2-Person Mechanics Thought Experiment

[ilyazhito]

I never said the above. While 3-person crews, shot clocks, and the restricted area are appropriate for high school (9th grade and above) and higher level games, I never suggested that they are appropriate for the 4th-grade youth game. I would selectively introduce 3-person crews with competitive 7th/8th grade games, and then add on more complications as the level increases (shot clock for high school, restricted area for high school by state adoption (unless NFHS chooses to approve it nationally) and college).

My thoughts about Trail and Center mechanics were to develop a viable system for subvarsity games where 3-person mechanics should be used, based on quality of play and the playing style, but where costs and other considerations prevent a 3-person crew from being employed. This was an attempt to improve the 2-person system for scholastic games where it is used, despite it not being a good solution to the modern game of basketball.

The traditional 2-person system is more than adequate for youth and lower level games, because the teams are not yet good enough to take advantage of the areas where the traditional 2-person system fails (off-ball coverage, transition play, coverage of plays away from the Trail).

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

My thoughts about Trail and Center mechanics were to develop a viable system for subvarsity games where 3-person mechanics should be used, based on quality of play and the playing style, but where costs and other considerations prevent a 3-person crew from being employed.

So now we are back to the venn diagram problem. The system you are proposing is for a subset of games with the conditions of:
*subvarsity
*with quality of play between opponents that 2 competent, fit quality officials can't handle
*style of play that 2 competent, fit quality officials can't manage
*where they could have 3 person if costs/other factors didn't interfere

I'm sure you could certain regions, tournaments, areas where you might be able to get a higher frequency of games that meet these criteria but if you look at subvarsity games as a whole this is a pretty narrow niche for an entirely different structure.

I don't know a lot of subvarsity games that 2 high level officials can't manage effectively under their current roles.

And regardless of the level of subvarsity play you still need someone with vision from under the rim on plays in the paint IMO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I don't know a lot of subvarsity games that 2 high level officials can't manage effectively under their current roles.

Pantherdreams: Don't worry about the players, the game, or the quality of officiating, worry about the ease of learning how to work the trail and center of future three person games (but actually in a two person game) so that one can improve the quality of one's three person officiating so that one can move up the ladder quickly. This the most important factor in this experiment. Yeah, that's what's most important here. It's all about the continuing education of the official. Let's call it official centered, or maybe, officialcentric, with the official, and his constant need to improve for only the sake of moving up the ladder to higher and higher levels, being the center of the basketball universe (should I have used a blue font, no, I think you get it).

Side note, here in Connecticut, the purpose of subvarsity high school games is so that players can have fun and learn to play better, and so that officials can start their careers in games that don't "count". Nobody keeps track of wins and losses. It's common knowledge that officials will often make mistakes. Oddly, high school freshman and junior varsity games here in Connecticut have less "impact" than middle school games, where we have middle school leagues, wins, losses, championships, gymnasium banners, etc. I got bigger and louder crowds at my middle school games last season than at my junior varsity and freshman games (of course all the fans came to see me, I'm worth the price of admission (free)).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I never said the above.

Fair point (although I was being hyperbolic). While your intent may be good, it still reeks of an easier path for you as you deal with your (as I believe from your posts) motley schedule of subvarsity high school games, varsity high school games, junior (community) college games, and possibly Division II or III games. Of course your officiating would be easier, and your performance much better if you used the same rules and mechanics for all levels.

A few esteemed Forum members have already posted about the need for a lead, all the time, at all levels, there's no getting around it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

...

What camps have you attended so far this off season? What do you have coming up?

I'm sure over the last season your mentors/friends have given you some things to work on.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What camps have you attended so far this off season? What do you have coming up?

I'm sure over the last season your mentors/friends have given you some things to work on.

Answered in a PM.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I never said the above. While 3-person crews, shot clocks, and the restricted area are appropriate for high school (9th grade and above) and higher level games, I never suggested that they are appropriate for the 4th-grade youth game. I would selectively introduce 3-person crews with competitive 7th/8th grade games, and then add on more complications as the level increases (shot clock for high school, restricted area for high school by state adoption (unless NFHS chooses to approve it nationally) and college).

My thoughts about Trail and Center mechanics were to develop a viable system for subvarsity games where 3-person mechanics should be used, based on quality of play and the playing style, but where costs and other considerations prevent a 3-person crew from being employed. This was an attempt to improve the 2-person system for scholastic games where it is used, despite it not being a good solution to the modern game of basketball.

The traditional 2-person system is more than adequate for youth and lower level games, because the teams are not yet good enough to take advantage of the areas where the traditional 2-person system fails (off-ball coverage, transition play, coverage of plays away from the Trail).

The game has not drastically changed that much in the 20 plus years since I started officiating. There was a 3 point line then and there is one now. The most thing that happens is there are more 3 point shots taken by many teams but not all teams. There are not more 3 point shots being made overall. A good day is still to shoot around 35% from that line and that means that over 70% of those shots are missed. That means someone still needs to be on the end line to cover rebounding or other movements to the basket. Nothing has changed that drastically. The game is basically the same with more emphasis on shooting. There is also still post play, but it is more a drive and kick game that still has people going to the post. I see no point in taking an official completely off the end line for what often does not produce much of the contact or plays in our game. You are way over thinking things and if people keep telling you that your ideas are misplaced, at some point you should listen. The game has not changed overnight for the majority of us that would still do 2 person. I still do two person in summer and off-season games and your idea frankly would put us at a disadvantage in those games and I understand 3 person clearly.

Love the enthusiasm but sometimes I believe you are trying to worry about something that is so narrow that it does not apply to most situations. Even if we take on your idea, it applies to a very small percentage of the community or even games.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I believe you are trying to worry about something that is so narrow that it does not apply to most situations.

Narrow? How about too broad. ilyazhitoc can quote, verbatim, from any rule set, or mechanics set, that exists, NFHS, IAABO, NCAA, NBA, WNBA, FIBA, etc. He knows which states use which rules and mechanics, shot clocks, restricted areas, halves, three person crews, fees, etc., all committed to memory. And he never screws up the differences here on the Forum, seems to have a good grasp of all basketball rule differences, all basketball mechanics differences, all state differences, all the time.

You could blindfold him, put him in a helicopter, and drop him into any game, any level, anywhere and he would hit the court running. Two person freshman high school game in Boise, Idaho? No problem. Three person FIBA game in Fort Nelson, British Columbia? Child's play. Two person high school varsity game in Troy, New York? Easy. Division II college game in North Platte, Nebraska? Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Knicks versus Heat in Miami? No trouble. Storm versus Sun at the Mohegan Sun Casino? Just make sure that he has time to play the slots after the game.

Could he have spread himself too thin, thus explaining why he desperately wants consistent rules and mechanics over different levels?