BIG "Answers" Questions About Officiating

So a ref can grab Mike Webbers ass on national t.v. and nothing, but anyone else does it and it is sexual misconduct. HMM.

official was tapping Weber on the ass, the fact was he did it, and the action suggested familiarity with a player that leads to suspicion about officiating conduct, Every official is counseled to never show favortism or collegiatlity with a player or coach unless that behavior is equally demonstrated, and to basically refrain from anything that could be interpreted as such. Regardless of the explanation or circumstance, that official broke that point of emphasis. And it is a point of emphasis in the official rulebook of every sport I have ever officiated. It's also something officials do as part of game management.

I find this piece an opportunity by the Chicago Tribune to conduct an informal review of Big Ten officiating overall, the league's protocol for assigning crews, and try to answer unanswered questions surrounding any challenged call or no-call in The Game. The only way Greenstein was able to get an interview for public consumption and talk about certain Big Ten officiating policies, game review practices and officiating crew evaluation, was by writing an article that was at least sympathetic to league accountability.

If you read closely, Corollo never imparts any on the record  public judgment on any call that was reviewed. His grading policy is outlined and the score for a particular play is considered.

The fact is, there was a standard set for certain calls in that game that was  not adhered to on both sides. It's like Greenstein goes over each call in the so-called challenge tape and an explanation is offered, none of which comes from Corollo's lips. All of it is editorial judgment by Greenstein, suggesting Michigan didn't get screwed; it just didn't get the calls. Gee really. Thanks for that explanation.

How about the degree to which Greenstein goes into detail explaining the technicality of the flip card unsportsmanlike call to the fact that a wide angle camera captured some cards on the field, but never goes into the lame rationale the calling official used in suggesting Harbaugh was guility of a basketball technical for inciting the crowd. The only inciting being done was by that crew's extrodinarily poor effort and non-chalance in making The Spot, practically an un-noteworthy first down without so much as a second glance before a review was finally sought.

One other point, fans wouldn't have raised questions about crew residency if the officials conduct on the field hadn't prompted some to question their backgrounds. It was their performance which raised questions about that, by failing to adhere to a standard of made calls, regardless of whether they came before or after the whistle, were 50-50 or were simply blown.

The fact is we learned nothing from this we didn't already know. Yes, the league protects its officials. Yes, the league suspends crews for poor game evaluations. Yes, the league has no residency policy, but it does scrutinize backgrounds. And yes fans jump to conclusions when answers aren't forthcoming.

The fact that the league and this article suggests that only two calls were essentially blown and fails to discuss the justification for a PI standard as it does for targeting or certain unsportsmanlike calls is just the vagary of that crew and game. And if that crew is the best the Big Ten has, wow. I would rather have a MAC crew working the next game. At least those guys would see the assignment as more than an event instead of a chore to get through.

It doesn't matter though, It doesn't change the outcome!

this idiot author conceded that there were two agregious calls against UM.  instead of concluding that UM fans are exaggerating the poor officiating, he could have concluded that if UM got one or both the calls he mentioned, UM likely wins.

SWEET

Greenstein, Finebaum, Finestein whatever. What's with all the clinton supporters dogging on the Big M and my man Harb's a christian conservative. LOL.

He says Barret's pass to Samuel was not uncatchable because Samuel can leap? Sorry Teddy, Samuel could not have caught that pass...only Charles Woodson could...and one-handed at that.

But it's not. It really just a PR interview fluff piece with the B1G officiating coordinator. He's acting as the officials' attorney- to maintain innocence and plausible deniability for all of the officials actions and decisions, admitting only the most egregious of mistakes.

He's not going to admit to any missed or no calls on holding, PI, poor spots, etc. I wonder if he would have brought up the hit on Webber on the intercetion as a missed call in the interview if the one-sidedness been the other way- I think it was just his way of deflecting criticism.

He is probably the worst out of all the Power 5.