The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Coaches comments about 3 officials... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/101019-coaches-comments-about-3-officials.html)

OrStBballRef Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:33pm

Coaches comments about 3 officials...
 
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:42pm

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. :rolleyes:

Raymond Fri Mar 04, 2016 01:38pm

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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 01:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 983111)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 01:50pm

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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperbbb (Post 983113)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 02:35pm

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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 03:05pm

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

For example, I tend to agree with this.
Quote:

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef (Post 983108)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 03:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 983116)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 03:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 983116)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 04:11pm

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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 04:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 983116)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 04:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 983116)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 04:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 983124)
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 Fri Mar 04, 2016 04:48pm

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.

Camron Rust Fri Mar 04, 2016 08:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 983113)
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. :/

BlueDevilRef Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:41pm

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"

Adam Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef (Post 983133)
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.

Raymond Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef (Post 983133)
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"

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

Rich Sat Mar 05, 2016 01:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 983129)
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.

Camron Rust Sat Mar 05, 2016 01:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 983137)
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.

Nevadaref Sat Mar 05, 2016 04:59am

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.

HokiePaul Sat Mar 05, 2016 07:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 983116)

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 Sat Mar 05, 2016 09:54am

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.

Rich Sat Mar 05, 2016 09:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by HokiePaul (Post 983145)
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.

Adam Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 983140)
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.

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

Nevadaref Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 983152)
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.

Rich Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:45am

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.

johnny d Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:18am

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.

Adam Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 983162)
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.

Rich Sat Mar 05, 2016 05:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 983162)
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.

You list 3 things -- isn't the third one (too slow) the only one that's really relevant here?

johnny d Sat Mar 05, 2016 07:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 983191)
You list 3 things -- isn't the third one (too slow) the only one that's really relevant here?

Yes, but usually the reason someone is too slow is the result of being too old or overweight. I will add a third reason that has already been brought up as well, too lazy.

Raymond Sat Mar 05, 2016 08:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 983202)
Yes, but usually the reason someone is too slow is the result of being too old or overweight. I will add a third reason that has already been brought up as well, too lazy.

That 3rd ref will instead be occupying 1/2 of a 2-man crew somewhere else and will still be lazy, overweight, and slow.

Old is irrelevant if you are in shape and not lazy.

OrStBballRef Sat Mar 05, 2016 09:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 983139)
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.

I noticed this a lot during the season there were two 'thirds' on a lot of crews (and several other people I talked to as well noticed this).

I wonder what the solution is? Or could our assignor should push for more varsity contests on non-Tuesday/Friday nights in order to not dilute the officiating pool so better 3 man crews could be available? I've seen several other commissioners argue for this in other parts of the state.

Adam Sat Mar 05, 2016 09:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef (Post 983219)
I noticed this a lot during the season there were two 'thirds' on a lot of crews (and several other people I talked to as well noticed this).

I wonder what the solution is? Or could our assignor should push for more varsity contests on non-Tuesday/Friday nights in order to not dilute the officiating pool so better 3 man crews could be available? I've seen several other commissioners argue for this in other parts of the state.

Might be too early, but one solution is to start having large school JV games down with 3. It will improve the talent pool as officials move into varsity games.

johnny d Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:18am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 983209)
That 3rd ref will instead be occupying 1/2 of a 2-man crew somewhere else and will still be lazy, overweight, and slow.

Old is irrelevant if you are in shape and not lazy.

Which is exactly what I said in my first post back on page 2.

Camron Rust Sun Mar 06, 2016 02:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef (Post 983219)
I noticed this a lot during the season there were two 'thirds' on a lot of crews (and several other people I talked to as well noticed this).

I wonder what the solution is? Or could our assignor should push for more varsity contests on non-Tuesday/Friday nights in order to not dilute the officiating pool so better 3 man crews could be available? I've seen several other commissioners argue for this in other parts of the state.

I think one of the primary issues is that he tried to move too many people into 3-person games in the first season....trying to spread it around. I think it would have been more effective and made a more positive presentation to limit the number the first year to those with 3-person experience elsewhere with just enough others to cover the spots....and use those same officials in 3-person all season. It would have resulted in faster learning for the group brought in this year and would have made a better presentation. Then, the next year, a few more could be put into the 3-person group.

Spreading out the games would help whether we have 2 or 3 person crews. We're really about 50-75 officials short of what we should have on a busy day. Too many people have to double up just to cover the games.

BillyMac Sun Mar 06, 2016 07:01am

Be Careful What You Ask For ...
 
... You Might Just Get It.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 983238)
We're really about 50-75 officials short of what we should have on a busy day. Too many people have to double up just to cover the games.

Connecticut, especially my local board, is almost all two person, mainly, as I've posted in the past, because the most vocal (and the most successful, and the most powerful) coaches are defensively oriented and believe that a third official will lead to more fouls being called.

Our assignment commissioner has been an active advocate for three person games, yet, if he somehow becomes a successful three person advocate, I'm not sure that we can handle a three person schedule, even a schedule with a modest increase in the number three person games.

