|
I think alot of how the commentators and fans and coaches view the calls depends on what's gone on before. If those two fouls had been called on Okafor in the second half, I don't think the outcry would have been as severe, because by then it was clear how the game was going to be called. The refs stayed consistent. We all have seen games where Okafor would have gotten by with the first foul -- the second one really needed to be called in my opinion. But it's not like they called that one and then had a more generous view of incidental contact later in the game. For all the griping about the commentators, though, I thought Packer eventually did make a good point -- the players were not adjusting to the way the game was being called. What mystifies me about that game is that there's all this talk about how the officials "ruined it," but from my perspective, this "ruined game" may have been one of the most exciting of the whole year in division 1. Why nobody credits the officials for that bugs the heck out of me.
After watching a tivo replay of the game, I thought the officials did a really nice job. I like the no techical on Okafor; good discretion there, just as I like the no technical on Krzyzewski's profanity laced "you cheated us" tirade. If I had nits to pick, there would only be a few. I thought near the end of the first half, Redick may have pushed a Connecticut defender after a turnover, leading to a fastbreak basket. It looks like the official may have anticipated the play going the other way and been just a little out of position. I also thought one call that is very difficult to explain was a play where Ewing strips one of the UConn big men, and from the replay appears to get both arms and little ball. The official had great position, so maybe the replay was misleading, but it looks like something went askew there. But the point I bring it up is that, ironically, Packer and Nantz praised the play as clean, so sometimes it goes both ways with the announcers and their perceptions.
|