Rich's area - Is it time to drop the 3-man officiating crew?
 

https://www.gazettextra.com/sports/h...cGEyDJKr9VKY5E

My goodness, sometimes the amount of stupidity even from fanboys like this writer astounds me.

Yes, two person is going to make it better. LOL!!!!

Peace

The two reader's comments below the write-up are spot on.

Ok, I'll be objective here. There's a little fanboy in the article, but there's some fair points as well. I still disagree on the whole:

1. If this were only a supply and demand of officials issue, he'd have a point. As what's happening in Iowa, necessity is the mother of (dis)invention. But as Rich has said, while the officiating population in WI is struggling, it has not yet reached anything close to critical mass.

2. So the guy is essentially calling for more consistency. Ok, got it. He might get more consistency with 2p crews, but at the expense of quality. As I am reluctantly back to 2p in Rhode Island this year, I see the cost in terms of quality every night. The players and the officials are better than they were the last time I was here in 2009. That's a credit to the development of basketball in RI; bully for them. But the game is dangerously handsy and physical; sadly freedom of movement here is like it was everywhere else five years ago. I'm certain the lack of coverage that a third set of eyes could provide directly encourages this (I know for certain that there is BS I miss in 2p that I'd call in a heartbeat as a 3rd official off-ball). So 3p crews...consistency or not...still cleans up the game so as to make it the more free-flowing sport that the fans and players deserve. If you want football, go watch a football game.

3. If you cut the experience dividend by 50% every night, how are you going to grow officials who are already predisposed to leaving the avocation early due to lack of upward mobility, sportsmanship headaches, and poor compensation? You may not like the consistency every night, but the long-term alternative for HS level officiating is dire.

4. The op-ed author talks about WI's contracting system. That might cause some of the cut-throat competition for good officials that he presumes, but as Rich as said before, this is probably largely overstated. Of more import, I'd argue, is that it makes it difficult for assigners to pull and plug officials as needed for the big games. The author of the op-ed probably wouldn't be as concerned about the games he is referring to if those games were blowouts. I think an important role of any assignor is to be able to put the best officials on the best games, and that can't be determined 2-3 years out when the players are still in middle school.

5. Lastly, in line with #4, WI needs to get out of the habit of employing crews vice individuals. Crews are fun (admittedly I developed some closer friendships over the last two seasons than I otherwise would have in WI), but the cost is sometimes the entrenchment of bad habits and mechanics, including lack of hustle. See that same crew two or three times in a season, and I could understand why the author might get frustrated and "blame the system." Working with different people every night tends to keep you fresh, from pre-game to signals to mechanics to hustle and everything in between.

There are things that can be done in WI (see above) to enhance the basketball officiating capacity. The simple solution of reverting to 2p crews is decidedly not one of them.

Rich....you can quote me if you decide to send a letter to the editor of the Gazette. =)

Of course he couldn't get through the article without throwing some "for the kids" in there. :rolleyes:

"All I know is that it’s unfair to coaches and athletes to have games refereed by unqualified officials."

I'm amazed that I saw the article before I saw this thread.

I've posted my comments there. I tried copying here, but copy and paste on this iPad isn't acting right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Comments ...
 

Like any good partner, I've got your back:

Rich:

I assign for 24 high schools. I can tell you what would happen if we went back to 2-person crews.

(1) I would immediately lose all the better officials. They would work for conferences who hired 3-person crews.

(2) Physical play would increase and off-ball contact would lose the set of eyes a third official provides.

(3) You'd lose a lot of experienced people. I know a lot of experienced officials with good resumes who would retire before going back to 2-person mechanics.

I am old enough now to say I've officiated the Big 8 when 2-person crews were hired. In fast paced games, especially boys games, officiating was mostly running up and down the floor trying to keep up with play. Plays were missed, officials would have to guess occasionally rather than see and know what happened, and if there was physical or off-ball play? Good luck. Rebounds on a jump shot? One official with the shooter and defender and the other with 8 players to watch.

The game has changed in the last decade and even moreso over the 32 years I've been officiating.

Finally, counting the number of whistles each official blows shows that the writer has no concept of primary areas of coverage and what it means to not reach all over the floor to blow the whistle. I have gone entire halves not calling a single foul. It is a sign of a disciplined official to not feel he or she needs to reach just because the previous X whistles came from crewmates. We have primary and secondary areas of coverage and analysis has proved that officials get plays wrong when reaching out of those areas.

Finally, how are younger and newer officials supposed to learn how to work 3-person or even break into the varsity level if they don't get opportunities? Sadly, the coach quoted in the article seems to care only about his games, this year. Those of us who assign are seeing our officiating pools shrink and age. And in response, we see commentary that older officials who may have lost a step should be weeded out - and many of these people are the ones who have a ton of experience who can help mentor and teach the next generation of officials.

The solution to our shortages is not going backwards. The solution is to figure out why a majority of officials quit after 2-3 years and make it so they dont.

Coaches ...
 

Another comment from the article:

The only varsity coaches that prefer 2-person crews are the ones who want to be able to get away with fouls that are tougher to see without a third official. The coaches whose styles don't rely on getting away with illegal tactics have no reason to abandon 3-person.

