Love2, I read the article you posted. I totally agree that, especially in NYC, you ought to be using 3-man crews. No question about that. But I don't think you make a very good case for yourself in that article. You write:
Quote:
|
How would you know what officials have continued to receive training, so that they may get the opportunity to work your big games? Aren't you as coaches tired of having officials on your games who keep walking up and down the court, and making those long distance calls? (AT&T)
|
Your point here seems to be, "if you're tired or getting lousy officials, then it's time to go 3-man". Well, that just doesn't wash. Lousy officials can learn to be lazy in a 3-man game just as easily as they can be lazy in a 2-man game. Additionally, going to 3-man means that on any given night, fifty percent more officials are required to cover the same number of games. And that means, that even lower quality officials
might be needed to fill out the 3-man crews. You continue by saying that 3-man crews would be better because:
Quote:
|
1. In order to learn the system an official has to continue to receive outside training (officiating camps)
|
Well, it's certainly true that an official who hasn't worked 3-man will need to learn it. But that's no guarantee that he/she will go to camp to learn it. Surely, you don't think that every official in NYC would go to camp next month if it were announced that 3-man crews were going to be implemented this winter. Most of them would read the manual and get to a pre-season clinic and that would be it.
Quote:
|
2. They must also work tournaments and leagues that use the 3 person system (officiating camps)
|
The first part of this is obviously true, but so what? It's like saying that people who want to work 2-man games have to work tournaments or leagues that use the 2-man system. You still get crappy officials in those leagues. You can still expect to get them in the 3-man leagues too. (But even having said that, the part about attending camps is not true.)
Quote:
|
3. And be observed and critiqued by supervisors of officials, college assigners, and college officials. (officiating camps)
|
Again, unfortunately, this just isn't true.
Unless the official in question is self-motivated, hoping to improve, and looking to move up into the college ranks. But then, that official is going to work hard and do well in a 2-man game, just like in a 3-man game.
Quote:
|
most of the other states around the country all high school games are officiated by a 3 person crew.
|
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering how you know this. Did you do some kind of survey? My impression is that 3-man on the HS level is still widely resisted. If you're right, I think that's great. But if NYC, which has some of the best HS basketball on the planet, doesn't use 3-man, why would you suppose that "most" other states do? Again, I don't know the facts; so if you are right, I gladly stand corrected.
Quote:
|
The advantage is better coverage
|
This is pretty much the only thing that I agree with in your article. I think that anybody who has worked 3-man, or any coach that has had 3-man crews, will tell you that the off-ball coverage is much better. Additionally, you don't have the Lead official reaching across the lane to call fouls, b/c the Center official is there. If you want to convince coaches to pay for 3 officials, this is what you need to talk about. The game will be cleaner, there will be better coverage away from the ball to catch the back picks and rebound fouls.
But again, I think the claim that going to 3-man crews will guarantee better and more knowledgable officials is not necessarily true. Best of luck in getting the 3-man crews tho, and I mean that with all sincerity. I think it's better for the game overall.
Chuck