NCAA Tournament Officiating

[WVDUKEFAN]

I've watched several NCAA Tournament games since last Thursday. In general, I think these games have been poorly officiated. Last weekend, Gonzaga advanced because of a missed goal tending call; the officiating in the UNC vs. Arkansas and Kentucky vs. Wichita State games heavily favored the blue bloods; conversely, our guys got hammered and swatted for 40 minutes and there were several no calls; and, last night's WVU vs. Gonzaga game was decided by officiating in my opinion. These officials are supposed to be the cream of the crop. There is something else the put on crops too which more accurately describes how the officiating has been thus far.

[moonpie23]

it's akin to the weather...no one is always happy...

[Spanarkel]

I've watched several NCAA Tournament games since last Thursday. In general, I think these games have been poorly officiated. Last weekend, Gonzaga advanced because of a missed goal tending call; the officiating in the UNC vs. Arkansas and Kentucky vs. Wichita State games heavily favored the blue bloods; conversely, our guys got hammered and swatted for 40 minutes and there were several no calls; and, last night's WVU vs. Gonzaga game was decided by officiating in my opinion. These officials are supposed to be the cream of the crop. There is something else the put on crops too which more accurately describes how the officiating has been thus far.

I was astonished that the NCAA Supervisor of Officials(possibly JD Collins) who appeared on a CBS post-game show after the missed goaltending call on Gonzaga/CC's subsequent T claimed that the officials get 93-94% of the calls correct(he didn't specify NCAAT vs. regular season). As there are literally hundreds of calls/potential calls in a typical game, those figures sound very inflated to me.

[weezie]

... As there are literally hundreds of calls/potential calls in a typical game, those figures sound very inflated to me.

Yep, inflated as in hot air. Nice that they review their own mistakes and act as judge and jury, too. Sounds like a great job!

[Saratoga2]

Yep, inflated as in hot air. Nice that they review their own mistakes and act as judge and jury, too. Sounds like a great job!

If the mistakes in some games pile up in one direction it means a percentage of games get decided by the refs. Of course we already knew that. The hope is to have a team that is so outstanding that the refs would have to be outrageously one way to decide the win/loss line. Going to some sort of professional referee program would benefit all provided the cost can be handled by the smaller programs.

[hudlow]

I hope the NCAA COI is a little more proficient and consistent than The NCAA floor officials.

[chadlee989]

I watched the WVU and Zags last night. Mark Few at the half said something to the like of We are in the worse foul trouble we have been in all year and we have played lineups that we have not played all year. This got me to thinking about our game when K went to the half talking about how physical SC was playing and what bad foul trouble we were in.

After the game last night a cheat friend of mine text and said How impressive it was that the Zags handled the WVU "swarming" D.

This led me to think about the two games. The two teams with swarming D committed less fouls than the teams that they played that both had to fall back into 2-3 zones for stretches in the 2nd half of both games.

Its my theory that teams like WVU, SC, UVA have the reputation of being really good on defense and swarming. Which leads to the refs calling a lot of fouls on them(which i think they should). Then the refs call more fouls on the opponents just to keep the fouls close whether they foul or not to keep from having the narrative be they got all the calls. Or the refs wont call many fouls either way which then in turn still hurts the opponents. Am i way off base in my thinking?

[rsvman]

I agree that this has been one of the worst officiated tournaments I can ever remember. I really thought the last 4 or 5 minutes of the WV-Gonzaga game was horrendous.

[vick]

I watched the WVU and Zags last night. Mark Few at the half said something to the like of We are in the worse foul trouble we have been in all year and we have played lineups that we have not played all year. This got me to thinking about our game when K went to the half talking about how physical SC was playing and what bad foul trouble we were in.

After the game last night a cheat friend of mine text and said How impressive it was that the Zags handled the WVU "swarming" D.

This led me to think about the two games. The two teams with swarming D committed less fouls than the teams that they played that both had to fall back into 2-3 zones for stretches in the 2nd half of both games.

Its my theory that teams like WVU, SC, UVA have the reputation of being really good on defense and swarming. Which leads to the refs calling a lot of fouls on them(which i think they should). Then the refs call more fouls on the opponents just to keep the fouls close whether they foul or not to keep from having the narrative be they got all the calls. Or the refs wont call many fouls either way which then in turn still hurts the opponents. Am i way off base in my thinking?

In general there is evidence that referees do "even up" the foul counts, likely unintentionally. So teams that commit a lot of fouls, like West Virginia, do benefit from this bias (UVa doesn't belong in this group, though).

[Turk]

I watched the WVU and Zags last night. Mark Few at the half said something to the like of We are in the worse foul trouble we have been in all year and we have played lineups that we have not played all year. This got me to thinking about our game when K went to the half talking about how physical SC was playing and what bad foul trouble we were in.

After the game last night a cheat friend of mine text and said How impressive it was that the Zags handled the WVU "swarming" D.

This led me to think about the two games. The two teams with swarming D committed less fouls than the teams that they played that both had to fall back into 2-3 zones for stretches in the 2nd half of both games.