Along with financial issues, this is the main reason why we don't use much three person in Connecticut. These coaches win, and are very influential in The Connecticut High School Coaches Association (I'm a former member), and The Connecticut High School Coaches Association has great influence on the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Association (our state sports governing body).

If the coaches, both individually, and collectively, really wanted three person, they could eventually persuade their principals (who run the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Association) to spend a little extra, and make the switch to three person.

The dirty secret nobody talks about is the amount of educated guessing that happens in a fast, physical 2-person varsity contest. People will deny it, but they're just fooling themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

What I will never understand. You complain about 3 person and want to go back to 2 person, while advocating that the reason 3 person is bad, the officials are out of shape, not in position or guessing on plays. So the solution to this is to reduce the number of officials while expecting the same out of shape, not getting in position officials will be working with one less official.

Yeah, well thought out kid. :rolleyes:

Peace

Educational Guessing ...
 

It's not a secret anymore. In this modern information age, nobody can continue to deny it. Nobody is fooling anybody.

IAABO International taped many of our state tournament games last year and made educational videos of such. Videos were presented at out last local meeting. It was tough to watch our best officials "educationally guessing" wrong, especially on fouls. I felt bad watching the video with them in attendance, but none of us would be able to do any better than them, and most of us, including me, would probably do much worse.

It's not a secret to anybody who knows anything about officiating. There most definitely is guessing going on, especially after we realize we probably missed something earlier.

How anyone in the non-officiating fraternity actually believes 2 sets of eyes covering 10 players and 2 PCAs is more effective and accurate than 3 sets of eyes covering 10 players and 3 PCAs is beyond me.

I think this guy wanted to sound smart by offering a hot, uncommon take. In reality he just sounded like a buffoon.

Inexperience ...
 

Quarterfinals on up are three person, but due to our inexperience they're officiated like a two person game with an extra guy in the middle (lead never rotates). Guys often pay more attention to where their primary is, and where they're supposed to switch to (lots of pointing by partners, go there) than watching the action in front of them. Had a friend make the tournament for the first time last year (much deserved) and made it to the quarterfinals where he worked his first ever three person game, no regular season games, no camps, no clinics, no scrimmages, just some speed reading in the mechanics manual.

To say that Connecticut is "backward" or "behind the times" is a major understatement.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cart...n15113_low.jpg

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.

It is clear your area does not have a true Independent Contractor relationship. If you did they cannot make any official work any game they do not wish to work.

Peace

Independent Contractor ...
 

I was speaking collectively, "We're (my board) not assigning officials to your school (school system) if your don't start paying us in a more timely manner", but I still see your point.

While I fully agree with you regarding my independent contractor status, we can still block out specific sites, schools, teams, genders, and levels, on Arbiter (with some limitations), and also blanket gender "block" with an email to our assigner. We can also block out any dates and times that we do not want to be available (although we're later fined if we don't block and we're assigned and don't accept).

While I'm fairly certain that many Forum members are actually true independent contractors, I'm also pretty sure that some just toss the word around willy-nilly without fully understanding all the labor and tax implications. I once spent considerable time on IRS websites and labor websites trying to figure out exactly what it means to be an independent contractor, and unless one is a tax attorney, or a labor attorney, the qualifications are often difficult to understand, especially since the laws often vary state by state.

I will just say it this way. If we in Illinois had an association do all our assigning for all games and levels, that could violate state law being an independent contractor and those associations would have to start likely paying some form of workman's comp. So no organization really has that kind of "official" relationship to assignor or only hire those from one organization. And certainly, these organizations are in no way paying the officials directly through any bank account. It might be a little more complicated than that, but I can tell you that every association I am a member of changed their constitutions to reflect that they do not assign any games. The assignors that belong to our associations have no obligation to the association, but to assign who for their respective conferences that hire them. And I know all assignors hire people outside of their main or primary association.

Peace

Absolutely agree with this. There MUST be premium attached to getting a 3 man varsity officiating crew at the varsity level. IMO, that value/cost should be MORE than a Fr/So/JV crew. That way, the expectations and level of commitment/accountability continue to be in place for all involved, and, as a result, the overall level of officiating and decorum is noticeably higher across the board.

In my area, Fr/So/JV games pay 2 man crew members between 45-55 per game. 3 man varsity crews (I don't know any schools in the metro and outlying areas that use 2 man), in the same area/conference, are paid between 60-80 per game.

While I agree with you I don't know how you got this to fly with the schools. Our schools were and still are resistant to 3-man officiating simply due to the cost. We have some of the lowest fees in the country at $52 for a varsity 3-man game. $60 for varsity 2-man. There have been talks of strikes or flu days but nothing has come to fruition. I'm not sure what the solution is but there is a lot of frustration around fees in our state and association.

This maybe getting OT would be happy to start a new thread.

Around the league where I work most of my games, we are 3-ref for varsity, and 2-ref for every level below. I've asked why we don't go to 3-ref for jv games, which are typically fast and furious, and we have enough officials to cover these games. Revenue isn't there, I've been told.

In recent years, there has been number of new, enormous buildings and facility upgrades throughout the league. It seems like every school district has to have two or three turf fields, including turf practice fields, and stadiums (with lights and new locker rooms), costing millions of dollars. Another $1-1.5K for third jv officials (we get $61 a game) would break the budget, apparently.

