Stall Ball ...
 

https://news.yahoo.com/high-school-b...174914578.html

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.B...=0&w=295&h=166

No mention of whether the defense expended any "closely guarded" efforts, or whether the crew responded with merited five second closely guarded counts.

Just a modicum of defensive initiative out on the perimeter combined with a crew initiating the called for counts typically thwarts any stalling efforts on the part of one team. Unless the other team intentionally plays to get stalled on.

2-3 Zone ...
 

From the comments:

Oak ridge sat in a 2-3 zone for the entire first half. They are an unbelievable team that could have easily pressured them out of stall ball but didn't.

So evidently the better team here just stayed in a 2 - 3 zone and allowed the stall.

Sorry...missed that part of the article. Then it's on them. If good defense wins games, then the team lauded as the better team lost it for themselves.
Corollary point on topic: this isn't a cause for the shot clock in those states that don't have one. It's an instance where both teams did exactly as they intended to do. The acclaimed better team could have played the most minimal defense and thwarted the stalling team's strategy. They chose not to.
Apparently.
I reserve the right to be wrong.

We saw the proverbial “this isn’t getting the kids ready for college basketball” quote.

Tell me again the percentage of NFHS basketball players that go on to play college basketball?

You want 100% of schools to pay for a shot clock system and operator that will probably only play a factor in 1% of games? Ok, be my guest. But that should be a state-to-state decision, not a national mandate.

These stories make the news because they are the exception, not the rule. Stall games are not the national crisis that some claim they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree. This style was a choice. The defensive team could have pressured the ball and made the team play some offense.

The funny part is that people think that with a shot clock automatically a team cannot stall to some extent. They can stall in a similar way and take time off the clock. Teams in college do it all the time when they have a certain lead. Obviously, they have to shoot the ball, but just like that is a risk, holding the ball expecting a team to never play defense is also a risk.

I think the shot clock is coming. But it is not going to make the game better. It is just going to make the game rushed in many respects for many teams. So the bad shots we see now, we will see horrible shots with a shot clock.

Peace

I disagree. I work high school games with a shot clock in DC, and I see a better product than in the non-shot clock high school games I work in VA. The shot clock allows me to more easily break the game down into smaller pieces and concentrate more on calling each piece correctly, it helps me to be more time aware in case a correction needs to be made, and there are fewer deliberate end-of-game fouls in the shot clock contests that I have worked. The shot clock is also a balancer, because the advantage is currently skewed to the offense in terms of dictating the pace of the game in games without a shot clock. With the shot clock, a neutral object dictates the pace of the game, not either team, so you won't have 40+ second possessions that are, in my experience, not usually productive. As an official, shot clocks also simplify other rules (I have a visual reference for 10-second counts, even if I might be required to make a visible count (no requirement in DC), 5-second counts on the dribble mare often eliminated in shot clock games, such as in DC), so I would be on board with it. Yes, there are incompetent tables, both with shot clocks and without shot clocks, but the shot clock will not by itself make or break the quality of the table personnel. Therefore, I believe that the shot clock would be a net positive.

Special Group Of Highly Disciplined, Intelligent, Talented Kids ...
 

While I wouldn't want to work a stall game, I do enjoy observing them.

I've worked with teenagers my entire adult life, as a teacher, a coach, a parent, and an official. It takes a very patient coach, who is good at teaching, and a special group of highly disciplined, intelligent, talented kids to run this stall offense. The coach doesn't just decide a few minutes before the game to use this strategy. He probably prepared for this game for a few practices, if not more. He gave his kids a chance to win within the rules of the game. That's his job. A job well done.

I witnessed a game like this once. It was very hard to watch. Because there are so little possessions, a mistake by an official is actually game changing. I think there were a few big calls that benefited the stalling team in the game I watched.

The state actually adopted the shot clock the next year and many think it was a result of this game.

As a fan, I paid to watch a basketball game. I don't care who wins most of the time, I just want to watch some ball.

As an official, I hope I never have to be a part of one. I am grateful for the shot clock.

Stall And Win ...
 

In most games, about half the fans want the stall ball team to win.

Actually thinking back on it, it was the opposite in this case. The stalling team was an underdog for once. They were a private school power house. The other team was a rural school (a co-op of schools because the communities are very small). The private schools in North Dakota are not liked much by the rural schools. They have a lot of success and rural folks see the private schools location as a huge advantage because of their location and not belonging to a school district.

