Adding a third official for just the postseason when the entire regular season is 2-p is just nonsensical. Just goes to show you that the ones making those decisions aren't officials.

Nonsensical ...
 

Coaches and school principals.

+1! I agree with all these points wholeheartedly. In my experience, 3 person is better for off-ball coverage and dealing with physical play, and overall game management than 2 person. Perhaps men's league games would be a better experience for everyone if they used 3 officials instead of 2. I would add that not only does 3 man need to be preserved in varsity games, it also needs to be expanded to the JV level, for the sake of development of officials.

BillyMac, from reading your posts about CIAC, they seem to have their heads stuck up their posteriors when it comes to officiating. If officials were somehow represented on the CIAC executive board, such as through an officials committee, we wouldn't have the asinine practice of using 2-person the entire regular season, then going to 3 for the playoffs with no additional training for officials assigned to those games. Maybe officials who work 3-person would be able to testify to the advantages of 3-person before such a committee, and the committee could then report on those findings to the CIAC.

Even the AIA (Arizona Interscholastic Association), which had 2-person exclusively in basketball games during the regular season up until now, has now (as of the 2018-19 season) allowed 3-person to be used in the regular season and postseason under its new commissioner, Brian Gessner, a former official himself.

If there was an officiating presence in the CIAC, officials might be able to persuade the others that 3 person is necessary for risk minimization and safe play in basketball, and we would start seeing more consistent use of 3-person, with officials not having to (illegally) join Boards in other states or try to jump ahead to college just to work 3-person.

CIAC Officials’ Association ...
 

Officials do have a presence on the CIAC, the CIAC Officials’ Association: Mission Statement: The CIAC Officials’ Association exists to work in concert with school administrators, athletic directors, coaches and the CIAC to advance the best interest of high school athletics, serve the betterment of all member officials and their respective organizations, promote ethical standards, sportsmanship, professionalism, and high quality officiating.

The problem is that the CIAC, as a branch of the Connecticut Association of Schools, is run by principals, and principals listen to coaches, both individually, and collectively (The Connecticut High School Coaches Association), and the most successful and influential basketball coaches don't want three person, and since that keeps costs down, the principals see no need to go three person.

If the coaches wanted it, it wouldn't happen right away (finances), but it would eventually happen, but as of now, they don't want it.

The question is, does CIAC listen to its officials association. If not, I'd say that officials might need to play hardball for the next set of contracts. Since all HS basketball in CT is IAABO, CIAC coaches won't be able to use non-IAABO boards to hold down costs if IAABO boards refuse to provide service without 3-person games.

If not an immediate mandate of all 3 person, at least say to schools "We will provide 3-person crews to you on at least (5) home dates for each gender (5 boys dates and 5 girls dates). You choose the dates. If you don't choose the dates, we will." This is how FL implemented 3-person.

Smoke Filled Back Rooms ...
 

No fee negotiations, our annual fee increase is the same as the average annual increase in teacher's salaries across the entire state. No more annual negotiations in smoke filled back rooms.

Three man is non issue for most coaches, and, thus, for most principals, and frankly, officials aren't ready to break out their pitchforks and torches regarding such.

In WI, I'd say keep 3-man, and for CT, and any other retrograde 2-man places, negotiate (or strike, if negotiations don't work) for 3 man. Schools would rather have 3-man than 0-man ;).

Serious Legal Jeopardy ...
 

Off topic. Over the years we have occasionally discussed not working games for certain schools (payment issues, safety issues, security issues, fan control, unsporting issues, etc.) but have been told by attorneys that this would break our contract with the CIAC, and put us in serious legal jeopardy.

The legal issue would be: who breached the contract first? Did CIAC breach first by not meeting its contractual obligations to provide safety and security, payment, etc.?

That's one thing I like about the assigning structure here. We are all ICs and associations have no official role in assigning games. If we want to come together and not accept games in a particular conference, we can do that without any issues.

Now, there will be officials who will crawl over our backs to take those slots and the conferemce will nees to decide if the quality of those people are OK with them long-term.

At some point we need to stop with the "for the kids" bullshit and ask ourselves if the lack of increases we have accepted would've been acceptable to teachers, principals, and superintendents. In my area some conferences have raised pay about 10% over 20 years. How many teachers, principals, and superintendents would accept that cause it's "for the kids?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Rinse And Repeat ...
 

The most common problem is timely payment. We complain to the CIAC, they put pressure on the school, it gets better for a year, or so, and then the problem resurfaces. Rinse and repeat.

I once received a check in July after I made several complaints to both the school and my assigner, for a game worked in January. I can almost guarantee that if I didn't squeak the wheel, I would never have received payment for that game.

Almost all of our payment issues come from one school system (several high schools). Pay vouchers move from school site directors, to a system wide athletic director, to city hall, where the check is processed and mailed. Too many middlemen, too much of a paper trail. If this one school system moved to Arbiter Pay, most of our payment problems would be resolved.

http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/sport...130107_low.jpg

No More Smoke Filled Rooms ...
 

Problem solved in Connecticut (Varsity Fee: $97.17; Sub Varsity Fee: $63.05).

http://lowres.jantoo.com/health-beau...236903_low.jpg

Why do schools cry poor about 3-person then? If they can afford to pay 2 officials over 90 dollars each, there is no reason that they cannot pay 60 dollars each to a 3-person crew. $65 would be around the median of the varsity scale, assuming that there would be regular raises (The equivalent pay for 3-person JV crews would be $41). Thus, there is no reason for schools to cry poor, if they just divide the money 3 ways rather than 2.

In MA, 3-person crews are allowed to be paid up to 85% of the 2-person rate. In FL, 3-person crews are paid $5 less per official than 2 person, but the overall rate is lower (55 for 2-person varsity, 50 for 3-person varsity). Maybe the CIAC and the officials can find a compromise approach that allows the officials to put the best possible product on the court (3-person crews) at a rate that is affordable to everyone

No, no, 100 times no.

Officials shouldn't pay for adding a third official. That's just a terrible, umsustainable idea.

When my conference that I hire went to 3-person a few years ago, we paid the officials the exact same amount the 2 officials got the year before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Read My Lips ...
 

Here in Connecticut, they don't, the main problem in Connecticut is that coaches individually, and collectively, do not want three officials. If they did then there may be some financial issues down the line to deal with, but we'll never get to that point until coaches want a three person game.