When I first started covering NBA games 20 years ago, my first impression of Joey Crawford was this: Love to have him if I’m the road team, hate to have him if I’m the home team.

Crawford struck me then as having a little bit of a chip on his shoulder. And two decades of whistle-tooting hasn’t done anything to shrink it. He’s one of the best in the business, but he’s not infallible. I think he knows that. But he sure doesn’t outwardly appear to admit to anything less than perfection. When Crawford whistles you for an infraction, it feels like he’s indicting you for murder. And that’s where trouble ensues.

He also projects a defiant aura. It’s as if he relishes making the unpopular call – which is why I like him if I’m the road team but hate to see him walk into my arena.

There’s nothing in sports tougher than officiating an NBA basketball game. It takes far more than an understanding of the rulebook. It takes a simpatico for the soul of the game. The best referees give a game room to breathe. They let a game take on its own personality. The allow the teams to decide the rules of engagement to a certain degree, then enforce what they’ve tacitly agreed to.

A strike is always a strike, but a bump in the post that’s a foul in the first quarter of a February game isn’t necessarily a foul in the fourth quarter of the rematch in May.

It’s inherently dangerous handing that much freedom to the arbiters of the game. And bad referees don’t so much abuse the power as corrupt the competitive balance of a basketball game. There aren’t enough good referees in the world for the NBA to ensure that every zebra in its employ is worthy of being granted such latitude, which means there always will be conflict that leads to grudges and bitterness.

The irony of the aftermath of the Joe Crawford-Tim Duncan blowup that resulted in Crawford ejecting the mild-mannered Duncan on Sunday is that Crawford – when he isn’t intent on proving his fearlessness – is one of those referees who merits the trust to allow a game to assume its own form.

If only his skin wasn’t so thin.

A friend of long standing has been officiating high school and college basketball for 30 years. When the NBA instituted its so-called “zero tolerance” policy this year, I asked him what he thought about it.

“I don’t go to games to watch star players get ejected,” he said. “There’s a point of no return, but NBA officials have to remember that they’ve only done a good job if people go home and they’re not the story.”

A good referee is one who doesn’t feel his integrity is being challenged every time someone reacts to their call.

Here’s what I find most unpardonable about Joey Crawford and a few others of his ilk: Their demeanor is downright confrontational, which baits players who’ve already had their emotions riled into taking that one step over the line that the Crawfords of the NBA practically dare them to take.

Stern is the sheriff and he deputizes every official who gets handled a whistle to carry out his vision of justice. But a little power does funny things to some people.

There are various media reports suggesting Stern is incensed at Crawford, who’s been called on the carpet before, most notoriously for a 2003 incident in the playoffs when he called four technical fouls in the first quarter and ejected Mavericks coach Don Nelson.

Well he should be. Stern was right to attempt to get a handle on player carping. It had gotten out of hand. Every call should not illicit histrionics worthy of a Springer guest wrongly accused of paternity. But it was as if he handed a blank check to shopaholics. Instead of putting the official-player equilibrium back in balance, his edict emboldened officials with a Napoleon complex to launch into vigilante justice.

Calling the game will never be easy, but managing it shouldn’t be as tough as it’s become. Basketball is a game with shades of gray. Calls are open to interpretation. Players have to understand that, but so do officials. If they could refrain from assuming the stance that they’re not only above mistakes but unwilling to hear reasonable criticisms, they’d all be the better for it.