The official should ask the offense coach how lo9ng he plans to hold the ball. Then, he should ask the defensive coach if it's okay to set the clock to whatever the offensive coach says (e.g., 30 second). then, play on.

No need to stand around and wait for the clock to run down.


5-5-3

Nice idea! Always listen to Bob.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree...between the additional expense (it would have to be 100% adoption state wide. That’s a MASSIVE investment in my state) and the heightened need for qualified table personnel, I don’t think it will happen any time soon.

The truth is that “stall ball” is employed ina tiny percentage of games. It only gets discussed (the need for a shot clock) because of sensationalized headlines and social media hype.

Way too many big words for me in your post....tell it to me like I’m a 6th grader..��. Shot clocks simply encourage more shots.. up and down play. That is/was exciting when it’s done well. Unfortunately, I see teams rush from end to end and it’s turnover to turnover. Bad shot to bad shot. . No real offense run. If my team is truly better than yours I will pressure you everywhere. If your good enough to hold the ball vs my pressure and win 10-4 then u deserve it.

Massive investment? North and South Dakota are about as conservative as they come. If both of those states can make the change, any state can do it. Finding table personal has also been a challenge that is not really challenging. I have officiated in some very small, rural, communities and they get it done.

I don't think you have enough experience to make that assessment.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Shot clocks help officials focus more (fringe benefit), reduce deliberate fouls in the last 4 minutes of the game, and do not allow offenses to dictate the tempo of the game by holding the ball indefinitely. The long (40+ seconds) possessions often do NOT benefit the offensive teams. Shot clocks also make it easier to administer the closely guarded and 10-second rules.

No they don’t...I don’t need an extra reason to concentrate in last 4 minutes..Offenses dictate tempo if they are allowed to. If I’m more talented teami will shove ball down your throat. Offensively..and then pressure you relentlessly. If you are on offense and can dictate tempo that means my defense isn’t good enough. I don’t see well but I can count to 5 (or 8) or 10 (or 12)

North and South Dakota are also as sparsely populated as they come. I’m in Florida...there has to be THOUSANDS of high schools here so I think it would be a massive investment.

Maybe it’s our distracted student population or (lack of) basketball popularity, but table personnel are VERY challenging here. A shot clock will not help our cause in my opinion.

I know one school paid about $7500 (installed) for new shot clock equipment. It is not that expensive.

That is more than I will make officiating for the entire season!
So it would more than double a school’s expense for basketball. In other words the school could pay for all of the officials for the entire season for less than that amount.

Not likely that shot clocks are coming.

It would not double the schools basketball budget. Don't be so dramatic.

Well, are you sure? What would the rule be? Only varsity? There are schools that have multiple gyms. So it could drastically increase the budget of many schools. Heck schools a few years ago were complaining about not being able to buy new uniforms in just one sport, so not sure why this is not a bigger expense. Granted it might be mostly a one-time big expense up front, but that is still a big expense.

Peace

My idea of a high school basketball budget is all basketball related personnel (coaches, clock operators, and officials) , equipment and uniforms for grades 9-12. If you only want to "charge" the cost of the clocks to the teams that use them, I see them used at the V, Jv, and freshman levels. Most programs I see have 4 coaches (boys and girls). It is a safe bet that those 4 coaches have a combined salary of $15K.

If you don't like what the cost of clocks will be, let your local school board know. The cost to me as a taxpayer was not noticeable (at least the way things work in my parts).

My state has them. I like them. I did not go broke paying for them.

:eek::eek::eek:

That’s a hell of a lot more than I would have guessed...that IS expensive.

I do not think it really matters what the basketball budget is. The athletic department in many areas is claiming they are strapped for money and they are struggling for uniforms, they might not be able to easily cover this cost. That is why IMO it has never passed nationally. Sure some sponsorships might help, but not all schools have those kinds of extra funds coming in. And at least where I am, coaches are often school employees and paid more for being a teacher and not being a coach. It is a package deal to hire a coach/teacher. And not all schools are using taxpayer money. Private schools also apply and many of them might be able to get the money, but it would take some effort to do so.

NOt saying it cannot ever be done. IT could, but not sure why this is such an issue when it very rarely happens. We have enough problems at the small college ranks with table people and now we are thinking we will have no problems with a shot clock at thousands of schools across the country. We will hear of many situations were the clock becomes a bigger factor than it is now.

Peace

I don't see the point in extending this. I will probably never officiate another high school ball game without a shot clock.

