grizzlyjournal
Well-known member
There will never be a Big Sky Conf. basketball game with a consensus fan agreement that the refs... “called a good game.” In fact, ‘Sky refs get pretty thoroughly maligned on this board.
I have long held the opinion that Big Sky refereeing has been sometimes bad, rarely good... mostly inconsistent... for several years.
But I’ve been hopeful of late. There have been some signs -- over the past two years and this year in particular -- that officiating is improving at Griz games.
I actually tried to to convey a “good game,” message to two refs during the final moments of Montana’s recent games with State and Northern Arizona. In both contests the refs “let the kids play,” with only minimal stoppage of game flow. Otherwise, most whistles were procedural (traveling, out of bounds, etc.). The UM-MSU game was a high-contact, hard fought battle that was a blast to watch. The refs stopped game flow only on clear evidence and otherwise let the game take its course. ( Yes, I am aware that some fans believe the Griz were battered, but they seemed to hold up well to it.)
But the SUU-Montana game of Jan. 24 was clearly a different affair, one in which the reffing “restricted” game flow, and the game, to the clear detriment of players and fans. It was ugly. A lot of its ugliness was because of the excessive and unnecessary whistles. That’s because at least 20 of the 31 total fouls were trivial “hand-check” calls that had a negative effect on game flow. I have no desire to further lambast; reffing is a tough job. But this was a stutter & start & stop-again play that didn’t need reffing interference. Plus, there were nearly 5000 in attendance. It would have been good for the UM program to, especially on this night, have a game with good flow.
I believe there is a high ceiling for improvement in reffing style and consistency in the Big Sky. I’m pretty certain I’m not alone.
I write this opinion assuming that at least one egriz reader is either a referee, or associated with the Big Sky refereeing pool. Therefore, I invite defense, correction or clarification of my views from an insider. I’d like some answers on how to let Big Sky games flow, without excessive intervention on the part of whistle-happy (or whistle-anxious) refs.
One explanation I have heard is that the Big Sky reffing is inconsistent because the conference does not have its own complete pool of refs, but instead contracts refs from several pools, including the WAC, Mountain West, WCC and Pac 12. I know those conferences expect certain standards of refs. But they probably vary, hence the changing style of reffing from night to night. That might explain the dramatic swing in reffing styles we see in the Big Sky.
I DO believe there’s clear evidence that the farther west the games are played, the more uniformly called the games are. Three years ago I heard one Big Sky coach (not from Montana) say that he could always expect a fair game at Sac State... or anywhere on the west coast, because of the larger pools with more experienced refs.
I have also heard from qualified observers that the less competent the ref, the more likely he is anxious to control a game to his own comfort level, rather than going with the flow. That’s a poor excuse at this level.
With all this criticism of the officials, I realize that that any of the three refs from the SUU-UM game could counter with the following: “Hey, this game would not have been so ugly if SUU hadn’t turned the ball over 19 times. Or if Montana had shot the ball better than 2-of-14 from beyond the arc and 15-of-23 from the free throw line.”
I have long held the opinion that Big Sky refereeing has been sometimes bad, rarely good... mostly inconsistent... for several years.
But I’ve been hopeful of late. There have been some signs -- over the past two years and this year in particular -- that officiating is improving at Griz games.
I actually tried to to convey a “good game,” message to two refs during the final moments of Montana’s recent games with State and Northern Arizona. In both contests the refs “let the kids play,” with only minimal stoppage of game flow. Otherwise, most whistles were procedural (traveling, out of bounds, etc.). The UM-MSU game was a high-contact, hard fought battle that was a blast to watch. The refs stopped game flow only on clear evidence and otherwise let the game take its course. ( Yes, I am aware that some fans believe the Griz were battered, but they seemed to hold up well to it.)
But the SUU-Montana game of Jan. 24 was clearly a different affair, one in which the reffing “restricted” game flow, and the game, to the clear detriment of players and fans. It was ugly. A lot of its ugliness was because of the excessive and unnecessary whistles. That’s because at least 20 of the 31 total fouls were trivial “hand-check” calls that had a negative effect on game flow. I have no desire to further lambast; reffing is a tough job. But this was a stutter & start & stop-again play that didn’t need reffing interference. Plus, there were nearly 5000 in attendance. It would have been good for the UM program to, especially on this night, have a game with good flow.
I believe there is a high ceiling for improvement in reffing style and consistency in the Big Sky. I’m pretty certain I’m not alone.
I write this opinion assuming that at least one egriz reader is either a referee, or associated with the Big Sky refereeing pool. Therefore, I invite defense, correction or clarification of my views from an insider. I’d like some answers on how to let Big Sky games flow, without excessive intervention on the part of whistle-happy (or whistle-anxious) refs.
One explanation I have heard is that the Big Sky reffing is inconsistent because the conference does not have its own complete pool of refs, but instead contracts refs from several pools, including the WAC, Mountain West, WCC and Pac 12. I know those conferences expect certain standards of refs. But they probably vary, hence the changing style of reffing from night to night. That might explain the dramatic swing in reffing styles we see in the Big Sky.
I DO believe there’s clear evidence that the farther west the games are played, the more uniformly called the games are. Three years ago I heard one Big Sky coach (not from Montana) say that he could always expect a fair game at Sac State... or anywhere on the west coast, because of the larger pools with more experienced refs.
I have also heard from qualified observers that the less competent the ref, the more likely he is anxious to control a game to his own comfort level, rather than going with the flow. That’s a poor excuse at this level.
With all this criticism of the officials, I realize that that any of the three refs from the SUU-UM game could counter with the following: “Hey, this game would not have been so ugly if SUU hadn’t turned the ball over 19 times. Or if Montana had shot the ball better than 2-of-14 from beyond the arc and 15-of-23 from the free throw line.”