It's because someone made a case that movng to 3-person was important and that we needed to be competitive with fees.

We're paying $66 this year, which is by no means great, but it's that amount if it's 2-person or 3-person.

There was a vocal minority of officials who said we should stay 2 and pay $90 or so each - now we know that the check is more important to them than anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

And, frankly, I wish there was more courage to call districts out on this nonsense.

I worked a varsity football game in a brand new stadium that cost in excess of $8 million this past season and our 5-man crew got a whopping $55 each.

If officials in my area had insisted on the same pay per official for both 2-man and 3-man, we would never have moved to 3-man because the money would not have been there

2-man varsity crews were getting $75/official ($150/crew). No way would the schools have agreed to $225/crew. But we were able to convince schools to bump up to $180-195/crew to get 3-man. I'm happy that we did.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Of course, varsity fees will be higher than subvarsity fees. This is not up for debate. The big discussion point is should 2P and 3P fees be the same within each level (varsity 2P vs 3P, subvarsity 2P vs 3P).

Realistically, I would say no, because schools might not be willing to add an official if the 2P and 3P cost per official was the same. This is why MIAA, FHSAA, and other states that have both 2P and 3P crews for varsity contests (FL does 3P anyway, even in 2P areas, because the state association requires 5 varsity home games in each gender to use a 3P crew during the season) have a difference between per-official fees for a 2P and 3P crew at the same level. Ideally, every state would use 3P at the varsity level (if not at the subvarsity levels), so this should not be a conversation, but we have to fight from the position that we are in in the world that we are in.

As to the OP, I would say HELL NO. If you seriously proposed that to any varsity official, they would start foaming at the mouth :-P and explaining why 3P is good.

Rich, I am normally in total agreement with you on most things, but will have to agree to disagree here. I love refereeing basketball. However, if I get a contract more than 60+ miles away from home for $66....then I'm going to have some thinking to do. Is it worth time away from my young family to leave at 5pm and return at 10pm for just north of $10/hr?

I understand you are in a tough spot trying to keep officials and schools happy. I also appreciate you working hard to get your fees up in your part of the state.

In our neighborhood, we get paid $80 per game to work a near empty gymnasium and get $60 to work a game with hundreds of fans. That's the biggest problem. Those big schools can't pay what a small rural school can? Give me a break.

I hope you don't take offense to this Rich, I am one of your biggest fans on here and on Facebook as well.

pfan

I know locally, the money made at the gate has nothing to do with the funds that are used to pay officials. You can fill a 10K arena full of paying fans and it would have no impact on what is available in the school budgets to pay officials.

Some of these awesome new facilities and upgrades/re-models have officials' rooms with showers.....but not hot water. :mad:

Well, we also know the majority of guys on this forum aren't "in it for the kids", so there's that.

I pay what others pay in the Madison area and thereabouts. I'm at least $1 more in most cases.

I can't compete with the $80 to $95 they pay "up north." I wish I could.

Right now I'm able to fill hoops schedules. When I can't......but we won't go 2-person. I had officials suggest we stay 2 and pay more and I won't do that. It's bad for the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm not in it for the kids. But I'm not going to ask for a 2-person game for $30 more, either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Although "being in it for the kids" is a noble sentiment, I realize that I do not actually agree with that idea. College officials and professional officials are not "in it for the kids" by definition because the competitors in their games are adults. In addition, professional and (some) college officials have officiating as their main source of income, so any idealistic expressions such as the above are mere rationalizations.

Was Ed Hochuli really "in it for the kids" when he started his officiating career as a law student working Pop Warner games to make a few extra bucks? Did Joey Crawford or Zach Zarba start their basketball careers "for the kids"?

Some officials do want to give back to the athletes whose games that they officiate, but many officials are in the game for other reasons. Thus, "for the kids" is just a rationalization used to guilt-trip high school officials into accepting certain sacrifices that they would not otherwise want to make. College basketball went 3-person a long time ago, at least on the men's side, and shows no signs of there being a remote desire to change back to 2-person. Maybe this was because there was no false idealism in college basketball officiating.

Personally, although I do give high school and recreational games that I am assigned to maximum effort and attention possible, I am not in it "for the kids", because I look to pursue higher-level opportunities in officiating. This is because I have enjoyed my officiating experience so far, and wish to continue it for as long as I am able to run up and down a field/court.

I'm "in it" for both of these reasons - give back to the kids/community and other (i.e. extra income, staying active, being around the game). TBH, though, I probably wouldn't do it for any reason if I wasn't getting compensated.

I would agree with you on that. Unless I'm doing Special Olympics or another event for charity, I would not do games for free. I might also ask a reduced fee for doing 3-person in a normally 2-person game (if there is a limited budget to pay for officials otherwise), but I would otherwise not work games for no fee. I would also choose to not work 2-person varsity games whenever possible, because 2 person is not an adequate system for covering varsity games.

Follow up

https://www.gazettextra.com/sports/h...gn=gazettextra

I should have stopped reading when he said, "I never worked three-person...."

You lost all credibility talking about going to a system that you never worked. That means you never understood the acute differences.

Boy bye!!!!