I'm in the "expensive" camp. Let's assume a school hosts 50 combined varsity and JV games in a season. Now take the cost of the shot clock and divide by 50 to get $150/per game. To reduce that down to the $5 raise that a 3-person official in, say, Wisconsin, could certainly use would take 10 years (150/10=15, 15/3=5). So investing in a shot clock could conceivably set back a modest $5 officials' pay raise by 10 years (and that's just the varsity officials; this says nothing for sub-varsity officials). That would be a significant loss in pay after inflation.

I'm in a state right now where I think the pay is frankly too high, but in lots of places it's way too low with severe reluctance to raise it. Yet we feel obligated to mandate a shot clock? Yeah....no wonder Wisconsin reconsidered it's shot clock dictum last year. That was a smart decision.

This is such a solution looking for a problem.

If you operate under the assumption that this type of basketball is an abomination and should be banned, the reality is that it's only employed in a microscopic percentage of high school games. Based on social media you would think half of the high school coaches in the country employ stall ball; that's simply not true. Why don't more defenses pressure opponents that play this style of offense and force them to do something?

Cost is a big deal whether or not people like to hear it. Granted, I find it humorous to hear schools b*tch and moan about not having money to give officials a modest pay increase while simultaneously rolling out the "latest and greatest" new uniforms every year and spending a fortune to make their gyms look the best in the state. A shot clock sounds great until administrators see the price tag just for the equipment; then there are the installation costs as well as having to pay and train someone competent enough to run the thing correctly. Heck some schools have scoreboards that are so old that I'm not even sure it's possible to synchronize and wire the shot clocks; so now you're asking them to buy new scoreboards, as well. And many schools have more than one gym.

For as many issues as there are running shot clocks correctly at the small college level, those problems get magnified in high school and turn into big headaches for officials. Also there are so many 20-year "veteran" officials that I would not feel comfortable managing the shot clock and learning all the rules (in many cases they can't even manage the game clock).

What is the reward of enduring these growing pains? To be more like college? To force more (bad) shots?

Also, people forget that this is high school basketball. A coach's job is to employ the best strategy for his/her team to win. At the high school level the talent spectrum is much wider than the college level, so it's not unreasonable that the rules allow for more strategies to be competitive regardless of how "entertaining" they may be. HS sports do not exist to entertain fans nor to "get kids ready for the next level."

At most I could see the NFHS making this an allowable state adoption. I do not see it being mandated nationwide. And if it were it wouldn't be immediate; there would be a 3-5 year buffer to allow schools and states to budget properly and implement all the requirements.

OK. Just keep in mind, none of us here will ever make this decision anyway.

Peace

Exactly. I will avoid future discussions about this topic because we already have the shot clock. What works or does not work other areas, financially, is none of my concern.

Theme From Shaft (1971) ...
 

In the words of Isaac Hayes, "Shut your mouth".

If I were getting overpaid for 3-person, I'd agree with you. But right now I'm getting paid $89/game to miss a lot of stuff and sometimes guess. I'd gladly give up 20% of that fee in exchange for a second partner.

Again, OK. They could never bring in the shot clock, the game will be just fine as it always has been. It is not going to make it better.

Peace

I "Do not give a damn". We already have it.

Then if you do not give a damn, then why did you tell us what schools in a state you do not belong can afford? IJS.

I really do not give a damn. Neither state I work has a shot clock and appears to not be getting it on their own at all. I am not even sure if they would do it if the NF makes it a rule.

Peace

I shouldn't have.

If it was up to me, I would mandate the shot clock for postseason play, because that is where the stalling strategy is most likely to rear it's ugly head (early rounds can have one team coming in who is over matched relative to the other). In many cases, postseason games (especially in later rounds), are played at neutral sites that already have functioning shot clock equipment. For early rounds, I would have nearby sites with shot clock capabilities host the games, in the event that neither competing schools have shot clocks, or bring in portable shot clock units (those can be had as cheaply as $279). In this way, the games that matter in the postseason would have a shot clock, and states would be able to decide whether shot clocks should be adopted in the regular season as well. If enough schools acquire shot clocks on their own, for the postseason or as part of a routine scoreboard upgrade, there is no reason for shot clocks not to be implemented for the regular season. This is exactly what DC charter schools are doing (public and private schools already have permanent or portable shot clock units).

Worst ... Idea ... Ever ...
 

Absolutely horrible idea. To expect teams/coaches/players/table crew/officials that have played twenty games with no shot clock to suddenly be expected to play and adjust to one is utter nonsense.

