And that is the problem we have to some degree.

Given a fixed number of games on a given night, you need more people to cover the games when you go to 3-person crews. And like any group of people, you're going to have a few excellent officials, some more pretty good officials, a lot of just average officials, and so on down the line.

The assignor wasn't typically going to pull a strong official from a league still doing two to make a crew of 3 stronger and let the crew of two be left with the less capable official. So, the 3rd person being added was often someone that would not have typically been on that level of game otherwise. Only a few 3-person games where the assignor expected the need for 3 strong officials did he ever do so on purpose.

As a result, the average quality of the officials on 3-person games was often lower than it would have been in a 2-person crew. The coaches were seeing officials that hadn't previously worked at that level (or rarely so)....and often for a reason. Two strong officials can't always undo the damage done by a third that was in a bit over their head. That has been the case in probably too many games and that will not help the case of moving to 3 person permanently.

Unfortunately, too many of those 3rds that struggled will not have even realized they did so. :/

I agree that 3 is better than two but in all my years of playing, I never had a coach say "if we have two refs, we do this to try to get away with more crap, if we have three, we don't". I just don't really buy it. I'm sure strategies change but I doubt they are instructing illegal behavior "because there are only two of them, they won't see it"

No, it's more likely they teach these strategies anyway, and assume they can get away with it more with 2 refs.

You are naïve' if you think there are not any coaches smart enough to effectively use this strategy.

I've said this to coaches and to schools in the league I assign -- it's going to take a few years to get where 3-person has 3 strong officials on most games. The growing pains are worth it....and I think that typically two strong officials can carry a third who may need more seasoning provided the third understands that his job is to stay in his primary and get what needs to be called.

I agree. Two can carry the 3rd with that big if....some just don't get it.

It is even rougher if you end up on a game with two "thirds"....and I had that happen. It made for a rough night. I was babysitting the coaches as much as I was calling the game due to their level of frustration over the officiating.

Done correctly with three quality officials, there is no question that the 3-man officiating system provides a better service than 2-man. However, there are definitely some problems with 3-man at the HS level.
1. Officials with lack of experience in the 3-man system.
2. Not enough quality officials to fill the extra slots.
3. Officials who treat it as lazy 2-man.
4. The inclusion of overweight and/or elderly officials who could not cover the court in 2-man.
5. Officials who don't understand the theory of the system and don't watch what they are supposed to be. This causes out of PCA whistles, unnecessary double whistles, and missed plays off-ball.
6. Officials who don't understand when and why to rotate.

Some of these issues will get handled through time as officials work in the system and get more familiar with it. Others cannot be fixed without significant training and people willing to listen to and follow that training. One issue above is beyond the control of any group and is totally up to the individual officials to address.

I should clarify that when I said 95% of the time, I don't mean 95% of games. I was thinking 95% of possessions/plays. Most possessions are straightforward with 2 officials being more than enough to see everything needed to get the call right and not miss anything.

And if you are talking about adding value on 5% of trips down the court, than I can at least understand the argument for not wanting to pay more (It's not an argument I agree with by the way).

It's not unlike the argument people make who don't like replay in sports. Of course it helps with accuracy, but some people don't like stopping the game and would accept occasional errors. Or some don't think that replay will always get it right. Same thing with a 3rd official. Some might not like the cost and the 3rd official certainly doesn't guarantee the call is always right.

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.

When people complain about cost while their kids roll out in the latest, greatest uniforms seemingly every season......cry me a river.

On #4, it's not a problem if they can cover the court. If they can't, it falls into #2 regardless of reason.

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.

Coaches comments about 3 officials...
 

There's a lot more side to side movement as a trail in 2-person. I have far fewer aches and pains and take fewer steps in a 3-person game.

I get what you're saying, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Most officials who argue for 2-person at higher pay put that check way up the list of priorities. Few are people I'd want to work with.

I have to agree with Nevada on this point. If you are overweight, too old, or too slow for 2 man, then you are overweight, too old, or too slow to work 3 man correctly as well.

I think for many it may be true, but it's not a direct correlation. There's some overlap of people where 2 may be too difficult, but they can do 3 quite well.

Lazy officials are lazy officials. If they're lazy in 3, they're lazy in 2.