Officiating is bad, but not corrupt...why?

[hootervillearnolds]

There is a thread on this board from the UNC-Oregon game ("This was called a foul on Oregon") that rightly calls out a bad call that went against Oregon (UNC's Jackson was not touched) and it is being used as evidence that the fix is in for UNC. The truth is that call is exemplary of how and why officiating is worse than it used to be, and is perceived as even worse that it is (and possibly corrupt). I will tell you why I think that is so, and then you can call me an old curmudgeon.

The call was made because the ref was out of position, trailing far behind the play and unable to see that no contact was made by either defender (and likewise he could not see contact because there wasn't any) nonetheless he blew his whistle. Why?

He blew it because refs have to guess far too often. The game is now faster than they can keep up with, and also they know that the large number of instant replay cameras will catch every missed call, so they "over call."

It wasn't always this way.

Fifty years ago the players were slower, smaller and less strong... they didn't outrun the refs down the court so badly.

And that isn't the only thing that makes the game too fast and physical for refs to keep up with and get it right.

The rules have either changed, or it has been consciously decided to ignore other rules that haven't changed, to make the game faster and more physical.

Most obvious is the shot clock. But just as important is the decision to not call palming nor enforce the three second lane literally. The first of those "don't enforce" decisions enables ball handlers to move almost as quickly without the ball as with; and the non-3-second lane decision leads to more contact from defenders, which makes refs not want to call every push (so when they do, they look inconsistent).

I could go on (for example the player are bigger and faster and jump higher and yet the floor is still 94'x50' and the rim 10' off the ground). The examples go on and on.

But fans demand a fast game with lots of scoring, acrobatic dunks and alley-oops every few minutes.

We all like all those things.

But understand that with those "fun aspects" comes bad officiating.

A few years ago (when they saw this coming) they hoped that adding a third ref would alleviate the inability for two refs to keep up. The truth is, it only put a third person on the floor to see something different and make the refs even more self-aware and prone to inconsistency.

And so they added limited "review" - especially in the last two minutes. But that only slows the game down and makes everybody mad - except the coaches who get free timeouts.

Bottom line, the game is better and more fun to watch in 2017 than it was in 1967, but at the expense of poorer officiating. That doesn't mean corrupt officiating though. It just means that there will be more blown calls against whomever you are rooting for, and you will be able to see them yourself with your own "instant replay" in the form of "Pause/Rewind/Play" on your smart TVs and thus think you are being intentionally cheated.

 

[gracetoyou]

Certainly some truth to your post....but there is also corruption.

 

[Dig Dirkler]

... but at the expense of poorer officiating. That doesn't mean corrupt officiating though.

Whatever you say, Mr. Donaghy.

 

[uoflcard]

I agree 100%, except I think it's always been this bad. I even said the same things in that thread. Basketball is the hardest sport of officiate, from what I see. Fastest action combined with the most razor thin margins between foul and no foul. It's simply inhuman to get all of these calls correct all of the time

I think the recent (last 10 years) outrage is due to technology. HD, slow motion, dozens of cameras at every game, and the ability to analyze every replay immediately on your phone and share your outrage around the world...nothing like it was even 15 years ago, much less 30-40.

 

[Lightbringer123]

To fix the refereeing I think they would need to take the human element out of the game altogether and just go to some sort of video review 100% of the time. Then the game can't be manipulated.

OT but such as baseball why do you need a home plate umpire besides for base calling? The computer shows the perfect strike zone and won't fudge the ball and strike calls. The same thing in college basketball anytime the ball goes out have a signal caller instead on the sidelines ready to call them real time from the monitor.

 

[Wildcat-in-STL]

Its only 1 play of many............... When you see refs in position and making blatantly bad calls or no calls for UNCheat like the Berry Walk 2.0.......... it really puts the Jackson fouled call into the questionable motive category.

 

[EvilMD]

They should have five referees. Two on each end and one who roams from top of the key to top of the key.

