Coaches comments about 3 officials...

[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.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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 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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

The same officials that are bad at two man will be as bad as in 3 man.

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. :/

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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'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.