From the text of the commentary,
"The first principle imparted to all medical students: 'Do no harm'. It's not, pointedly, 'Do some good'."
While there may be similarities between practicing medicine and sports officiating, "Do no harm" is a HACK poor example. Yes, "do no harm" is part of an oath taken by every graduating medical student. But its literal principle is only applied in situations involving emergency medicine. If it were applied in general to medical practices, we would not have many beneficial interventions, e.g. invasive surgery and chemo & radiation therapies. Physicians often times "do harm" for the short term in order to "do some good" over the long haul.
Having wrote that, when the game is on the line, I fully believe "swallowing the whistle" is practiced by many officials and encouraged by supervisors. Hence, the authors are probably correct in stating, "The officials will not make controversial late-game calls."
If it was a foul or no-call in the first quarter, why not the same towards the end of the game? It takes real skill and fortitude to let the players determine the game within the context of the rules.