C'mon ilyazhito. You're better than this. Did somebody put something in your coffee this morning? I'm certain that you didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cart...ln2843_low.jpg

No, just no.

You didn't even mention the group that might have the hardest time adjusting...

...the officials.

I guess under his proposal we would only use college officials for the postseason?

Table Crew ...
 

Fixed it, and added table crew.

I'm in FL, too, and I couldn't agree more. The expense would be enormous and not worth the "benefit." Some schools barely have a functioning game clock, let alone a shot clock. We often can't get personnel who can properly start and stop the game clock.

Adding a shot clock in FL would create many more problems than it would solve.

Back Up The Moving Van ...
 

Here in overly expensive and overly taxed Connecticut, we always hear about how cheap it is to live down South. Maybe now I know why?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.J...=0&w=300&h=300

Almost every game i officiate has a shot clock now so bias beware.

I don't have a dog in the fight. As an official there is definitely less for me to manage and the table to manage when there is no shot clock. Teams tend to make the game easier or more difficult to officiate not the built in pace or deliberate play.

As a basketball person I think everyone should have to play with a shot clock. There are good and bad teams and good and bad basketball with both. However, shot clock basketball puts the game back in kids hands. I see more kids who are trained to play, more kids taking shots, more coaches who have to communicate with players rather than direct players. I think the coaches have to be better at connecting, teaching and developing players in shot clock game as their work has to be done before they hand it over to the kids. The no shot clock game allows the game to be about fewer kids, possessions, and players and be more coach controlled.

As an official I could care less one way or the other. As a basketball fan and ambassador give the shot clock game and type of players/coaches everytime.

I have worked the postseason every year since 2004 in boys basketball. I have yet to see a single game where a team held the ball for several minutes to limit possessions. Now there are teams that might pass the ball around to keep away a little, but usually, that ends up in a bad turnover or making the team so unaggressive that they often lose the game. Mainly because doing this stops their rhythm to make shots or to even take an open shot they did earlier in the game. I am OK with a shot clock in the long run, but not just for one part of the season or the most important part of the season. And in the postseason here, everyone participates. You play regardless of your record and regardless if you win a certain amount of games. Yes there are some games. Not many changes anyway.

Honestly, the best teams in the postseason can play multiple ways to win. They are not married to a zone where they only win playing that one way. It is great to have something that makes the game more entertaining, but many teams I see still play basketball and do not need to hold the ball to have an advantage.


Almost all of our postseason games are with teams that are at a neutral site. So we cannot use that as the standard for a shot clock. And the host school is often in the early round which is our Regionals. After that, the Sectional is often not participating at that level. And I am sure it is different or similar across the country. You cannot judge your experience alone as the reason to make a change like this. None of that is going to matter when the actual decisions are being made.

Peace

Have you heard about the 2-0 travesty between Bibb County and Brookwood in Alabama? Or the Waseca-Marshall girls game in Minnesota that ended 17-4 after 2 halves of play? These games are rare, but the NBA had seen enough of this nonsense way back in 1954 to decide to institute a shot clock for the next season. This is almost 65 years to the day that a shot clock was implemented in the NBA, yet only a few states have a shot clock (+ DC) on a permanent basis, and a few more states are currently experimenting with shot clocks at tournament games.

As a fan of basketball, I feel that a shot clock is necessary to avoid the possibility of this travesty reappearing.

As an official, I believe that the shot clock will improve the game, because I will have to make less decisions about deliberate fouls in the last few minutes of a relatively close (1-3) possession game, and certain rules would be simpler to administer. No one can accuse me of having a fast 10-second count if my count starts at 30 seconds on the shot clock and ends at 20! No one could accuse me of a fast 5-second count closely guarded if I start my count at 17 seconds and call a 5-second violation with 12 (or 11) showing on the shot clock. There will be errors by the officials and table personnel, but that is the cost of having a game played and administered by humans. It just falls on me and my partners to be more clock aware, because it would be more obvious that both game and shot clock fail to start than if just the game clock fails to start. My partners and I would just make the corrections as needed with both the game and shot clock, and instruct both operators carefully before the game (even though that would probably not affect the amount of errors).

I mentioned neutral sites because if postseason games use neutral sites with shot clock equipment, there is no cost to install (or bring in) shot clock equipment for those games.

