2-Person Mechanics Thought Experiment

[ilyazhito]

In 2-person mechanics, the officials become Lead and Trail after the initial jump ball ends. However, those positions leave much to be desired when it comes to court coverage, because there is no good way to cover plays on the side opposite the Trail without sacrificing Lead coverage in the post. Plays above the free-throw line extended opposite the Trail are also difficult to cover, because the Trail might not have a good angle.

Transition is another difficult area for 2-person crews, because one official will be ahead of the players and the other behind (with no-one in the middle to watch the middle 3rd of players and recover should there be a quick change of direction). For these reasons, I have thought about modifying 2-person mechanics to include a Trail and Center instead of a Trail and Lead.
I think that Trail and Center would be easier to work, because there won't be as many long transitions (C hangs back as T, T would move to C). Switches on fouls would be easier (just cross the court, official who administers throw-in will be trail; C administers free throws and watches shooter/opposite spaces, T watches opposite spaces and perimeter. Rebounding responsibilities will be T strongside, C weakside). In the frontcourt, T will move to C and officiate off-ball if the ball and multiple match ups leave his area. C will become Trail when the ball enters his area and he has multiple matchups. This will be akin to the movements of a 3-person crew during a rotation (initiated by Lead, except for high pressure on the ball).

By encouraging proper off-ball coverage, and keeping the PCAs similar to 3-person, a Trail and Center system would provide better court coverage than the current Trail and Lead system, where neither position truly resembles their 3-person namesake. A T-C system, along with teaching officials how to work and move as the Lead, would significantly ease the transition of officials from the 2-person system to the 3-person system. What do you think?

[JRutledge]

All I will say, there is a reason there are 3 officials and not 2 in many varsity games at the higher level. If there are issues with 2 person to 3 person transition, that is on the people that teach it in your area or the officials commitment to learning 3 person. I do not see how changing the system helps that transition.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Four officials would be better than three. Three officials are better than two. Two officials are better than one (some states allow for one official games in extreme circumstances, not all, but some). Three officials are more expensive than two officials.

Tell us something we already don't know.

For argument sake, maybe a center would be better than a lead in a two person game? Are you doing it because it's really better, or because it eases the two to three person transition? If so, they're eventually going to have to learn the lead position.

Here in Connecticut, where 90 plus % of regular season varsity games, and all state tournament games before the quarterfinals, are two person games, the powers that be seem to be pleased with two person mechanics just the way we've been doing it for many years. Sure, a little tweak here and there, but pretty much the same for a very long time.

And as far as I know, 99% of interscholastic subvarsity games (including middle school) are two person games, as are 99 plus % of all travel and recreation games, adults and kids, both genders.

Games on all levels, have to be officiated. Many games will never see three person crews. Never. Ever.

It's not always about easing the transition of officials from a two person system to the three person system. We have training sessions, workshops, seminars, camps, and scrimmages in place for those that want to learn the three person system.

Even in states that have used varsity three person crews for a long time, I'm willing to bet that there are a lot more games (subvarsity, middle school, travel, recreation, etc.) officiated with two officials than with three officials.

Why change the the whole system, a system that's worked fairly well for so long, for a small percentage of games officiated?

You want to upset the apple cart and have guys learn a three person system with only two officials so they can be successful in their three person games, ignoring the fact that many of those guys will be doing many many two person games on off nights and weekends, and many may never work a varsity game ever, certainly not a three person varsity game.

Not every basketball game played needs to look like an NBA or WNBA game. Not every basketball official needs to look like an NBA or WNBA official.

There's a lot of basketball to be played and officiated below the NBA and WNBA level, below the college level, below the high school varsity level, and yes, below the high school level. While lower level games may be training grounds for players and officials moving to higher level games, it shouldn't be the end all.

Newly retired from my day job, with a chronic ankle injury, I worked a lot of middle school games this past season with many officials. Yes, some are rookies and are on their way up the ladder, but many are "middle school officials for life", and by that I mean, while they may be great officials, they just want to work afternoons at nearby local middle schools, avoiding rush hour travel, observations, and politics of the varsity "game". Others are very poor officials who will never see the light of a varsity game, many aren't naive and already know that, and may just want stay involved with the game of basketball, and make some easy cash. With the exception of those moving up the ladder, most don't need any easing of the transition of from a two person system to the three person system, most will never see a three person game. Never. Ever.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's not always about easing the transition of officials from a two person system to the three person system. We have training sessions, workshops, seminars, camps, and scrimmages in place for those that want to learn the three person system.

I cannot speak for everyone's area. But we do not limit what people try to get exposed to with either system. Not sure why you would change a system for people that have no desire to work 3 person in the first place. We have IHSA state-run camps and it is up to each official to decide what camps they will attend.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why change the the whole system, a system that's worked fairly well for so long, for a small percentage of games officiated?

You want to upset the apple cart and have guys learn a three person system with only two officials so they can be successful in their three person games, ignoring the fact that many of those guys will be doing many many two person games on off nights and weekends, and many may never work a varsity game ever, certainly not a three person varsity game.

Not every basketball game played needs to look like an NBA or WNBA game. Not every basketball official needs to look like an NBA or WNBA official.

There's a lot of basketball to be played and officiated below the NBA and WNBA level, below the college level, below the high school varsity level, and yes, below the high school level. While lower level games may be training grounds for players and officials moving to higher level games, it shouldn't be the end all.

This is the part I 1000% agree with.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Newly retired from my day job, with a chronic ankle injury, I worked a lot of middle school games this past season with many officials. Yes, some are rookies and are on their way up the ladder, but many are "middle school officials for life", and by that I mean, while they may be great officials, they just want to work afternoons at nearby local middle schools, avoiding rush hour travel, observations, and politics of the varsity "game". Others are very poor officials who will never see the light of a varsity game, many aren't naive and already know that, and may just want stay involved with the game of basketball, and make some easy cash. With the exception of those moving up the ladder, most don't need any easing of the transition of from a two person system to the three person system, most will never see a three person game. Never. Ever.

They will not see that during any varsity or college level game. They might see it in the summer during some AAU/Travel tournament, but not during when the lights are the hottest. It is up to each official to put in the effort to learn the system they want to be exposed to and on them to learn the system they are working to get acclimated to those levels.

I worked 3 person in my first year. My state was going to 3 person for all playoff games in my second year. I was asked if I was willing to work with some people so they could learn the system themselves. That was on me to say "sure" or not limit my knowledge. By my third year, I was working all varsity and every game was a 3 person game as well. No one had to teach me anything that I was not willing to learn. If you have to change an entire system for a few people, you are not serving the community very well. We have people in our area only going to camps so they can get their very basic qualifications just to keep their license.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you have to change an entire system for a few people, you are not serving the community very well.

Well stated. What I said in several paragraphs JRutledge stated in one sentence.

[ilyazhito]

The main goal for this thought experiment was to provide improved court coverage relative to the existing system. I believe that a T-C system would address the deficiencies of the current system in transition coverage, and would ensure proper 2-person coverage of both sides of the court at all times.

The fact that a T-C system might ease transition from 2 officials to 3 is but a byproduct of the system. What do you think about the T-C system on its own, without any reference to 3-person?