For my inaugural blog, I have one question to ask: Is a little consistency too much to ask?

Hopefully, as our local basketball teams play in the first round of the state playoffs, they get more consistent officiating than they've seen in the district playoffs.

I'm not judging officials on whether they make a lot of calls, or if they let the players play a hard game and are sparse with the whistle. Far too often, however, in games this postseason, I've seen referees start to call a game one way and then switch.

Perhaps they think the game is getting too physical and they must reverse the trend before the game turns into a bloodbath, or they suddenly realize they're being evaluated.

Some officials call fouls one way on one side of half court, and another on the other side. I'm not saying anyone has an agenda. Assuming so would be far past the scope of my experience, but is the human element too high in these high-stakes games?

Which begs the question, why have post-season evaluations, and not regular-season evaluations?

Officials must work themselves out of the playoffs by making questionable calls or letting games get out of hand, when it should be that officials are honing their skills through the season while incorporating suggestions of other referees and evaluators.

Give the officials a point rating based on the accuracy of calls in the context of how the rest of the game has been called, and reward those officials with the biggest games of postseason.

I will mention the professionalism and overall excellence of the crew that called the Lourdes boys' championship game in Montgomery. Now if we could only get such consistent and correct officiating in all games.

On a side note, I'd like to thank the creative services department at The News-Item, and my editors and publisher for embracing the idea of this blog. The intent is for fans to voice their opinions as well, and create an open discussion on all things sport.