 

[morgousky]

Eh....I'll wait for the documentary.

 

[BlueSince92]

I do agree with a lot of the things you've said, Arnolds, especially about the changes in the game rules/emphasis over time. However, Wildcat-in-STL is right about calls made by refs in position and, while we really can't talk about its statistical significance, this tournament has certainly had at least its fair share of memorable doosies where the replay shows the ref's eyes three feet away unobstructed and clearly focused on a call/no-call he butchered all to perdition.

As far as referees as a group not being corrupt or not having agendas, I'll say this: If it's true, that would mean college basketball referees are the only human beings on the planet who as a group are actually free from corruption and agendas. If so, hats off to 'em!!

But for me what is far more significant than what we've talked about so far, which could be intelligently argued for days on both sides, is that the pro's have fairer refs. And I mean maybe that's because the pro game is slower than CBB with smaller, weaker athletes. Could be. All the same, it seems to me there's at least a chance the fact that they have accountability has something to do with that.

 

[UK_fan_41102]

Let's see, we have Vegas setting up point spreads on the games, with all kinds of money to be made by refs(for themselves and/or friends), there would almost have to be some corruption going on. Now it's probably a small % of referees that are corrupt, but If anyone thinks there's no corruption whatsoever amongst referees, then I have some ocean front property for you in Arizona.

 

[7ringsNcounting]

March madness is a 10 Billion dollar a month of money changing hands with Vegas & Atlantic City controlling the purse strings. Look at our government as an example.
We have the best politicians money can buy. Corruption runs rampant at all levels from local city government all the way to federal level.....
Now we have the best government money can buy.
NCAA is no different....
We have a university (N.C) caught doing 25 years of corruption of fake classes to the athletic department which bring them money, prestige & titles sponsored by the same university that money can buy without any recourse of punishment and you want me to believe that the games aren't rigged. You think the refs just human and make mistakes calling games in favor of one and not the other.
I'm old and have learned a lot in my years, the best lesson I've learned in my time on this ole earth is simple....
In all aspects of life where corruption runs rampant from politics to sporting events.
'FOLLOW THE MONEY
History is always written by the victor not the loser.
The NCAA has spoiled college basketball with it's corruption to the level that even Ray Charles can see it.
You can believe what you want and think the fix is NOT in, than you are naïve and easily entertained... Which ever team can generate the biggest pot of gold for the gamblers wins the national championship. Looks as of now North Carolina takes the title, they have paid millions in the past couple years to keep their scandal out from under the spotlight.
NCAA is corrupt and should be disbanded from overseeing college sports....all college sports.
Shakespeare had it right....
Kill all the lawyers

 

[the nail at the foul line]

How come all of Higgins running in from half a court away like there was a fire, pointing like Barney Fife, went against UK?

Specifically, Willis with under three minutes in first half after UK had the ball, Gabriel with 18 seconds in first half after UK had the ball, and Hawkins with 2:41 to go in game?

Why did Higgins never go running in from a long way away to call UNC?

 

[UKWildcatT]

Let's see OP:

I'm not even getting into Dean Smith having to luck into his 82 and 93 titles, so that's take those two.

Everyone held ol Big Nose onto this pedestal, this bastion of coaching, while ol Rupp was this hateful, racist man. Now we know that Big Nose, let's be honest, thought his black players weren't smart enough, so he needed to create fake classes for them. So much for the bastion of human glory. So he basically needed to set up a system of institutional cheating in order for his team to have continued success (hey, it worked)

Now that the gig is up, the NCAA is saying, "ok, how do we make it so people will forget it. Ahh, now that they're "clean", if they win a title, we can point it out and say "see, that cheating is overblown! They didn't need to "cheat" to win! They're "clean" now!" ...and everyone forgets the "cheating".

Is it that far fetched? You tell me.