Peace

I'm in a place where I can't read this. Can someone post the text for me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Basketball Weekly: Last week's column on basketball officiating draws plenty of feedback

"My column last week on the shortage of officials and the recommendation of switching back to a two-person crew was met with much criticism.

I was called everything from an “arm-chair official” to an “officiating novice” and charged with not knowing anything about PCA or POEs. I was also called sexist for using the term “three-man crew” and not a “three-person crew.”

It was also suggested that I help solve the situation by picking up a whistle and joining the officiating ranks.

Harsh words, but it all tells me how passionate many folks are about the subject.

Let me first address the arm-chair and officiating novice complaints. While attending the University of Wisconsin and upon my graduation from college (1987), I officiated basketball in this area and the Dallas/Forth Worth metroplex for more than 10 years.

Many of those I worked with are still blowing the whistle today. I never worked a three-person crew, but I did do well over 100 games as part of a two-person crew.

Does that make me an expert? No. But it does give me some background on the subject and how games are officiated.

Unfortunately, covering games for The Gazette makes it impossible to officiate the game, as well.

As far as Primary Coverage Area (PCA) and Points of Emphasis (POE), I’ve seen enough games officiated by three-person crews to know which officials know what they’re doing and which ones were thrown into the mix simply to fill a contract that calls for three officials.

I think too many readers missed my point. I’m well aware that there are many great officials still available in our area. I see it on a nightly basis. They’re professional, well-versed on the game and are there to do a job. They don’t draw attention to themselves and simply do their job to the best of their ability. That means hustling at all times, knowing the rule book and putting the players’ safety first.

My concern is in regards to the vastly rising number of officials who, to put it bluntly, have no business working varsity games.

They’re timid in their calls, not in physical shape to run up and down the court on a consistent basis and don’t seem to have a grasp on PCA, POE and the rules of the game.

And the reason they’re put into that position is because there aren’t enough officials available to work varsity games where the conference has set the three-person crew as the standard. In the past, officials got their feet wet reffing junior varsity-level games, preparing themselves for varsity contests as part of a two-person crew. The overall shortage of officials, combined with the need for three officials for each contest, can sometimes force administrators to fill crews with the best available option from an ever-shallowing pool of options.

That’s why I suggested the possibility of reverting back to a two-person crew during the regular season.

I know the three-person crew is here to stay and that many officials would quit if conferences went back to a two-person crew. Forty-nine of fifty states are now using the three-person crew at the varsity level.

My biggest concern is that as more and more of the older officials retire, who will be there to take their place?

For many reasons, including verbal abuse from the stands, pay and full-time jobs, young adults are not signing up to fill the void. A shortage of high school officials in all sports is gripping the state, a topic we covered in The Gazette extensively in the past year.

All I was trying to do was make a suggestion on how to alleviate a problem in basketball.

As for the three-man crew compared to the three-person crew, I’m well aware that the area has many qualified female officials. It’s great to see and great for the game. I certainly meant no disrespect by calling it a three-man crew. Three-woman, three-man, three-person, doesn’t matter to me as long as they’re qualified and fit to be doing games at the varsity level."

My column last week on the shortage of officials and the recommendation of switching back to a two-person crew was met with much criticism.

I was called everything from an “arm-chair official” to an “officiating novice” and charged with not knowing anything about PCA or POEs. I was also called sexist for using the term “three-man crew” and not a “three-person crew.”

It was also suggested that I help solve the situation by picking up a whistle and joining the officiating ranks.

Harsh words, but it all tells me how passionate many folks are about the subject.

Let me first address the arm-chair and officiating novice complaints. While attending the University of Wisconsin and upon my graduation from college (1987), I officiated basketball in this area and the Dallas/Forth Worth metroplex for more than 10 years.

Many of those I worked with are still blowing the whistle today. I never worked a three-person crew, but I did do well over 100 games as part of a two-person crew.

Does that make me an expert? No. But it does give me some background on the subject and how games are officiated.

Unfortunately, covering games for The Gazette makes it impossible to officiate the game, as well.

As far as Primary Coverage Area (PCA) and Points of Emphasis (POE), I’ve seen enough games officiated by three-person crews to know which officials know what they’re doing and which ones were thrown into the mix simply to fill a contract that calls for three officials.

I think too many readers missed my point. I’m well aware that there are many great officials still available in our area. I see it on a nightly basis. They’re professional, well-versed on the game and are there to do a job. They don’t draw attention to themselves and simply do their job to the best of their ability. That means hustling at all times, knowing the rule book and putting the players’ safety first.

My concern is in regards to the vastly rising number of officials who, to put it bluntly, have no business working varsity games.

They’re timid in their calls, not in physical shape to run up and down the court on a consistent basis and don’t seem to have a grasp on PCA, POE and the rules of the game.

And the reason they’re put into that position is because there aren’t enough officials available to work varsity games where the conference has set the three-person crew as the standard. In the past, officials got their feet wet reffing junior varsity-level games, preparing themselves for varsity contests as part of a two-person crew. The overall shortage of officials, combined with the need for three officials for each contest, can sometimes force administrators to fill crews with the best available option from an ever-shallowing pool of options.

That’s why I suggested the possibility of reverting back to a two-person crew during the regular season.

