Quote:
Originally Posted by HokiePaul
If we are being fair, there is some truth to some of those statements.
For example, I tend to agree with this.
If I had the choice to do a game with 1 really good partner I trusted or 2 mediocre officials I didn't, I would choose the 1 really good partner.
In my opinion, 95% of the time having a 3rd official adds little to no value. The primary official can handle the on-ball action and the other official can see the rest of the action.
That said, transition plays (where the C can get into position better to help to see what the new lead can't); BI/GT calls or plays at the rim (Where both the T and C have a chance to see something); and the occasional dirty/unsportsmanlike play off the ball can be officiated much better with a 3rd official. It's also easier to communicate with coaches and recognize timeouts with a 3rd official.
No one is really saying that a third official makes things worse. They are only saying the increased quality of adding a 3rd official isn't worth cost. If cost weren't a factor, everyone would support 3 officials. I'm not going to criticize a coach for having the opinion that they would rather use just 2 officials and use the money saved for other purposes.
|
I'm not sure what games you're working, but I'm with BNR. Out of 50 games this season, I think maybe 3-4 were ones where working 2 would've provided the same product. We're talking about $60 in our area, typically. That's 15 people paying admission.
On top of that, I found I was not as sharp and not as good going back and forth every other night. I'd not look in the corner, I'd forget I'd have primary coverage in a certain spot, I'd just not be as good in either. Now that I've eliminated 2-person games, I don't have to think about this stuff anymore.
We're still working 2 at all subvarsity levels and I'm glad that other people are working those.