 

[Sawnee Cat]

It happens too often in favor of certain teams not to be corrupt. It is time for some of us to face reality. The NCAA has a few favorite sons and they get the calls. UK is not one of the favs of the NCAA. This is not new, Adolph Rupp was saying the same thing 75 years ago.

 

[blubo]

They should have five referees. Two on each end and one who roams from top of the key to top of the key.

Or three refs assigned to each end of the court.

 

[KentuckyRLD]

Ineptness is definitely a problem but corruption is the real issue.

 

[JPScott]

The game is now faster than they can keep up with, and also they know that the large number of instant replay cameras will catch every missed call, so they "over call."

It wasn't always this way.

Fifty years ago the players were slower, smaller and less strong... they didn't outrun the refs down the court so badly.

...

Bottom line, the game is better and more fun to watch in 2017 than it was in 1967, but at the expense of poorer officiating.

You make some good points but it's based on a bogus claim. While the athletes of today are generally stronger and faster than in the past, the game itself is much slower than it was 50 years ago.

 

[uk78]

I think the OP has a very thoughtful and pretty good take. Fans see every call against them and forget the calls that went for them (even when those may be wrong too for the other team). Every year when we lose a hard fought game, there will be posts about the refs. It also happens where a team we don't like wins.

However.......even I, whom feel the above is almost always accurate, felt there was awful calls going against Kentucky in the first half of the UNC game. I can forgive the goal tend because even in slow motion it was so close that you could debate it and when it occurred it was not slow motion. But, that call after the steal against Willis, why didn't the whistle blow until a few seconds after the turn-over happened? It just killed momentum and all these games one team gets on a roll and it makes a big difference. Now, ultimately, Kentucky still had their chances to win this and didn't. Plus by the end, the foul calls had evened out although again perhaps a call or two against us that might have made a difference.

I do think that if you dislike a team, program, or coach and you are the ref, it may somewhat influence you to see the glass half empty and certainly from all the stats out there Higgins appears guilty. No, it isn't conspiracy or Las Vegas, because Vegas isn't bribing the players to miss shots or for that matter make them. The refs aren't on the take as in today's world it would be extremely difficult to not get caught. And, the broadcasters are not outraged like fans. Nevertheless, there is some bias but the outcomes are still ultimately determined by the players.

 

[UKCATSFREAK]

There is a thread on this board from the UNC-Oregon game ("This was called a foul on Oregon") that rightly calls out a bad call that went against Oregon (UNC's Jackson was not touched) and it is being used as evidence that the fix is in for UNC. The truth is that call is exemplary of how and why officiating is worse than it used to be, and is perceived as even worse that it is (and possibly corrupt). I will tell you why I think that is so, and then you can call me an old curmudgeon.

The call was made because the ref was out of position, trailing far behind the play and unable to see that no contact was made by either defender (and likewise he could not see contact because there wasn't any) nonetheless he blew his whistle. Why?

He blew it because refs have to guess far too often. The game is now faster than they can keep up with, and also they know that the large number of instant replay cameras will catch every missed call, so they "over call."

It wasn't always this way.

Fifty years ago the players were slower, smaller and less strong... they didn't outrun the refs down the court so badly.

And that isn't the only thing that makes the game too fast and physical for refs to keep up with and get it right.

The rules have either changed, or it has been consciously decided to ignore other rules that haven't changed, to make the game faster and more physical.

Most obvious is the shot clock. But just as important is the decision to not call palming nor enforce the three second lane literally. The first of those "don't enforce" decisions enables ball handlers to move almost as quickly without the ball as with; and the non-3-second lane decision leads to more contact from defenders, which makes refs not want to call every push (so when they do, they look inconsistent).

I could go on (for example the player are bigger and faster and jump higher and yet the floor is still 94'x50' and the rim 10' off the ground). The examples go on and on.

But fans demand a fast game with lots of scoring, acrobatic dunks and alley-oops every few minutes.

We all like all those things.

But understand that with those "fun aspects" comes bad officiating.