I know the three-person crew is here to stay and that many officials would quit if conferences went back to a two-person crew. Forty-nine of fifty states are now using the three-person crew at the varsity level.

My biggest concern is that as more and more of the older officials retire, who will be there to take their place?

For many reasons, including verbal abuse from the stands, pay and full-time jobs, young adults are not signing up to fill the void. A shortage of high school officials in all sports is gripping the state, a topic we covered in The Gazette extensively in the past year.

All I was trying to do was make a suggestion on how to alleviate a problem in basketball.

As for the three-man crew compared to the three-person crew, I’m well aware that the area has many qualified female officials. It’s great to see and great for the game. I certainly meant no disrespect by calling it a three-man crew. Three-woman, three-man, three-person, doesn’t matter to me as long as they’re qualified and fit to be doing games at the varsity level.

Here’s a look at three area games on tap this week:

Whitewater (5-3, 5-2) at Walworth Big Foot (6-2, 5-2), girls, Rock Valley, 7:15 p.m., today, Big Foot High School—The winner remains at least tied for first place in the Rock Valley.

Whitewater bounced back from back-to-back conference losses by blasting Brodhead last Friday. The Whippets have three players averaging 12 points or more a game, led by Abby Grosinske and Kacie Carollo at 13.6 each.

Big Foot has won four of its last five conference games to move into a four-way tie for first. Junior forward Reagan Courier leads the conference in scoring at 22.2 points per game.

Best guess: Big Foot 61, Whitewater 50

Janesville Parker (1-7) at Milton (0-7), boys, nonconference, 7:15 p.m., Saturday, Milton High School—The Vikings ended their long losing streak Tuesday against Madison West, while the Red Hawks continue to look for an end to their skid.

Milton has lost 34 straight games since beating Oregon on Feb. 10, 2017. Freshman Jack Campion leads the Red Hawks in scoring at 14.3 points per game. The team is allowing nearly 70 points a game.

Parker has been inconsistent in its first season under coach Matt Bredesen. The Vikings have been competitive, at times, but all of their losses have come by double digits.

Senior Tremar Curry leads the Vikings in scoring at 11.2 per game. Senior Connor Stricklin made his season debut Tuesday and scored a game-high 16 points.

Best guess: Parker 68, Milton 60

Lake Geneva Badger (7-3) at Janesville Craig (2-4), girls, nonconference, 7:15 p.m., Friday, Craig High School—This is a matchup of two teams that seem to be headed in opposite directions. The Badgers have won three straight, while the Cougars have lost four straight after starting 2-0.

Jada Moss leads Badger in scoring at 15.7 points a game. The Badgers are averaging 51.9 points.

Craig is in a tailspin due to too many prolonged scoring droughts.

In a 55-38 loss to Madison East last Friday, Craig led by 10 at half but scored only nine points in the second half.

Senior Emily Pierson leads the team in scoring at 13 points per game, with sophomore Claudia Fieiras averaging 11.8.

Best guess: Badger 54, Craig 49

John Barry is a sports writer for The Gazette.

Sadly, too many people think sportswriters and basketball coaches are qualified to judge officiating capability and performance.

In this particular case, however, it couldn't be farther from the truth. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You said exactly how I feel.

Would I go out on the road and be away from my kids 40-50 nights per season if I didn't get paid? No, but I do enjoy officiating. Therefore, I am willing to accept lower pay from areas that pay less. I don't worry about my check being $5 less if somebody messes up. The amount of money I get means nothing to me. I know the pay is going to be between $XX and $XXX, depending on where I am going that night.

I do like to "do it for the kids" to some small degree. Mostly, I like the little bit of extra money that I make to put in my kids' college funds. I love the exercise and I love being around other officials and coaches. Some of those people I only see during basketball season. I loved playing ball growing up, but my competitive desire to play no longer exists. That has been replaced by my love of officiating and the desire to stay around the game. These are the reasons I go out and do it.

I don't think any experienced official can honestly say that working 3 man is not better for everybody vs 2 man.

If you haven't worked it, you really shouldn't have an opinion.

Just my opinion :)

There isn't a thing wrong with 2 man. It is perfectly fine. That is until you work 3 man. The next time you work 2 man you realize it is terrible. You know you are missing half the stuff you normally pick up. I don't know how anyone could claim 2 man is better.

I have no issues with officials that do it "for the kids." To each his own.

My issue with that phrase is that it's often used as lip service by people who couldn't care less about the kids. Or coaches saying that they're "defending my kids" to justify poor behavior.

I Really Miss My Partner ...
 

Try working one person, as I did yesterday for the first time in over thirty-years. I knew going in that I was going to miss a lot of calls, but after I tossed the jump ball and officiated a few minutes I said to myself, "Man, this is really tough, I really miss my partner". You guys that do all three person must say the same thing to yourselves when your may be rarely forced to do two person.

I have, for part of a rec game when my partner was on his way. I had to basically work as a Center official opposite until my partner showed up. No sideline coverage whatsoever, limited angles to see plays. I would not work 1-person in any scholastic game for that reason. After working 3-person for intramurals, scrimmages, and my first 2 varsity games this past week, I really don't want to work 2 person games unless I absolutely must. There are too many plays that a 2-person crew will missed as compared to a 3-person crew.

