Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Don't give in on this. If you do, it will take forever to get back to 3-person.
|
I agree, don't give in regarding what those who hold the purse strings consider merely an issue of economics. Three-person is preferable.
On the other hand, an association has gotta do its part to demonstrate that three-person must be retained. But consider this: we don't do a very good job of that when . . .
> . . . when old, out-of-shape officials who should have quit long ago continue officiating because of the perception that there's not such a stringent conditioning requirement to do three-person. Laziness and walking up and down the court makes every three-person crew look bad. If an official can't handle the demands of two-person, chances are s/he won't properly handle the real expectations of quality three-person either.
> . . . when there are six eyes on the ball. Ballwatching, lack of PCA surveillance and off-ball observation are the bane of three-person crews.
Either of those two characteristics common for crews of your association? Then it's not difficult for any knowledgeable stakeholder holding the purse strings to rationalize, "Why are we paying three officials to do this? We can get the same quality and save money by paying just two officials." And, with either of the aforementioned conditions present, they'd be correct.
Fight for keeping the three-person system. But make sure your association isn't its own worst enemy.