Commentary on officiating....
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aMjTq1DrTHE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hey I thought this was interesting and well stated. Since we love to talk about how good or bad the officiating was, this was something well thought out.

Peace

Honestly I watched the whole nine minutes and thirty-nine seconds with rapt attention.

That was brilliant. 110% spot on. I wanted to hug him.

It was indeed.

Similar even-tempered column from WAPO sportswriter
 

Well said
 

I like the Zags coach taking the high-road and not blaming the officials too.

IMHO, I thought Harris, Stephens, and Eades did a great job. They were consistent, hustled, and made the correct calls in an "old school" style game. Lots of physical play and up and down the court action.

I agree with something Colin Cowherd said. I need to take a shower now.

Ha!!! I haven't watched yet, but I was thinking the same thing, I'm going to have to really focus on the words being said in order to get past the person saying them.

I have never heard of or heard or seen this person before, but if this video had a "Like" button, I would click on it.

I, too, hate agreeing with this jackass.

I've heard him on the radio a lot, and I remain skeptical that he's saying something intelligent. Maybe it was written for him?

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

Well I am not a fan of everything that Cowheard says as I would not of anyone in his position. That is what happens when you talk on the radio or TV for hours every single day.

But I think the thought that went into this commentary was spot on. He did not just say the officiating was not bad, he gave examples and broke it down for everyone listening. Talked about the coach's demeanor, the missing of shots and the role of the official. I think the main thing I liked was he said basically, "The officials are not there to set the pace of the game, they are there to officiate the game." I think that is often the criticism we have about calling the game because if the game is choppy, we get blamed as if we are the one making or taking shots and throwing the ball away. Even on the held ball situation near the end of the game, it was the play that allowed that to happen, not the officiating. It was certainly one of the big misses of the game, but not a game changer. And I like how he also talked about the "air ball" miss on the shot that went the other way in favor of Gonzaga and how Gonzaga hit a 3 point shot afterwards. Often as officials we do not look at this in the same detail. I felt the crew looked great the first half as there were not as many whistles to come by. But the second half was worse as there was a lot more missed shots and loose balls on the floor. You cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit, which this game was. They could have called 20 more fouls in many cases as every possession had some contact and everything was contested. There were 4 three point shooting fouls I recall in the first half alone and I might go 50 games and not have that many in any game I officiate or watch.

Peace

Agreed

Without comment on Kevin's position one way or the other .. does he understand that fouls and violations are different and that one shows up in the box score while another doesn't?

Does he understand the conundrum of watching Big10 basketball all season, wading through the tournament, getting to the last game, and having that game called like Harvard vs. Yale?

I don't blame the crew and every call seemed justifiable. And the job is to call the game. And I know every game is or should be approached in the same way. That said, this was a national championship game not Chaminade vs Athletes In Action. And I'd have liked to see a little more discretion from the crew to let these guys determine the best of two finalists in the nation.