A few years ago (when they saw this coming) they hoped that adding a third ref would alleviate the inability for two refs to keep up. The truth is, it only put a third person on the floor to see something different and make the refs even more self-aware and prone to inconsistency.

And so they added limited "review" - especially in the last two minutes. But that only slows the game down and makes everybody mad - except the coaches who get free timeouts.

Bottom line, the game is better and more fun to watch in 2017 than it was in 1967, but at the expense of poorer officiating. That doesn't mean corrupt officiating though. It just means that there will be more blown calls against whomever you are rooting for, and you will be able to see them yourself with your own "instant replay" in the form of "Pause/Rewind/Play" on your smart TVs and thus think you are being intentionally cheated.

It wasn't missed because the official was out of position at all. Not at all. The Trail official was in perfect position.......for his primary area. The call was missed because an official went fishing outside of his primary and didn't trust his partner.

In transition, the old "trail" official becomes the new "lead" official once the ball crosses half court. The "center" or "slot" official on the other side of the court remains the "center" official and just moves from FT line extended to the opposite FT line extended for his new position in the front court. The issue with this play is that the new "trail" official didn't trust his partner who was in perfect position, had the PERFECT look at the play, and passed for reason. That reason was that there simply wasn't any contact. But for some reason, the official furthest away from the play wants to pass up 2 officials who have great angles on the play and call a foul. That was the problem. He should've trusted his partners that they had the play covered because he obviously didn't see much contact. He only THOUGHT he saw the contact. Which is a no no in officiating. You don't call what you think happened, you call what you see happen and you don't assume.

There is a saying in officiating....... If you're going to go fishing, you better catch a whale. Meaning if you go outside of your primary area, it better be a game changer. This was not a whale and not a reason to pass 2 of your partners for a cheap call. If you're going to do something like that, it better be a game changing call that was missed and it better be a late whistle. Give your partners time to see the whale and call it. This wasn't even a minnow and the Trail official had no business passing his partner to make such a marginal call. That's why the call was missed but not because he was out of position. Maybe out of position to make a call on that play but he was in his proper position. He was just looking somewhere he wasn't supposed to be looking. He was ball watching.

 

[shutzhund]

There is a thread on this board from the UNC-Oregon game ("This was called a foul on Oregon") that rightly calls out a bad call that went against Oregon (UNC's Jackson was not touched) and it is being used as evidence that the fix is in for UNC. The truth is that call is exemplary of how and why officiating is worse than it used to be, and is perceived as even worse that it is (and possibly corrupt). I will tell you why I think that is so, and then you can call me an old curmudgeon.

The call was made because the ref was out of position, trailing far behind the play and unable to see that no contact was made by either defender (and likewise he could not see contact because there wasn't any) nonetheless he blew his whistle. Why?

He blew it because refs have to guess far too often. The game is now faster than they can keep up with, and also they know that the large number of instant replay cameras will catch every missed call, so they "over call."

It wasn't always this way.

Fifty years ago the players were slower, smaller and less strong... they didn't outrun the refs down the court so badly.

And that isn't the only thing that makes the game too fast and physical for refs to keep up with and get it right.

The rules have either changed, or it has been consciously decided to ignore other rules that haven't changed, to make the game faster and more physical.

Most obvious is the shot clock. But just as important is the decision to not call palming nor enforce the three second lane literally. The first of those "don't enforce" decisions enables ball handlers to move almost as quickly without the ball as with; and the non-3-second lane decision leads to more contact from defenders, which makes refs not want to call every push (so when they do, they look inconsistent).

I could go on (for example the player are bigger and faster and jump higher and yet the floor is still 94'x50' and the rim 10' off the ground). The examples go on and on.

But fans demand a fast game with lots of scoring, acrobatic dunks and alley-oops every few minutes.

We all like all those things.

But understand that with those "fun aspects" comes bad officiating.

A few years ago (when they saw this coming) they hoped that adding a third ref would alleviate the inability for two refs to keep up. The truth is, it only put a third person on the floor to see something different and make the refs even more self-aware and prone to inconsistency.

