by the time the official reaches his/her decision.
I believe the number of 'no calls', or perhaps more accurately non-calls, points to this issue. I vividly recall a recent Adelaide Lightning home game where there were multiple heavy clashes in block/charge situations with players crashing to the floor and no calls made: not because they were 'good no calls' [a terminology I have a problem with], but because the officials simply couldn't make a decision.
Refereeing is tough, particularly with coaches and players always looking to push the boundaries of what is legal, so it needs to be kept as simple and clean as possible, which means the officials seeing a lot of good basketball - so they instinctively recognise 'good' [and legal] as 'looking right' and that becomes the instinctive reference point for decisions - and being allowed [and encouraged/supported] to call the games instinctively according to the rules as they are written.
And that should result in a much higher level of consistency and more confidence in the officiating for players, spectators and even coaches.