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.
|
Coach 2's comments are true, but irrelevant. You're increasing your varsity staff by 50%, so there's going to be a learning curve. Had Oregon made the move 10 years ago, the officiating would be markedly better.
Asking for an immediate large improvement is unrealistic and a cop-out for coaches who would rather teach their players to break the rules when the refs aren't looking.