And so they added limited "review" - especially in the last two minutes. But that only slows the game down and makes everybody mad - except the coaches who get free timeouts.

Bottom line, the game is better and more fun to watch in 2017 than it was in 1967, but at the expense of poorer officiating. That doesn't mean corrupt officiating though. It just means that there will be more blown calls against whomever you are rooting for, and you will be able to see them yourself with your own "instant replay" in the form of "Pause/Rewind/Play" on your smart TVs and thus think you are being intentionally cheated.

How long have you been blind and deaf?

 

[CatsIndy2010]

sometimes calls are obviously called for no reason and other times they are not called at all.

Its not fair. And the purpose of officiating, is to make the game as fair as possible.

So I'd like to see a statement from the ncaa on the crappy officiating.

In our game, I believe it was not fair.

There was as much acting from certain players as a pro wrestling match.

When you drive to the basket and someone barely touches your elbow, its like your told to fall to the ground to sell the foul. What good is that?

 

[aikenite4uk]

To fix the refereeing I think they would need to take the human element out of the game altogether and just go to some sort of video review 100% of the time. Then the game can't be manipulated.

OT but such as baseball why do you need a home plate umpire besides for base calling? The computer shows the perfect strike zone and won't fudge the ball and strike calls. The same thing in college basketball anytime the ball goes out have a signal caller instead on the sidelines ready to call them real time from the monitor.

Then you're looking at 4 hour games and I'll find something else to do

 

[Zakk Wyldcat]

Let the players police themselves and call fouls. Refs are only there to call 'violations' - walking, double-dribble, out of bounds, ten-seconds, etc.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

It happens too often in favor of certain teams not to be corrupt.

Exactly. Unc getting some calls here and there illustrates incompetence.

Unc getting every call all tournament long is a statistical anomaly that removes pure chance as an explanation.

With pure chance removed, the only questions are 1) is it control or influence? 2) who's behind it?

I think it's impossible to control. Too many moving parts. So influence is the answer.

Who's behind it? I don't think it's Vegas. They make money on the bet, regardless of the winner. That leaves the NCAA or organized crime

 

[JohnnyGentle]

They should have five referees. Two on each end and one who roams from top of the key to top of the key.

jesus, why would anyone want more of them? rather they went back to 2

 

[Blue Decade]

Certainly some truth to your post....but there is also corruption.

The OP has this right. While there has been some corruption among referees in the past, a lot of that was NBA. The OP is correct that officiating is difficult. Some do the job better than others. I have been a critic of SEC officiating, because it isn't very good. But the conspiracy theorists sound silly and maybe vengeful. College sports are very competitive. Inevitably, every team will lose tough games that could have gone either way. That fact puts referees on the spot. Sometimes they make mistakes. There isn't a person on this board who hasn't made big mistakes in their own lives. But, to stretch that into an anti-Kentucky conspiracy is a bridge too far. This is coming from people who just can't cope with difficult losses. But every team suffers difficult losses.

 

[martinsm30]

This the final four. These are supposed to be the six best officials from across the country. If you do not have the angle to make that call then you shouldn't make it. If you're guessing then you're incompetent. Guessing is ridiculous and places the players in a situation where they have completely lost confidence in the officiating crew.

If you're not in shape to keep up then get in shape. If you are incapable of staying in shape to keep up then retire. If you are not in shape then why are you officiating the final four? Those doing the final four should be the elite and able to keep up with the play and not be guessing. If you are guessing it should be a no call.

This junk falls at the feet of the NCAA and how it does and does not administer its officials.

