Coaches comments about 3 officials...

[OrStBballRef]

So Oregon recently gave the green light for 3 man crews. Only certain leagues adopted this for this past season. On the train into work this morning I read an article about a discussion made with several coaches in the area some of which are retired. Naturally the question about 3 man crews came up...here are the responses listed from the article:

<< The PIL and Metro leagues are using three-man officiating crews this season, the first time that has been employed in our state. A good idea?

Coach 1: You might need three referees in the NBA. You might need three in college. But the high school court is smaller. I told a ref after a recent game, “You probably like (the three-man crew), because you don’t have to run as far or work as hard.” They want guys who are 286 pounds and can still ref — yeah, but at midcourt. It’s a waste of money. You get two good (refs) and one bad, and the bad guy is over there making a bad call.

Coach 2: I don’t see the quality of the officiating all of a sudden getting better. It’s tough to be a good referee. There aren’t enough good officials around that you can afford to have three.

Coach 3: The idea was it would increase (the referees’) ability to not miss as many calls. But now you have guys saying, “I didn’t see the play. That was his call.” You hear that more than before>>

Now I don't know if there was more to the discussion or not that got left on the editing floor, but I try to see these type of comments through the coaches eyes, but some of this just kind of irks me. Some of this may be legitimate gripes but a lot of this is just plain lack of knowledge about officiating.

Especially the last comment, of course you're going to hear that more. You're not paying us to put 6 eyes always on the ball. I would hope if I'm the C right by the bench I'm not looking across court, but instead on my half of the court.

The lack of true understanding of officiating and just asinine statements that we want officials who are overweight just to stand at half court to justify 3 man or not having to work as hard just annoys me.

I really don't care what coaches think, but it's just annoying to find stuff like this in print.

[Rich]

I've dealt with some of those types. I couldn't possibly care.

When I'm done tomorrow afternoon, I'll have worked 52 varsity HS games, all 3-person for the first time. I'm never going back -- I'll never accept another 2-person HS game and I'd quit before I'd go back to being a 2-person official.

Can a game be called that way? Not as well, and not in a way I wish to call one anymore.

I found the article. One coach retired 12 years ago, one 11 years ago -- both are in their 70s. The third coach is a first year head coach. Great sample.

[Raymond]

There is a private school locally that has a full-sized court and they always try to use only 2 officials. The set a lot of questionable screens and are known to be chippy. They don't want the extra eyes catching their off-ball antics.

And I believe that about any coach who doesn't want a 3rd official.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There is a private school locally that has a full-sized court and they always try to use only 3 officials. The set a lot of questionable screens and are known to be chippy. They don't want the extra eyes catching their off-ball antics.

And I believe that about any coach who doesn't want a 3rd official.

Me too.

We had a regional game earlier this week with 2 teams that still use 2 officials in their conference play. We don't work these teams. In the post-season, it's all 3 officials.

I called 3 illegal screens and 2 cutters chucked MYSELF. And my partners chipped in, too.

[SNIPERBBB]

The same officials that are bad at two man will be as bad as in 3 man. The same coaches that are mad at officials will always be mad at officials, no matter the system.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by sniperbbb

the same officials that are bad at two man will be as bad as in 3 man. The same coaches that are mad at officials will always be mad at officials, no matter the system.

+1

[Refhoop]

If the play goes back to the way it was in the 70's - I'd be happy to do only 2-man.
The size and speed of today's players and the style of play is different!
Take away the three-point line, stop allowing the players to play hoops year around (becoming super skilled mini-professionals), remove weight-lifting, stunt the growth of players and force kids to respect authority again... Or, just let the game evolve!

[HokiePaul]

If we are being fair, there is some truth to some of those statements.

For example, I tend to agree with this.

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef

Coach 2: I don’t see the quality of the officiating all of a sudden getting better. It’s tough to be a good referee. There aren’t enough good officials around that you can afford to have three.

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.

[Raymond]

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.

...

I would say about 5% of my games don't need a 3rd official. 95% of the time it is definitely of value.

[VaTerp]

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 couldn't disagree more. I suppose its all relative to where you live but here there are more than enough "good" officials to have 3 person crews cover all varsity games. The idea that there arent enough good officials around to have 3 person crews is ridiculous IMO.

Three person allows officials to get in better position and thus leads to greater call accuracy. If you think it adds no value in 95% of your games then you must be calling crap games. As others have said, most coaches who don't want a 3rd official because they coach their teams to do illegal things off the ball and want a higher percentage of getting away with it.

As for the cost. I read an article that said in Oregon it worked out to about $1000 more per school. That's less than $50/game. I know school budgets are tight but in the grand scheme of things that is not a prohibitive costs. I taught high school for 3 years. I've seen numerous fundraising efforts generate more than $1,000 in a single event. And this was in northwest Indiana, not a place with a lot of affluence. Its an excuse that does not hold water and was only brought up by one of the 3 coaches who said it was a waste of money.

The other excuses brought up by the coaches interviewed here don't hold water either. As others have said these coaches don't understand the first thing about officiating and are the same ones who complain about 2 person crews and officiating in general.

ETA- I've also worked on athletic budgets at both the HS and collegiate level. The cost argument really irks me. Adding a 3rd basketball official is a small fraction of a percentage of a HS athletic budget and is not a valid issue at the overwhelming majority of schools and school districts we are talking about here.

[riverfalls57]

I get a kick out of some coaches who don't want three officials but then have five assistants to help with 15 players.

[Rich]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[OrStBballRef]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

One of my games this year was a 3 man game for a BV contest. The R and myself (U1) had a lot amount of experience calling that level of game (with the R having the most 3 man experience). Our 3rd we both knew has a tendency to call way outside his primary and to call fouls often on quite marginal contact without seeing the play through and doesn't get a lot of those level of games.

We were both concerned about this person that in pregame we hammered home.... stay in your primary, call the big stuff, ignore the marginal (non HC/arm bar fouls excluded). The U2 actually did a good job. Called what he should/shouldn't and stayed out other folks primary.

Only had the usual gripes from the coaches, but nothing out of the ordinary. I personally doubt there was anything we did as a crew to give off the impression one of us was less experienced than the other 2.

So I would tend to agree with your point about the excuses from the coaches...

[Adam]

The other thing about 3, is you guess less because you tend to have better angles. It leads to some calls not being made that would have otherwise been made as a "best guess" with two officials.