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

[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. :/

[BlueDevilRef]

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]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

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]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

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]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Dad]

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.

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.

[Rich]

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]

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.