 

[Kentucky fan 1989]

The OP has this right. While there has been some corruption among referees in the past, a lot of that was NBA. The OP is correct that officiating is difficult. Some do the job better than others. I have been a critic of SEC officiating, because it isn't very good. But the conspiracy theorists sound silly and maybe vengeful. College sports are very competitive. Inevitably, every team will lose tough games that could have gone either way. That fact puts referees on the spot. Sometimes they make mistakes. There isn't a person on this board who hasn't made big mistakes in their own lives. But, to stretch that into an anti-Kentucky conspiracy is a bridge too far. This is coming from people who just can't cope with difficult losses. But every team suffers difficult losses.

You really believe the NBA refs are the only one cheating?

 

[BlueSince92]

Let the players police themselves and call fouls. Refs are only there to call 'violations' - walking, double-dribble, out of bounds, ten-seconds, etc.

If sportsmanship were more of a thing this would be the perfect solution. The modern version would have cameras on everything and the refs never call a player control foul, only review the footage to make a judgment when a player called foul. The players would respect each other because they were true men, would not call ticky-tack fouls because of their love of the game, and would not call bogus fouls because of their hatred of cheating.

But in the real world it would be a catastrophe. Might more or less work for a week. Then the Krzyzewskis would have their players call a foul every three seconds, over time they'd gain a measurable advantage just because a small percentage of the bogus calls would look real from the camera angle. So precedent and peer pressure would legitimize it in the refs' minds and it would be a winning strategy. One entirely based on false accusation with never more than three seconds of play flow. To save the game they'd limit the number of fouls players could call in a half. Instantly the Mike Andersons would have their players committing fifty gangland slayings a half. And only five could be called. No more winning without ninjas for anyone ever.

But in a culture where honor really meant something to everyone, it really would be the perfect system. In fact I think it's the only system that is both potentially perfect and actually feasible in terms of what human beings could do (as opposed to what they will do, unfortunately). I feel for you.

 

[aikenite4uk]

You really believe the NBA refs are the only one cheating?

You mean "ref:..as in singular. One guy in the past 20 years or so. To make charges like that, you have to have proof. You offer none.

 

[BigBlueManSouthCentralKY]

There is a thread on this board from the UNC-Oregon game ("This was called a foul on Oregon") that rightly calls out a bad call that went against Oregon (UNC's Jackson was not touched) and it is being used as evidence that the fix is in for UNC. The truth is that call is exemplary of how and why officiating is worse than it used to be, and is perceived as even worse that it is (and possibly corrupt). I will tell you why I think that is so, and then you can call me an old curmudgeon.

The call was made because the ref was out of position, trailing far behind the play and unable to see that no contact was made by either defender (and likewise he could not see contact because there wasn't any) nonetheless he blew his whistle. Why?

He blew it because refs have to guess far too often. The game is now faster than they can keep up with, and also they know that the large number of instant replay cameras will catch every missed call, so they "over call."

It wasn't always this way.

Fifty years ago the players were slower, smaller and less strong... they didn't outrun the refs down the court so badly.

And that isn't the only thing that makes the game too fast and physical for refs to keep up with and get it right.

The rules have either changed, or it has been consciously decided to ignore other rules that haven't changed, to make the game faster and more physical.

Most obvious is the shot clock. But just as important is the decision to not call palming nor enforce the three second lane literally. The first of those "don't enforce" decisions enables ball handlers to move almost as quickly without the ball as with; and the non-3-second lane decision leads to more contact from defenders, which makes refs not want to call every push (so when they do, they look inconsistent).

I could go on (for example the player are bigger and faster and jump higher and yet the floor is still 94'x50' and the rim 10' off the ground). The examples go on and on.

But fans demand a fast game with lots of scoring, acrobatic dunks and alley-oops every few minutes.

We all like all those things.

But understand that with those "fun aspects" comes bad officiating.

A few years ago (when they saw this coming) they hoped that adding a third ref would alleviate the inability for two refs to keep up. The truth is, it only put a third person on the floor to see something different and make the refs even more self-aware and prone to inconsistency.

And so they added limited "review" - especially in the last two minutes. But that only slows the game down and makes everybody mad - except the coaches who get free timeouts.

