Referee Shortage Discussion-- 127 unfilled varsity games

[BillyMac]

I don't want to be misunderstood.

I've always said that I like the mental and physical challenge of a two person game and that I don't' mind working them.

That being said, I do agree that the modern game of basketball, definitely at the varsity level, possibly at lower levels (if only for official education purposes), requires three to be properly officiated.

For all intents and purposes, we don't work doubleheaders and don't have shot clocks here in Connecticut.

If any of that were to change, I would be leading the three person parade along with the seventy-six trombones.



Since the top Connecticut coaches, winning with a full court defense, fast break game, believe that the third official will lead to more player disqualifications, their principals, and athletic directors, as well as the state interscholastic sports governing body, don't see the need to spend the extra money for a third official, a third official that many of their coaches don't really want and aren't pushing to have.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I’m hearing more and more of a movement toward some states/locations working 3-p crews for JV. I always thought it was silly for officials to either have to learn 3-p by doing varsity games, or going to teaching camps just to get comfortable.

Freshman? Middle school?

What's the cutoff? At what level are three officials not needed to properly officiate the game?

At what level are three officials needed to get enough three person subvarsity games under their black belts to be ready for a three person varsity schedule?

I observed an official work his first State tournament games last year. He made it to the quarterfinals, where three person crews are mandatory. He looked great. After the game I asked him how many three person games he had worked previous to that night's game. None. That was his first. No scrimmages. No camps. No regular season games. None.

That's not the way to do business.

[Raymond]

It is not unreasonable to expect officials to attend some sort of teaching camp in the off-season to familiarize themselves with 3-man, then work 2-3 scrimmages in the preseason so you can show your proficiency.

I have more heartburn with brand new officials working 3-man in a preseason training environment when all they will be working is 2-man in their first season.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It is not unreasonable to expect officials to attend some sort of teaching camp in the off-season to familiarize themselves with 3-man, then work 2-3 scrimmages in the preseason so you can show your proficiency ... working 3-man in a preseason training environment when all they will be working is 2-man in their first season.

Agree. That's why there's not a lot of impetus for guys here in Connecticut to go to three person camps (unless they moving up to NCAA). Why bother when one might not get a three person game until the quarterfinals of the State tournament, if one makes it that far.

It's supply and demand. Coaches, athletic directors, and principals don't want, or don't want to pay for, three person crews. Why train, or get trained, in three person mechanics? We've only had one voluntary local clinic for three person, only a few showed up. Our statewide summer camp is a two person camp.

And yet, our state interscholastic sports governing body wants three person crews for the State quarterfinals on up. So we've got guys working three person games in really important tournament games that may have little or no three person experience.

I observe quarterfinal guys pointing to their partners all the time, meaning go there, rotate there, switch here. Once observed a guy move through all three positions during a dead ball after a foul. His partner just kept pointing and he kept moving. Eventually he traced the path of a giant circle around the court, ending up at his original position.

Reminded me of Billy from Family Circus.



That's not the way to do business.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I never said that I'm working harder in a 2 person game. I stated that it's a lot harder and more work. There is a small difference there. More to watch and more running. If you're running the same amount in a 2 person as you do in 3 man, it would seem to me that you're not in good position in the 2 man game (i.e. sitting just over the division line at T).

There may be guys who don't work "as hard" in a 3 man game, but that's not me. I got dinged on an eval a couple years back for "overhustling." Whatever that means. There's no question that I'm working my ass off in both games. I'm also fairly young as far as officials go around this area, and in pretty good shape due to my hobbies. I don't say that to be a doucher, but just to emphasize that hustling around a varsity doubleheader is not something that's going to beat me down too badly and I don't have a lot of trouble keeping up with guys even at the end of a long night. I work hard in my 3 man games. I hope I don't sound like a braggart by saying that, I really don't mean to.

As to your other points, I wholeheartedly agree.

My post wasn't meant to say that YOU don't work harder. Just reminded of people that say they have to work harder in 2 man. I have no doubt that you are working hard. I probably misinterpreted your post and went off on an unnecessary rant

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

In fact, last year I worked a handful of games with two VERY experienced officials, who have probably 65 years of experience and probably a dozen state semi-final and final games between them.... and I was the R each time, despite only 7 years experience and zero state tournament assignments to my name.

In what was the second varsity game of my career (a game where I was called late in the afternoon to be a sub), I noticed in Arbiter that I was slotted as the R. Naturally, the most veteran official in the crew had some fun with this, but I took the ribbing in stride. It also helped that I had time to do some quick research on both teams in the game to offer meaningful talking points to start the discussion.

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

That's certainly not the way it works around here... a lot of times, we designate who the R's going to be when we're in the locker room prior to the game. And it's sometimes as simple as "you sent the email to the AD? You're the R."

In my varsity debut, one of my partners told the other, "You arrived last, so you're the R tonight."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Funny you should mention that. I’m working on a masters degree this year so I’m only here for a year. My next assignment is trending Norfolk. Outside chance it could be DC, but right now Norfolk seems where I’m headed.

Should I go back to 94 or work on the peninsula? (I haven’t been following Tidewater board politics lately.). The wife is going to want to live in VB, so if I go peninsula that would involve a lot of “tunneling” to get to games. But I would do it if the organization there is eager to employ me with a full schedule commensurate with my experience and ability.

I wouldn’t mind retiring in HR. Lots of jobs for washed up vets and my wife is from there...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From VB it's not worth the traffic headache to work HS ball on the Peninsula, plus the a-holes in BD94 won't "let" you work for my assignor also. It would be good to participate in one of my assignor's ODU camps and work some off-season stuff for him, and maybe get some college assignments (He assigns men's and women's for 2 USCAA schools). If you lived on the Monitor-Merrimac side of the Southside, then working HS ball on the Peninsula would be a good choice.

Shoot me a PM for specifics and names.