I'll watch a good bit of the playoffs - my only big complaint about the refereeing, per se, is that they call the game differently in the playoffs than in the regular season. The way the league farts with the rules and interpretations is another matter - I hate that. But, I have a different perspective on it compared to almost anyone else that follows the game. I think the big problem is the profusion of technical elements the league introduces in trying to correct perceived problems with the game. Every time they add a new boundary line the refs have another thing they have watch for or whenever there is a new time constraint or a definition exactly what kind of contact is allowed/forbidden. On top of that the coaches have a new thing they can try to exploit in their favor.
IMO, the games were much better refereed back when virtually everything was understood, by all parties, to be a judgment call. In a sense the refs had a lot more power then they do now but they had so many fewer technical details to worry about they could actually pay attention to the important aspects of the play. They were well aware of the power they possessed and, I believe, they responded to that by trying harder to keep with the spirit of the rules. I think that was true for the players as well - flops were almost non-existent, for instance. Players spent a lot less time bitching at the refs and there were fewer technical fouls.
The league didn't change the rules every year either so the refs didn't have to make those adjustments, which made things easier for everyone.
The only good rule change in recent years was giving up on trying to legislate no-zones by technical rules. Luckily, zones are not very worthwhile if you have a defensive 3 second rule so allowing them hasn't changed the game much. Now the game is very much like it was when refs called zone violations with no technical definition - there were very few such calls (and they mystified everyone when they did happen.)