Bottom line, the game is better and more fun to watch in 2017 than it was in 1967, but at the expense of poorer officiating. That doesn't mean corrupt officiating though. It just means that there will be more blown calls against whomever you are rooting for, and you will be able to see them yourself with your own "instant replay" in the form of "Pause/Rewind/Play" on your smart TVs and thus think you are being intentionally cheated.

That one totally missed call cost Oregon a point or two and that was the difference. doesn't take a lot for a ref to cost you big time.

 

[Wildcat-in-STL]

If it was just refs making mistakes the. Why isn't there a blatantly awful call made against them ?? It's like 20 for them and 0 against

 

[MO_Blue]

There is a thread on this board from the UNC-Oregon game ("This was called a foul on Oregon") that rightly calls out a bad call that went against Oregon (UNC's Jackson was not touched) and it is being used as evidence that the fix is in for UNC. The truth is that call is exemplary of how and why officiating is worse than it used to be, and is perceived as even worse that it is (and possibly corrupt). I will tell you why I think that is so, and then you can call me an old curmudgeon.

The call was made because the ref was out of position, trailing far behind the play and unable to see that no contact was made by either defender (and likewise he could not see contact because there wasn't any) nonetheless he blew his whistle. Why?

He blew it because refs have to guess far too often. The game is now faster than they can keep up with, and also they know that the large number of instant replay cameras will catch every missed call, so they "over call."

It wasn't always this way.

Fifty years ago the players were slower, smaller and less strong... they didn't outrun the refs down the court so badly.

And that isn't the only thing that makes the game too fast and physical for refs to keep up with and get it right.

The rules have either changed, or it has been consciously decided to ignore other rules that haven't changed, to make the game faster and more physical.

Most obvious is the shot clock. But just as important is the decision to not call palming nor enforce the three second lane literally. The first of those "don't enforce" decisions enables ball handlers to move almost as quickly without the ball as with; and the non-3-second lane decision leads to more contact from defenders, which makes refs not want to call every push (so when they do, they look inconsistent).

I could go on (for example the player are bigger and faster and jump higher and yet the floor is still 94'x50' and the rim 10' off the ground). The examples go on and on.

But fans demand a fast game with lots of scoring, acrobatic dunks and alley-oops every few minutes.

We all like all those things.

But understand that with those "fun aspects" comes bad officiating.

A few years ago (when they saw this coming) they hoped that adding a third ref would alleviate the inability for two refs to keep up. The truth is, it only put a third person on the floor to see something different and make the refs even more self-aware and prone to inconsistency.

And so they added limited "review" - especially in the last two minutes. But that only slows the game down and makes everybody mad - except the coaches who get free timeouts.

Bottom line, the game is better and more fun to watch in 2017 than it was in 1967, but at the expense of poorer officiating. That doesn't mean corrupt officiating though. It just means that there will be more blown calls against whomever you are rooting for, and you will be able to see them yourself with your own "instant replay" in the form of "Pause/Rewind/Play" on your smart TVs and thus think you are being intentionally cheated.

What you wrote makes perfect sense and is supported by most of the facts. However, the bad calls do not seem evenly distributed. Thus, there has to be more to the explanation, imo.

 

[morgousky]

The OP has this right. While there has been some corruption among referees in the past, a lot of that was NBA. The OP is correct that officiating is difficult. Some do the job better than others. I have been a critic of SEC officiating, because it isn't very good. But the conspiracy theorists sound silly and maybe vengeful. College sports are very competitive. Inevitably, every team will lose tough games that could have gone either way. That fact puts referees on the spot. Sometimes they make mistakes. There isn't a person on this board who hasn't made big mistakes in their own lives. But, to stretch that into an anti-Kentucky conspiracy is a bridge too far. This is coming from people who just can't cope with difficult losses. But every team suffers difficult losses.

This is an absolute bogus claim that officiating is hard. It's not hard at all. It's the same rules, same game, most of the time the same teams. This is not brain surgery.