Its my theory that teams like WVU, SC, UVA have the reputation of being really good on defense and swarming. Which leads to the refs calling a lot of fouls on them(which i think they should). Then the refs call more fouls on the opponents just to keep the fouls close whether they foul or not to keep from having the narrative be they got all the calls. Or the refs wont call many fouls either way which then in turn still hurts the opponents. Am i way off base in my thinking?

Your cheat friend must have been watching a different game. Zags were coughing up the ball all over the place. Over and back, dribble off a foot, picking up the dribble in the corner, etc. They did have several good transition opportunities and okay intervals of ball control, but overall I thought WVU caused a lot of problems, including some self-inflicted ones. (Gonzaga 16 turnovers, WVU 13).

Gonzaga played zone for two reasons: 1) let WVU shoot from outside as much as they like because they're horrible shooters (5-23 from 3 last night), and 2) play some zone when Killer Kowalski is in the game - I'd rather not have him trying to chase a mobile center all over the floor. They played mostly man when Karnowski was on the bench; didn't seem really related to foul trouble to me.

As for the refs, I was also thinking about the contrast with Duke-USC. In that game, the refs just let them play. For GU/WVU, the refs tried to call the game a lot tighter, but that led to a lot of inconsistency - some ticky-tack stuff was called, while there were no calls on some of the banging and reaching. The reason the Zags got into foul trouble was also due to WVU's style of offense - attack the rim, get to the basket, and either make layups or get fouled.

So it almost becomes an exercise in frustration - after a while, the games get choppy with all the foul calls, and it's impossible to call everything. That's dictated by the USC / WVU style of play, and the only answer is to keep attacking until their guys foul out, or have a really good shooting night from deep and make them chase, or let them throw bricks and not let them get putbacks.

[Olympic Fan]

I know that NCAA officials are judged after every game and either move on or are dropped based on their performance.

I want to know that the officiating crews that CLEARY screwed up were dropped from the tournament rotation this year.

Let's focus on one crew -- I think that the most outrageous display of incompetence was the Gonzaga-Northwestern game.

Has that crew worked another game?

[elvis14]

For years, I've had an issue with the physical nature of the NCAA tournament. If you ever get a chance go back and watch our 2010 championship team play I think it was WV and Baylor. Super physical, no flowy hoops (although ironically the finals against Bulter was a little less physical). The for a few years it seemed like they were going to clean it up and get back to good basketball. What I've noticed this year, however, are more and more teams trying to win by committing lots of fouls and challenging the refs to make the calls. Sadly, the refs are not stepping up to the challenge. I know that chopping up a game by calling lots of fouls makes for poor TV...but a foul is a foul, call it and keep calling it. If the team doesn't adjust, they are punished by having guys foul out and having the other team get to the bonus and double bonus more quickly. So be it, if they decided to foul they know what the punishments are.


The other issues that continually raise their head with officiating:

• inconsistency between teams in a single game. If it's a foul for us, it should be a foul for them as well. I don't know how many times during the USC scrum I said "OK, fine but I want that same call on the other end". I didn't get what I wanted, two sets of rules, 1 game (makes me think of that Cheater A**hat Tyler HansPutzBro). I hate this "they have established that they don't get called for that (even though it's a foul) so it's OK that they don't get called". Somehow it's OK that the other team gets called for the same thing because they haven't established that they commit the foul without getting called. Whatever, call it both ways or get a different job.
• inconsistency from game to game. For this tournament, pick a style of play and stick with it. Sometimes it's the team that figures out sooner what they can and can't do that's at an advantage.
• inconsistency between the first and second half of games. USC game was another example of this. What was a foul in the first half should be a foul in the second half. If the refs have a discussion at halftime and decided they want to adjust because when giving time to think they decided they are too lenient, fine, just inform the coaches at the beginning of the second half of the adjustment so they can tell the players.

[rasputin]

I know that NCAA officials are judged after every game and either move on or are dropped based on their performance.

I want to know that the officiating crews that CLEARY screwed up were dropped from the tournament rotation this year.

Let's focus on one crew -- I think that the most outrageous display of incompetence was the Gonzaga-Northwestern game.

Has that crew worked another game?

I was watching a post-game show (something I rarely do) after the goaltending debacle, and was a bit frustrated at the officials' supervisor who, in spite of recognizing that the officials whiffed on that play, insisted that giving Coach Collins the T was correct, because you can't come charging at an official, blah, blah. There ought to be some leeway for a coach protesting a blatantly missed call, and Collins' conduct was similar to stuff that Dean Smith got away with all the time, at least from ACC officials.

I suspect that the rules about what's reviewable might be changed after the Gonzaga-Northwestern debacle.

I don't have an answer to what happened to this particular officiating crew. What I do know is that we keep seeing Angel Hernandez and Joe West umpiring playoff and World Series games, and that drives me crazy.