My local board has seen a decrease in the number of rookie officials in our training classes every year since the recession of 2008 when many unemployed/underemployed decided to officiate basketball to make same extra money. With the retirements of many baby boomer officials over the past few years, and with the addition of many magnet schools, and charter schools, to our schedule, we sometimes have trouble covering the games we now have with two person crews. Some middle school, and freshman, games have been scheduled as one person games.

Over the past season, several times, we received emails from our assignment commissioner begging us to open up any days (usually Fridays, but other days as well) that we may have blocked out on Arbiter. We were reminded that our first priority should be to our local board (interscholastic games) and not to recreation, travel, CYO games, etc. Varsity officials were asked to work subvarsity (including middle school) games. Varsity officials were asked to work junior varsity/varsity doubleheaders, something that I understand is very common in other parts of the country, but is frowned upon, and discouraged, by many coaches, athletic directors, and principals, here in Connecticut.

Our assignment commissioner has asked leagues, and conferences, to stagger their games, but most schools (both genders) want to play on a Friday night (and, very often, on a Tuesday night).

Moving from two person games to three person games is not just about the money in Connecticut.

“There's no limit to how complicated things can get, on account of one thing always leading to another.” (E.B. White)

Nevadaref Sun Mar 06, 2016 08:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 983209)
That 3rd ref will instead be occupying 1/2 of a 2-man crew somewhere else and will still be lazy, overweight, and slow.

Old is irrelevant if you are in shape and not lazy.

Or that slow ref could be on a JV game as there could be enough people who are fit to staff all of the games with 2-man crews. Everything depends upon the number and quality of officials in a given area.

I hope to get people to understand that going to 3-man could improve the officiating OR make it worse. There are several factors which must be considered.

Mregor Sun Mar 06, 2016 03:46pm

The only valid comment is there aren't enough good officials to go around. We are hurting big time. We had to promote many who are not ready just to meet the number of games we need to fill. We couldn't fill 3 officials per game on Tues and Fri nights.

Refhoop Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 983247)
... You Might Just Get It.



Connecticut, especially my local board, is almost all two person, mainly, as I've posted in the past, because the most vocal (and the most successful, and the most powerful) coaches are defensively oriented and believe that a third official will lead to more fouls being called.

Our assignment commissioner has been an active advocate for three person games, yet, if he somehow becomes a successful three person advocate, I'm not sure that we can handle a three person schedule, even a schedule with a modest increase in the number three person games.

My local board has seen a decrease in the number of rookie officials in our training classes every year since the recession of 2008 when many unemployed/underemployed decided to officiate basketball to make same extra money. With the retirements of many baby boomer officials over the past few years, and with the addition of many magnet schools, and charter schools, to our schedule, we sometimes have trouble covering the games we now have with two person crews. Some middle school, and freshman, games have been scheduled as one person games.

Over the past season, several times, we received emails from our assignment commissioner begging us to open up any days (usually Fridays, but other days as well) that we may have blocked out on Arbiter. We were reminded that our first priority should be to our local board (interscholastic games) and not to recreation, travel, CYO games, etc. Varsity officials were asked to work subvarsity (including middle school) games. Varsity officials were asked to work junior varsity/varsity doubleheaders, something that I understand is very common in other parts of the country, but is frowned upon, and discouraged, by many coaches, athletic directors, and principals, here in Connecticut.

Our assignment commissioner has asked leagues, and conferences, to stagger their games, but most schools (both genders) want to play on a Friday night (and, very often, on a Tuesday night).

Moving from two person games to three person games is not just about the money in Connecticut.

“There's no limit to how complicated things can get, on account of one thing always leading to another.” (E.B. White)

Sounds like you have a real crisis brewing...
For what it's worth:
If you contact your local College or Universities about their rec sports leagues officials and their training programs; you may find that they have capable students you can help train or they actually have trained those students... Could it also benefit you/officiating associations to make a proposal to your state athletic board to create a state-wide training program that they charge a nominal fee for or fully sponsor to recruit college students ( to officiate 7-12 grades) and even some high school seniors to officiate the sub secondary (3rd-6th grades) leagues...?

The growth of any business can happen with a great vision and good people to help market that vision... so get some state-wide big shot to show up for the kick-off of the state sponsored training program and away we go...

If you really have a crisis - then I'd hope your state reps will provide "you" with the resources to ensure that all sports in your state are properly officiated.
Sports aren't going away - so they better help you get capable and competent folks to officiate!

Dad Mon Mar 07, 2016 01:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 983152)
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.

I've yet to see an argument against this. We have a few great officials in our association who are in their 50s/60s -- all have said they wouldn't still be officiating if it was 2-person. There's no one arguing with how good they are.

I'd take a 3rd who's never done 3person before. In fact, last year in a state game our 3rd had never worked 3person. We fit them in just fine and had a great game. I really don't think people understand how easy it is to move to 3 when 2 of the crew members know what they're doing. Is it hard to master? Of course. But that doesn't stop a 3rd from being massively better than running 2. I don't care how new they are.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1