[canuckrefguy]

I don't know that you should be so cut-and-dried with this philosophy.

If A is thrashing B by 40 points, and there's still 12:00 left in the game, am I going to pass on a few mild/moderate Team B fouls? You bet. That doesn't mean Team B gets a free pass, gets every call, or that we stop officiating and let the game get out of control.

Every evaluator and teacher I've had, which includes a few NCAA and NBA folks from the U.S., echoed the need to "manage" game situations like this. Keep the game moving. Don't stop refereeing, but keep the flow going. Of course, this is always paired with the idea that if it's a particularly rough game, you clamp down and so be it.

Some will pipe up in outrage over this philosophy, with the ole' line about reffing the same, consistently, and not "favouring" one team over the other. Hogwash. Unless you can tell me you officiate to the absolute letter of the rulebook from start to finish, your argument holds not water. We use judgement all the time on which calls to nail and which ones to pass on. This is not some grand breach of impartiality or ethics - it's trying to administer in the best spirit of the game.

It may be different where you're from - but where I'm from, officials who don't use this philosophy (a) never go anywhere, and (b) are viewed as having terrible game management. Fair or not, that's the way it is.