[weezie]

I agree that this has been one of the worst officiated tournaments I can ever remember. I really thought the last 4 or 5 minutes of the WV-Gonzaga game was horrendous.

It has to be partly blamed on the worthless tweaks that were instated as this season began and it is across all conferences. The absurd verticality OTB had more interpretations that a Mark Morris barefoot ballet starring folks off the street. And "No pressure on the ball-handler," just skip along next to him and clap? Now we're hearing man 2 man defense is dead in favor of the zone?

It's been a pretty awful season on the eyes.

[SoCalDukeFan]

In general I am not a fan of instant replay and dislike intensely the way it is done in college football.

But I would let a coach ask for a replay, maybe limited, and penalize his team with a loss timeout or technical if the call is not overturned.

I understand that its hard to get every call right and some are very close, but not calling goal tending in the NW game was a huge deal and it was an obvious call.
Quick play in real time, very obvious on replay.

Collins would probably have called for replay and not gotten the T either.

SoCal

[MChambers]

I know that NCAA officials are judged after every game and either move on or are dropped based on their performance.

I want to know that the officiating crews that CLEARY screwed up were dropped from the tournament rotation this year.

Let's focus on one crew -- I think that the most outrageous display of incompetence was the Gonzaga-Northwestern game.

Has that crew worked another game?

I don't know, but I read somewhere that Doug Collins told at least one of the refs that he'd never do another NCAA tournament game. Probably didn't help Northwestern's cause, but I did say the same thing to my family. (If I were at the game, I would not have said it to a ref.)

[MChambers]

For years, I've had an issue with the physical nature of the NCAA tournament. If you ever get a chance go back and watch our 2010 championship team play I think it was WV and Baylor. Super physical, no flowy hoops (although ironically the finals against Bulter was a little less physical). The for a few years it seemed like they were going to clean it up and get back to good basketball. What I've noticed this year, however, are more and more teams trying to win by committing lots of fouls and challenging the refs to make the calls. Sadly, the refs are not stepping up to the challenge. I know that chopping up a game by calling lots of fouls makes for poor TV...but a foul is a foul, call it and keep calling it. If the team doesn't adjust, they are punished by having guys foul out and having the other team get to the bonus and double bonus more quickly. So be it, if they decided to foul they know what the punishments are.


The other issues that continually raise their head with officiating:

• inconsistency between teams in a single game. If it's a foul for us, it should be a foul for them as well. I don't know how many times during the USC scrum I said "OK, fine but I want that same call on the other end". I didn't get what I wanted, two sets of rules, 1 game (makes me think of that Cheater A**hat Tyler HansPutzBro). I hate this "they have established that they don't get called for that (even though it's a foul) so it's OK that they don't get called". Somehow it's OK that the other team gets called for the same thing because they haven't established that they commit the foul without getting called. Whatever, call it both ways or get a different job.
• inconsistency from game to game. For this tournament, pick a style of play and stick with it. Sometimes it's the team that figures out sooner what they can and can't do that's at an advantage.
• inconsistency between the first and second half of games. USC game was another example of this. What was a foul in the first half should be a foul in the second half. If the refs have a discussion at halftime and decided they want to adjust because when giving time to think they decided they are too lenient, fine, just inform the coaches at the beginning of the second half of the adjustment so they can tell the players.

As far as the physical nature of the tournament goes, I fear it is largely due to human nature. Refs hate to be the ones seen as deciding the outcome. It's why they don't like to call fouls in the closing seconds, or fifth fouls on key players. It's why baseball umps usually call strikes on a 3-0 counts, and balls on 0-2 counts.

[Indoor66]

As far as the physical nature of the tournament goes, I fear it is largely due to human nature. Refs hate to be the ones seen as deciding the outcome. It's why they don't like to call fouls in the closing seconds, or fifth fouls on key players. It's why baseball umps usually call strikes on a 3-0 counts, and balls on 0-2 counts.

And as the old argument goes, they decide the game, as well, when they don't call the fouls. 👹😎

[Doria]

I think we can all agree there have been a high number (more than I remember from other years) of calls that can reasonably be perceived as a) flat-out wrong and b) potentially affected the outcome of the game.

Other than calls that are egregiously incorrect, I just want officiating to be consistent. If that's too high a bar to clear, I'd like it to be consistent in a game. I mean, surely that shouldn't be so much to ask for. If a team sees that the officials are calling it unusually close, then the onus is on them to adjust. But this inconsistency within games means that if a team adjusts, they may actually be hurting their team when the officials then do a 180 and call the games the other way.

[brevity]

Refs hate to be the ones seen as deciding the outcome.

Then their approach has been wrong. I accept officiating error as part of the game, which reduces my game stress by about 600 percent, but I am not the only person who has noticed that refs call games the way that Jay Bilas announces them: with a veiled interest in keeping the score as close as possible. In this tournament, if a game has not been a blowout or experienced a late separation, then it's close, and the kind of game where a call or two will matter. Any ref action (or inaction) will come under heavy scrutiny. By then the refs have only themselves to blame.