How can the author of the OP have been an official in Texas, and never worked a 3-person game? Did he not go to camp, officiate playoff games, or have any of the conferences that he was in assign 3 officials? I would be surprised if the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex still only uses 2 officials for varsity games, because there are a lot of schools, a lot of officials, and a lot of money in the Metroplex. If there are any DBOA or Dallas TASO basketball officials, let me know about the current situation, and when 3-person started in your part of Texas.

BTW, I totally agree with SC Official about the "for the kids" phrase used as hypocritical lip service. If you really want to do this for high school kids, make sure the game environment is safe, including providing an adequate crew (3 officials for varsity, 2 for freshman/middle school games).

He quit working in 1997. That, apparently, makes him an expert for all time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Really ???
 

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._...=0&w=300&h=300

Really?

Schedule mix up? Partner in car accident on way to game? Partner twists ankle in first minute?

You would just refund everybody's ticket price, tell the kids to get back on the bus and go home, and turn off the lights when you left the gym?

Really?

Doesn't sound very professorial, and doesn't sound like you've been to any rodeos, or have been around the block at least once.

Here in Connecticut we have statewide written one person mechanics guidelines in place (mostly common sense), seldom used, but they're there because one doesn't officiate very long until one eventually uses them.

We cannot start a game with 1 official in WI.

This is another reason to hire 3 for varsity contests - if one goes down you still have two to finish the contest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Overlapping Officials ...
 

And a great reason it is.

We try to overlap officials in freshman, junior varsity, and varsity. Try to get there by the beginning of the second period of the game before yours, and try to stay until at least halftime of the game after yours. It's for both emergency coverage, and for educational (observational) purposes.

It's encouraged, often times adhered to, many times not so much.

I'd have to assume that UIL and TAPPS authorized 3-person officiating in Texas in 1998 or some time soon thereafter. On any basketball officials' association website in Texas, there is information about 2 and 3 person, including information on 3-person game fees, which means that 3-person is pretty widely used in TX.

Still, just because you were an official before 3-person was introduced does not make you an expert on 3-person. I would not call BillyMac an expert on 3-person, because CT rarely uses 3-person (playoffs and a few rivalry games a year), but I would call JRutledge, Raymond, or Rich experts, because they have consistently worked 3-person on multiple levels.

Billy, I would wait for my partner and/or a replacement to show up. If I have an official for next game watching, I would enlist him/her. If my partner is in traffic, I would delay the game and explain this to both coaches. If my partner is injured and no alternate official is available (no official for a future/prior game/official who is working as a clock operator), I would gather both coaches and explain to them that I cannot continue the game, because I alone would not be able to provide proper floor coverage to ensure the safety of their players. I would not open myself up to a lawsuit for an injury caused by working 1-person mechanics that happens due to a play that I cannot see.

I'm What'cha Call An Expert ...
 

Hey, I'm what'cha call a three person expert. I've been to one three person clinic, worked a few three person periods in scrimmages, and actually worked two real three person games, and one was a varsity game.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.o...=0&w=280&h=188

On Wisconsin ...
 

This is a excellent, legal, professional plan for states like Wisconsin, but I find it hard to believe that with hundreds of ticket buying fans in the stands, a paid table crew, cheerleaders, and two teams of players, warming up, one group that may have traveled many miles in a expensive bus, you would simply say goodbye and turn off the lights when you left the gym.

If that's your state's policy, or your association's policy, you wouldn't have any other choice, and I'm fine with that, but would you really make such a decision on your own in a scholastic game at any level, even a middle school game?

Really?

At the bare minimum (assuming no state or association guidelines) one should contact one's assigner to garner some advice.

Yep.

I would support him, yes. If anyone got hurt, they'd sue everyone, wouldn't they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You are 100% correct!

You are also correct!

Legal Liability ...
 

In Wisconsin, and in other states with such limiting guidelines in place, you're absolutely correct. Working a game by oneself in such states would be stupid, foolish, and negligent and would certainly open up one to a high degree of legal liability.

But there are states without such limitations, some (like Connecticut) actually have written one person mechanics guidelines in place, and some even have fee structures in place to accommodate such situations (example, 1.5 x fee) that could certainly mitigate any, but not all, legal liabilities.

I say "but not all" because in our modern litigious society, anybody, anywhere, can file a lawsuit against anybody else, for any reason. And even if one is not negligent and is innocent of any illegal behavior, one still has to hire an attorney, and they aren't inexpensive.

At the bare minimum (assuming no state or association guidelines) one should contact one's assigner to garner some advice before letting the gym door hit one in the ass on one's way out.

Leaving the gym on one's own (assuming no state or association guidelines) with no outside guidance (like contacting an assigner) could really upset a lot of people, coaches, site directors, athletic directors, school principals, and assigners, and in some states leaving with no outside guidance may expose one (and possibly their association) to legal issues regarding contract language.

Some of his points were valid....moving to 3 means you need 50% more people to cover the same number of games or you need the same people go give 50% more of their time.

A lot of people can't give up 50% more time, so you ultimately need more people. Assuming you normally use the "best" officials with 2-person crews, that means the ones you need to add come from the next tier down, adding people that were previously working JV games to now do Varsity games. You have more officials on games that are not ready for those games. You can cover select games with an experienced crew, but not all, may not even most games.

