Officiating to the score vs. officiating the game?

[FlasherZ]

This is something that's been bothering me lately, because I see more and more officiating tending to lean this direction.

Tonight I was a spectator at a high school varsity game that was a very good match-up. Good, fast action, pretty clean overall. Point separation at halftime was 1 point. In the 3rd quarter, the home team (state ranked) really picked it up, and by a few minutes into the 4th quarter, they were up by 15 over their opponents.

It was at this point that the officials on the floor really started to call the game differently. The home team didn't change its approach at all, they kept the same strategy throughout. But in a matter of 4 minutes, the game officials suddenly started calling the game far differently than the first 38 minutes - giving eight fouls to the home team in that time span - while the visiting team turned up their pressure and fouls that would normally be called were not (and they ended the game with only 5 for the 4th quarter, giving the bonus only in the last minute).

To my eyes, it appeared that these officials were trying to engineer the contest and prevent the home team from continuing to run away with the score. The home team players and coaches were dumbfounded - they had no idea why these fouls were being called. I certainly wouldn't have called the game like that.

So - I suppose the question for y'all - are you seeing this occur more often? Do you believe in calling games differently to keep them tight?

I've always been taught - and believed - that you should "call the game, not the score", especially when it comes to fouls. This is because it generates safety problems when a (usually losing) team figures out it can begin mangling another team's players.

Home team ended up winning by 10 - but based on the play, it probably should have been 20 or more.

Thoughts?