Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Who cares if officials can cover a court well in 2-person when the game is assigned as a 3-person game? Do we worry in a 2-person game if that official can work a game well alone?
When I hire, I only care if officials can cover the court well in 3-person. Running like a gazelle isn't a requirement to being a good official and neither is it a beauty contest.
If it adds a couple of years to the end of careers I consider that a POSITIVE, not a negative.
|
To do 3-person correctly, an official should be putting in a similar level of physical effort as in the 2-man system. Those who don't grasp this are the problem.
The effort comes in some different ways, but is the same in others.
Examples, the T should have the same transition to new lead on missed and made FGs. The T should not be bailing out early to get a head start because there is a C on the court. The L should actually move MORE in 3-person and make an effort to actively rotate to come strong side frequently. The C takes over the responsibilities of the 2-man new Lead in pressing situations.
There should be fewer times that hard sprints over a great distance are needed with 3 officials, but there should be more quick bursts to cover plays and obtain angles in one's primary. The ability to do that is what increases the play-calling accuracy in the 3-man system. If people aren't going to work hard to obtain and keep those sightlines, then the 2-man system and it's inherent flaws might as well be used.
The fallacy is that people believe that they can be slower and less physically fit with the 3-person system and still do a good job. That is wrong and assignors who perpetuate that untruth aren't helping officiating.
The problem with 2-man is that no matter how hard one works physically there are times when Flash Gordon couldn't get into position to see the play. With 3-man that issue should go away, not remain. Unfortunately, what I observe is an overweight, slower official in the 3-man system getting the same look as a hustling, fit official would in 2-man. So for the extra $, the teams receive a similar product instead of a better one. That's not the point in using 3 officials.
The only meritorious argument which I've heard is that at the HS level the officials in an area are who they are and aren't going to transform. Therefore, the choice becomes do we put these same guys in a 2-man system, in which we know they can't succeed, or use the 3-man system to simulate the results that a quality 2-man crew would produce. When faced with the reality that a local officials association is mostly comprised of older, slower, not physicaly fit individuals, the only logical choice to give them a reasonable chance at success is to put three of them out there. What gets glossed over is the fact that they aren't providing a better product than a quality 2-man crew. They are merely approximating it. Yet you can only work with what you have and if an area doesn't have enough physically fit officials to cover the games to the liking of the schools/teams in the 2-man system, then they consider the option of using three. At that point it just comes down to haggling over a price. The schools are going to want the officials to split the same amount three ways while the officials are going to want the school to pay for that third person. The contract usually ends up as some sort of compromise. The bad thing about that is that the physically fit officials in an area end up feeling like they are taking a cut to carry a third.