It is certainly better at the top, but the big question is whether the 3-person system, across all games, overcomes the effect of adding a generally less capable official to most crews. When we switched to 3-person, who that was was patently obvious to anyone who had any idea of what was going on on the court. They tended to not know where to go and the call selection was just not the same. We knew that there would be growing pains for the first few years as many had to learn 3-person...most 3-person crews had 1 person with 3-person experience (typically with a college background), 1 that was familiar to some degree, and 1 that had no idea. We hoped that the benefit of the 3-person format would eventually overcome the hurdles. While 3-person is certainly better when you have 3 top-level officials, the jury is still out as to whether it is a net win across the board when you have a limited pool to draw from.

The people that struggled with 3-person were the veterans. The younger officials that actually cared about what they were doing often were the officials that understood 3-person better. You do not need perfect officials to work 3-person if you teach the basics of 3-person. And if they have veteran partners, we can deal with the other aspects of the game that make the game go smoothly. Not all officials get good when they worked 10 years of basketball. Some are good a couple years in. Yes, you might need more officials, but that does not mean the officials that worked 2-person were that great. I remember when I would watch officials work with only 2 at varsity games. There were guys who could not run, would not get into position and certainly not be in able to keep up even in a 3-person assignment in today's game. So I am not sure what point he was making. Using his old ass experience as an official that worked 2-person in the 80s and 90s does not have much to do with today. Again, a totally different game is played and I hardly see official do anything right in 2 person games I watch now with the way the game is played.

Peace

Exactly. The old guys were mostly the ones bitching about 3-person and were terrible at it.

So few of the people I watch in JV games work 2-person right. When I filled in for an injured official a few years ago and went ballside as the lead, it completely confused my partner. He'd *never* seen anyone do that!

Come to think of it, few V officials here did that in 2- person games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks ...
 

Agree. For the few three person games that we do, veterans seem to struggle more than the younger guys, of course there are exceptions with both age groups. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

A GOOD 2-person veteran official will not look horribly out of place when first starting out in 3-man. They will at least know to call obvious fouls and violations in whatever area they are looking at (primary or straying to secondary) and they will look for cues from their partners to see where they should rotating to. The rest is either window dressing or can be compensated for by the other 2 crew members. An official who looks completely out of place in 3-man, most likely looks that way in 2-man also.

I still believe brand new beginners need to be taught 2-man exclusively if that's all that's going to be working in their first season. Teach them 3-man after their first season. The ones who want to be good will seek out the training necessary in the off-season.

JMHO

I agree with teaching 3-man after the first year. This would allow the newer officials to see the connections between 2 and 3-person officiating (the 2-person Trail position is more similar to the Center position of a 3-person crew than to its 3-person namesake), get familiar with the 3-person system (with possible reinforcement in non-scholastic leagues and/or subvarsity games), and be considered as varsity alternate officials. 3rd years might then start seeing a limited varsity schedule (with more assignments depending on ability and availability), and thus there will be a pipeline of qualified 3-person officials to supplement and eventually replace the veterans.

ODog, what is the situation like in MA when it comes to 3-person? I know that MA uses 3-person in the playoffs, that some varsity games are 2-person, and that the MIAA handbook addresses 3-person game fees by saying they should be no more than 85% of the 2-person fee. Are 3-person games between bigger schools, private school teams, or are they randomly spread across the board? Is it different in different boards (Board 27 doing more 3-person games than Board 54)?

There is very little 3-person in Mass. A couple of leagues use 3 in February as a prep for the tourney. I just heard from a partner (but have not confirmed) that one league is using 3-person crews for all varsity games this season for both boys and girls. Private schools use only 2 as well.

IAABO boards do not assign, so it doesn’t matter to which board you belong — only which leagues you work.

Rich's area - Is it time to drop the 3-man officiating crew?
 

Since we’re on the subject of states that use 3-p, I noted the opinion writer’s rebuttal that stated “49 of 50 states are now using 3-person crews at the varsity level.” Where does he get that data? From this forum alone I know that CT, RI, and evidently most of MA are still 2-p. Maybe he’s referring to states that use 3-p at least in the playoffs?

Just goes to further question his credibility and expertise on the matter, which we’ve already shown is dubious to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is up to you to decide what you want to know as an official. It is not up to anyone to require you to learn anything. There are plenty of resources to learn any mechanics system you wish. I did not wait until anything when I started in the 90s to learn 3-person. I went to camps, read books and watched officials work. I picked it up very early.

Peace

I was referring to what Raymond said earlier. Raymond: "I still believe brand new beginners need to be taught 2-man exclusively if that's all that's going to be working in their first season. Teach them 3-man after their first season." If associations were to teach 3-person on a consistent basis starting with each official's second year, it would make the transition to the varsity level and/or playoffs easier, simply because the official in question would have been familiar with 3-person mechanics from either the classroom sessions, on-court practice, or both. This might also be the way to get 2-person areas to transition to 3-person, by making the membership as a whole knowledgeable enough in 3-person mechanics to mitigate the growing pains that Camron alluded to.

