[Bob M.]

REPLY: The important thing to realize in this situation is that each official made a judgement in the play. The fact that the wing's judgment resulted in putting a rag on the ground should be given no more weight than that of B whose judgment said there was no foul. Each judgment has equal validity until a determination is made as to whose call should stand. And that determination cannot wait until halftime or after the game. It must be discussed in the moment. After the game is a good time to discuss why there might have been a disagreement (positioning, angle, seeing part of the play, etc.) but you must resolve the disagreement in the context of the game at that time. The wing's refusal to hear any dissent and the R's avoidance of dealing with legitimate disagreement both were shining examples of making themselves "bigger than the crew."

A question for bjudge: Is this a crew that regularly works together or was it just a group of independent officials who were put together for that game? The answer to that question is paramount to understanding why the correct dynamics were not in evidence. It's a question of trust.