As fans, we ridicule referees more than anyone else involved with the game but half the time we're being hypocritical or don't know what we even want with our criticism.
For most of us, if a game is close at the end, and a call could be called or not called, that ref better swallow his whistle and let the game play on. Unless its absolutely blatant, we don't wanna hear any type of stoppage, unless its a timeout, in the last 2 minutes.......except for when your a fan of the team that doesn't benefit from the non-call.
For example, if you're a Spurs fan, rooting for the Spurs, or have money on the Spurs in the Finals, you were on twitter along with myself last night complaining that Manu didnt get to shoot free throws with 5 seconds left in overtime and that Danny Green didn't get 3 free throws after the Bosh closeout at the end of overtime. At the end of the day, if that call would've been made with 5 minutes left in the 1st quarter, you should call it now. Be consistent right?
On the other side of the spectrum, if you are a Ravens fan like myself, you would've crucified the refs for making that possible pass interference call on 4th down in the end zone with 30 seconds left. In that situation the refs better say play on and let it slide because we'll be damned if the refs decide the game in a situation like that.
So the question is, what do we want? Do we want the consistent officiating where a call in the beginning is the same call at the end? Or do we want the circumstantial officiating that allows more than the normal in what I like to call "clutch time"?
Both have their positives and negatives and as fans we have to have someone to blame when the result isn't in our favor. Whether we realize it or not, we are the most hypocritical individuals involved with the game because of this issue. From now on maybe we should decide what we really want first and once we make that decision, we can't be mad if a call is made at the end of the game based on those guidelines whether it's in your favor or not.