The NBA cares about fans...because it’s for profit...the NCAA does the same and is also for profit..( while claiming to be amateur league...) High school basketball isn’t for fans. Isn’t there to make your life as an official easier. If your team is better then win. The game has been this way for a long time. You want to add shot clock to favor certain teams, certain fans, certain officials who can’t concentrate...bad idea..

A quick google search shows 37,000 high schools in the US. Let's say a about a quarter of them have shot clocks now. That leaves about 28,000 of them. At $7500 per gym (which I believe was the estimate above) that's $210 million to have shot clocks at every school. So for a handful of games that have a stalling "travesty"*--and they make the news because they are rare--there should be over $200 million spent out of school budgets. (About 2/3 of that is public schools.)

In my experience, I kinda like the shot clock. In high quality high school play, it doesn't have a huge impact on the game, except in the final couple of minutes when it does reduce (not eliminate) deliberate fouling.

And, at the risk of being overly snarky, if a ref needs a shot clock to make his life easier, perhaps the ref should find something else to do with his time.

______
* I think the travesty concept is overblown balderdash. If you don't like the other team stalling, go get the freaking ball from them.

A shot clock does not favor certain teams, rather teams adapt (or fail to adapt) to the shot clock. The shot clock merely sets a minimum speed limit of sorts for playing the game. How would you cross an intersection controlled by a traffic light, not knowing how much time you had left? There are cues (the white man vs the red/orange hand in the US), but there is also a timer shown on the pedestrian crossing device to aid pedestrians. I would imagine the roads would be chaos without speed limits, because certain drivers would hold up others by being obscenely slow, and others would cause accidents by zooming around way faster than the others. Just like a speed limit sets a consistent expectation for the speed that cars travel (although cars often tend to travel faster than the written limit, without cameras), so does the shot clock set a consistent expectation of a minimum pace for basketball teams. If a team does not actively try to score (fails to attempt a shot in a set amount of time), they lose possession, and the other team gets to try to score. If there are other time limits in the game for other basic basketball actions (a 3-second limit of being in the lane, 5-second limits for the throw-in and possessing the ball while closely guarded, and 10 seconds from crossing from front to backcourt (8 in NBA and FIBA rules), as well as 10 seconds to shoot free throws), why shouldn't there be an overall time limit to possessions? That would be consistent with the rest of the basketball rules (time limits to perform specific actions common to the game).

This statement alone tells me you've never played the game and that you have officiated a very limited amount of basketball games. You have no natural feel for the game, everything to you is black and white. You also come off as a know-it-all.

The rest of your post about traffic lights and the such I didn't bother to read.

And high schools (generally) can't adapt -- they have to use the kids who are in their district. Colleges (recruiting) and pros (drafting) can get the players -- and there are far fewer of them than HSs.

These "travesties" don't happen as often as you imply they do. They happen in a microscopic percentage of all the games played. Unfortunately you fall victim to sensationalized journalism which makes it seem like these things are the norm rather than the exception.

You can use the game clock for the exact same things you say the shot clock would be helpful for.

You act like you can just throw a shot clock into the game and everything will be all fine and dandy. At least in my area, there are 30-year "veteran" officials that haven't made any attempt to improve in 29 years. Now all of a sudden we're going to entrust them with knowing shot clock rules and catching/fixing table errors? Or we're going to use it for the postseason after going the entire regular season without it? You come across as so ignorant it's disturbing.

The idea that the shot clock makes things easier for officials is utter nonsense. The only thing that screws up a game more than a bad table and having to fix the SC every other possession, is a bad table and officials who aren't competent enough to catch and fix SC errors.

The shot clock was thrown into the game for boys in MD, and for both genders in DC. Girls officials have been using a shot clock since MD adopted one in 1970, but boys officials only started using one in 2017 (when the MPSSAA adopted a shot clock for boys). To prepare for the change, Al Battista, the rules interpreter, made a presentation about new rules (including the shot clock rule for boys), and the MPSSAA released cards with the shot clock and mercy rule information on them to be distributed to officials (I have both the 2017-18 edition, from when the 35-second shot clock was introduced, and this year's edition, with the change to a 30-second shot clock for boys). The system seems to be working, even if there are veteran officials who have stopped progressing. DC also seems to have taken the shot clock in stride ever since it was implemented.

How man Maryland high schools are there? How many in DC?

Peace

MD has 198 member schools in MPSSAA (public schools only). DCSAA has 49 schools, including public, private, and charter schools.

Less Decisions ???
 

