Ok we all know that I'm a ref so I'm sure most of you will lambast me for posting my thoughts and probably question my fanhood. But in addition to being a ref, I'm an Arizona fan through and through, I'm just a little more level headed and knowledgeable about the officiating, than most, no all of you. So I'm going to share my thoughts on a key plays. If you can't participate in a mature discussion and instead are going to be Esq-like and just mindlessly blame the refs, then go post in one of the many threads doing just that.
-Solomon's first offensive foul: Was absolutely an offensive foul, he just ran over Roberson.
-Solomon's second offensive foul: Was absolutely an offensive foul, although tougher. Xavier Johnson had legally established before Solomon left the floor. The tough part was that the contact was on Johnson's shoulder and not in the middle of his chest. For so long, the mantra to calling an offensive foul was did he take it in the chest. Then a couple years ago, an NBA referee called a blocking foul on a defender guarding Blake Griffin who was legally established but took it on the shoulder. Then the thought was, "What did the defender do wrong?" So that mindset has trickled it's way down into the college game and this year, the mindset has changed: an defensive player no longer has to take the contact in the middle of the chest in order for it to be an offensive foul, as long as the defender has established legal guarding position prior to leaving the floor. The national coordinator of officials is also a proponent of the mantra that if bodies go down at the basket, 99 times out of 100, it's a foul. So on that play, bodies on the floor, a defender with legally established guarding position before the offensive player leaves the floor = offensive foul.
****For those of you who don't know, legal guarding position is defined as two feet on the floor facing the offensive player. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the feet are moving or stopped. So if you think that the defender is moving it should be a block, not true.
-Solomon's third offensive foul: Much easier than the second, he pivots right into a defender who is legally established, outside the RA and contact. The tough part about this one is that the shot gets blocked right before the offensive foul. Regardless, I don't think the contact could be ignored.
-Kevin Parrom's blocking foul: When Chen drove on a fastbreak and Parrom was called for a block, I thought it should have been an offensive foul. This was by no means an easy call. I do think Parrom established legal guarding position before Chen left the floor, but it was really, really close. It was a 50-50 play in my opinion, which means a block or a charge was defendable on that play. Now, at that point, there had been at least 3 if not 4 offensive fouls called on Arizona. As refs, we try to match calls and I don't mean in the way that you think. But if we have a similar play at one end, then we want to have the similar play called the same way at the other end. Especially on 50-50 calls. I don't want to say a charge was the correct call, because it's a 50-50 play, either call would be correct. But I think a charge would have been the better call.
-Solomon's illegal substitution: Didn't see this either. But this is the rule: If a player leaves the game, he may not reenter until time has come off the clock after the clock has been properly started. Miles is pretty knowledgeable so it sounds like this was an illegal sub. However, this is not the refs' fault, this is the table's fault. This is so hard to catch, so hard for us. The only time I've ever caught this is when the player who was called for the foul subs out and then tries to come back in. Then the number of the player is in our head so when we see them coming back in, we know that they just went out. But to catch that from a player who did not commit the foul is damn near impossible. Especially when there are so many other things going on. That's what the table is there for. They're the ones who are supposed to catch this for us, that's why they're there.
-Roberson's fifth foul: I am ashamed to say I didn't see this because I got too nervous and left the room (it was either that or break my TV after my remote became a projectile). However, after speaking with another official who is also a huge Arizona fan, I am of the opinion that this probably should have been a flagrant one.
-The foul on Lyons: Again, couldn't watch. Too nervous. But from what I hear from people with judgment I trust (i.e., nobody on this board) this was probably not a foul. All I'm going to say because I don't know where the official was in relation to the play (i.e. what angle he had) and I don't know what he was thinking.
-The last second shot: I feel so bad for this crew after this play. That was so close and it was a damned-if-you-do sort of game. It's calls like that that can ruin a very well officiated game, which I'm not saying this was one way or the other. But no official deserves to have a game end like that because it's just gut-wrenching. For starters, the call was ruled good on the floor. I was surprised because I didn't see them make a call on the floor. So, this is not like football, there doesn't have to be irrefutable video evidence or inconclusive video evidence. We don't have those standards when we go to the monitor. We go and see what we see and rule accordingly. I thought for sure this was good. But they had the ball on Chen's fingertips with 0.0 on the clock. According to that, the shot is no good. You could ask 100 people what they think and half would say it's good and half would say it's no good. It was that close and it was that tough of a play. I know as fans, it's hard not to debate the merits of the call up and down this side of Sunday, but for me, they called what they called, I thought different, but when I've refereed multiple national championships, then I can second guess those guys. For now, I'm over it. Side note: these guys are national championship referees, say what you want about P12 refs, you don't get to the NC game unless the leadership across the nation thinks you can ref, so they are competent. To suggest the fans influenced this call is ridiculous.
-The foul on Xavier Johnson against KP: This is a tough play, especially considering the situation. It's hard to see how the play starts: does Johnson get an arm on KP first and then drag him down or does KP push off and Johnson grabs onto his arm to keep from falling? I don't remember if they went to the monitor on this or not, I really hope they did not. But this was not a Flagrant 2 foul. No doubt in my mind that it was not a Flagrant 2 foul. Absolutely possibly a flagrant 1, but not a flagrant 2. As such, we cannot go to the monitor to see if a flagrant 1 foul has occurred. We can only go for a flagrant 2 or a dead ball contact technical foul. So if they did not go, then that's why this was not penalized. If they did go, which there's a situation where they might be able defending going, but it's not clear in the rule book, then I can see how they did not rule it a flagrant 1. Again this is a tough play, and I'm not sure how it starts. Based on that, there's some doubt as to whether it is a flagrant 1 or not in my mind. It's not clear to me from the replays at least.
So those are my takes on these calls. I welcome any mature and level-headed discussion that is not biased by your fandom. So that means Esq should stay away from this thread. If you can't respect what I said here and entertain a quality discussion, I'll close it. And then turn it into a poll so it can live on forever.