I got that, but the point is that it is ultimately up to the official to seek whatever training they can get. Heck officials half the time do not even seek training in my experience. So I am happy anytime they seek anything, but caution as well that they need to learn the stuff they are doing and not totally concentrated on something they may never get an opportunity to try out. But again I live in an area where we have many options to get training and it is up to each person to decide when to take advantage. I teach a new official's class in the fall and there are many camps and association meetings to attend and that is up to the official to decide. But I do agree with Raymond to an extent.

Peace

Contrary to what BayStateRef said, there is plenty of 3-person in Mass., at least in my area. More than 60 percent of my games are 3-whistle. Maybe more than 70 percent. Some schools use exclusively three all season, while some only use it for 3-4 home games just as a primer in the event their teams make the tourney. But all schools play some 3-whistle games. Doesn't matter if it's large inner city boys programs or terrible small-school girls programs.

It's very prevalent in our area, and moreso every year. And all officials get the full fee. The 85-percent-fee thing went out the window by vote of our county ADs a few years ago. Two- or three-whistle, doesn't matter: You get $84.

But it does seem to depend on where you live in the state, as neighboring counties, some of whose teams play in the same leagues as our teams, don't pay for three officials as often and don't pay full fee when they do.

I've worked games in D/FW since the mid 2000's. 3-person was already prevalent when I started, so I imagine you are correct. As the years have gone by, more and more schools adopted the 3rd official, to the point where now only the smallest schools (1A & 2A) still use 2 officials (and even they go 3 person during playoffs)

We've got a couple of leagues that are 3 man out here. In addition some of our stronger tournament finals are done that way. We go to the third person in postseason at quarterfinals or later in most divisions although there is an "Open Division" which I believe is entirely 3 man.

Rich's area - Is it time to drop the 3-man officiating crew?
 

I can’t believe that CA, the most populous state in the union, remains mostly mired in 2-person....with a shot clock, no less.

That is back asswards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's interesting. Where in MA do you call games? I'm curious, because Bay State Ref's profile says that he's in the Boston area. Bay State said that there is no relationship between what IAABO board you are in and the leagues you work. Is that true?

What would it take to get 3-person implemented universally at the varsity level in MA? Timewise, I say it would happen in the next decade.

Crosscountry,
The leagues that use it here are our area's stronger public school leagues. Our shot clock operator pool is pretty strong out here. Most of the experienced ones go thru at least half a season without a CE involving the clock. The most common one I've seen is inadvertent reset but they're able to correct pretty quickly using recall or they happened to catch a glance of where it was at prior to reset.

I’m not saying your shot clock operators are necessarily good or bad. But they are human, and having that third official dramatically reduces P-subB (probability of bufoonery). Furthermore, at the end of the day, the officials are responsible for SC decisions, not clock operators. All the more reason that games with 2-person crews and shot clocks are really a lot to ask of a crew. I would know; I’m living that headache in RI this year.

I’m just surprised that such a powerhouse state as CA isn’t universally using 3-person by now. Got it, looks like the big leagues in the LA area are. But what about the smaller leagues and other sections? For example, isn’t most of the San Diego section still 2-person? San Diego is the eighth largest metro area in the country!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our transition from 2 man to 3 man went much more smoothly. There were growing pains of course, but for the most part it went much more smoothly than some of you guys are describing. Not sure why that would be.

Was there additional training given in SD when the state went to 3-person, or did most scholastic officials already have 3-person experience (camps, playoffs, college, or intramural games) at the time of the transition?

I would expect some sort of state camps or other resources from the SDHSAA specific to 3-person when that change was introduced, similar to the MSHSL putting out a video and document about the new restricted area rule that will apply this year.

How did associations transition to 3-person? Did they use JV officials more on varsity, promote more people from the JV level, or double-schedule varsity officials on both JV and varsity games to get 3-person crews?

Why,Why,Why
 

Here in South Texas we do both 2&3 man crew depending on 1A,2A etc...
I love 3man as I live by the Sayin 3sets if eyes ARE ALWAYS better then 2 sets..
And as long as you have a strong pregame with co-officals as to primary, consistency and court awareness you should be good🤷*♂️ Why would anyone want 2man over 3 is totally crazy.i could see it for a small 1Aor 2A But 3A. And up Varsity needs 3 man
Long Live The 3 Man Crew

These are the type of questions no one knows the answer to. But most HS officials I have encountered do not have college or camp experience. They are just guys/gals who decided to officiate and their bodies are needed to fill games.

You have grave misconceptions about the amount of standardized training that occurs at the HS level.

Couldn't agree more - 3 sets of eyes are always better than 2. However, I just can't see how 2 man crews are acceptable for class 1 or 2 games. Varsity games, at all classes imo, are best served using 3 man crews. Just too much going on off ball.

With a lot of areas of our state using set crews that self form, there are a lot of bad habits and crew specific officiating going on in games all over the place.

I have observed more games this season now that I'm injured and it amazes me how many officials ball watch and how many simply call all over the floor. Shouldn't surprise me, but it still does.

You might not want to share that observation with the BB editor at the Janesville Gazette. [emoji6]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The solution is more education and training, not going back to 2-person crews. That choice would be number 36 on a list of 36 choices. #35 is "getting hit by a car."