Less decisions? I know little about shot clocks because Connecticut only uses shot clocks for varsity private prep school games, but it seems to me that anything that speeds up the game will make it harder for officials, if not, certainly not easier. Forget about possible mistakes by table crews for now, but just think of a game where there are more shots, more rushed shots, more misses, more rebounds, etc. These definitely invite many more decisions that will have to be made by officials.

Reaching for straws here, same thing can be demonstrated on video with a game clock or a stopwatch.

But, hey, what do I know, I've only been doing this for thirty-eight years compared to ilyazhito's, what, fifty-plus years?

That is not even a third of the schools we have in our state that play basketball.

My point is you want to change a rule for one or two situations we might hear about. That is not the norm or even the issue. A lot of teams in my state play uptempo and a shot clock would only complicate things.

Peace

Read the full sentence. If you take words out of context, you will miss the point of what I wrote. The full sentence said "With a shot clock, I will have to make less decisions about deliberate end-of-game fouls." This is in reference to a specific situation, not to making less or more decisions in general. Please stop taking quotations from me out of context to imply things that I did not mean. This only muddies the water and distracts us from productive discussion.

Two Minute Drill ...
 

Last time I checked, the game was more than two minutes long.

Your shot clock would lead to more decisions in general, exactly the point of my post, really didn't need your quote, I hope that you ducked because it went right over your head, just missed.

Sounds like you don't like, or lack self confidence, making end of game decisions regarding intentional/non intentional fouls. While that's certainly fair, you are also willing to trade fewer of these decisions for thirty minutes of decisions regarding more shots, more rushed shots, more misses, more rebounds, etc.

Yeah, that's exactly what experienced officials like in their games, more shots, more rushed shots, more misses, and more rebounds. The more the merrier. These situations just make the game so much easier to work, even a cavemen can do it.

And please explain again how a shot clock will help with five second closely guarded calls, help that a game clock, or a video and a stopwatch won't provide?

The conference I assign (23 boys and 22 girls programs) is paying officials $66 each for a 3-person crew this season for varsity basketball. Lower levels pay $40 to $50 for 2-person crews.

Before I would cheer the decision to buy and implement shot clocks, I would scream out long and loud that 100% of this wasted money should go to improve officiating pay across the board.

Cause you know that schools will be mandated to install these stupid clocks and then for the next 10 years I'll have to hear "we don't have more money for officials cause we had to get shot clocks."

For. No. Good. Reason.

How many nights does an official in your conference work during a season?

I am seeing a pay increase this year. The increase I am seeing is by schools who have a hard time contracting officials due to location. In my area, a few local guys moved or retired recently and it is noticeable. The schools that are still paying the least are the ones with easier access to officials. I heard of guys in these areas working 45 nights. I am working around 30. In my area, I feel if some guys didn't work so hard to get every game possible, pay will go up. I really don't care about the money but it would be nice to have a little more leverage when it comes to recruiting new officials.

Middle Schools ...
 

Two big changes for me this season. I retired from my day job and made myself available for mid-afternoon middle school and freshman games. And, due to arthritis and a bone spur in my ankle, I turned back all my varsity assignments.

I had no idea how many middle schools were assigned by my "high school" board (many), and how hard it is to find officials available for mid-afternoon assignments (very few).

I'm working four middle school games this week, and four next week.

The pays is good. $63.05 for eight minute periods, $47.29 for six minute periods.

And all my games have been in contiguous towns, so no long road trips. I'm in and out, no games before or after my game to observe and evaluate. Because middle school sites often lack secure dressing areas, and may not have shower facilities available, we are encouraged to come dressed in uniform, so no packing and unpacking bags.

I work with new guys, and don't mind offering some tips. I also work with experienced (varsity) guys who get out of work early and want to work on days that they don't have a night assignment. I worked with a partner last week and between us we had over sixty years of experience. It was probably the best officiated middle school game in the state that afternoon.

That must have been fun. I hope the teams appreciated it!

Many years ago when my daughter was playing in an 8th grade CYO playoff game, they had a three person crew that was clearly an experienced HS crew--I can only assume they offered to do it for fun or to give back or something. It was fun to watch--such a stark change from the usual officiating they got. (And yes, they were tuned into what was appropriate at the 8th grade girl level--I know that is sometimes a challenge for referees working "down," as it can be hard to adjust to the level of play.)

Say It Ain't So (Weezer, 1994) ...
 

For the kids? Please say it ain't so.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cart...ha0287_low.jpg