Interesting:

http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/122028-4238-036.html

From that:
And, then, later in the article:

Well, there you go, coach. Now sit down.

I've never worked three-person (heck, I haven't hardly done any two-person) - what's the feeling among those of you who have done both, is it the way to go?

Without a doubt, a proper three-whistle is better than a proper "two" every night.
mick

Inexperience
 

Inexperience with 3 man mechanics might lead to some inconsistencies in the beginning of the 3 whistle program. But, as more and more people/crews get exposed to it, there is no contest when it comes to determining which system works best.

Hopefully, the Indiana state tournament will be filled with officials that have been working it at the college level.

Hopefully!
 

hopefully the Indiana state tourney will be worked by the high school officials who have earned the right to be there and if they happen to work some college ball the thats great but you do not have to work college ball to be a great high school official.

What Mick said.

What Chuck said.

What JR said.

What Tomegun......Oh that's me.

Re: Hopefully!
 

Unless of course Indiana is one of those states where the top officials work 95% college games and then dominate the HS tournament.

Re: Hopefully!
 

DJ,

You are right, of course, but you do have to call 3-man a lot to be comfortable and efficient with it. I should have just said, I hope that they use people that have earned the right to be there AND have gotten some 3 man experience somewhere. Where would that be in Indiana? When we converted here, we had good officials inexperienced in 3-man and it showed. On the court, some things would not get called or awkwardly called, which led to administators/coaches saying the exact same things quoted in the article.

Eventually, the goal is to get to the point where people are saying the same thing they always do - "the refs did a terrible job"(no mention of how many) :>)

In most games with talented players, you tend to be a second behind in many two person games, but when you do 3 person games, you see the whole play.

Studies show that there is no corrilation between 3 person and more fouls. Actually if I am not mistaken, the fouls were less and more accurate in a 3 person game.

The only thing is I hope the State of Indiana tries to train you guys on 3 Person instead of just throwing you to the wolves. It took our state a couple years for the officials to get used to the system. And it is very difficult to get a game that is not 3 person at the varsity level.

Peace

Rut,
Michigan HSAA, I understand, had a three-official clinic, for a time, prior to 1/4-final to final games, where three whistles were used, to ensure the officials would provide a certain amount of competence to the teams.

MHSAA last year, I think, stopped the practice because of the assumption that all (or at least enough) qualified officials are up to date with the three official mechanics.

mick

In our state 3 Person clinics and camps are a requirement of our license. And if you want to do the playoffs, you have to attend a 6 hour 3 Person Clinic in order to be elgible at all (classroom and court). And most regular season games are 3 Person. So officials in my state, 3 Person is like riding a bike. Even for the less experienced officials, they tend to have a general understanding of the system. We benefited from the camps. But it did not seem like it was going to last the way things went for the first couple years.

Peace

In Illinois, a few years back the IHSA switched to a three man crew for all varsity contests. I think it was a good move in the long run. In the begining some officials may not be used to having the extra guy out there. But once they get the hang of it, the games are better officiated.

Great!
 

Three man is great for those who get a chance to work it but some officials may not have an opportunity to work three man and may be excellent officials but be eliminated from consideration because of their lack of 3 person opportunities and this in my opinion if very unfair.

Re: Great!
 

This is basically the "official" rationale for not using 3-whistle in Massachusetts, even in the post-season. They are "worried" that only college officials will be qualified to work the 3-whistle system, thus the officials who work all regular season with only 2 officials get left out in the cold.

Chuck,

They used the State tournament as a carrot to begin with here. Their rationale was to to factor 3-man experience into the selection criteria with the hopes that the individuals and assignor groups would do all they could to speed the conversion process. I know there are still some outlying areas that work 2-man but most of our great state has converted.

A small problem occurs when we try to promote our successful sub-varsity folks that are using 2-man - they look lost once again. Our (assignor group, not state) next goal is to begin using 3-man on sub-varsity games to ease the transition from 2-man to 3-man as our guys are called to the show.

I don't know how it is in Mass. but we were not making enough money down here to let that be a factor in delaying this conversion. I hope that is not one of the reasons keeping y'all from implementing 3-man.

Mulk

Ronny, I never did hear the outcome, but wasn't there a vote in Georgia this year to replace IAABO as your state governing body? What was the outcome?

Re: Great!
 

DJ,

In the beginning, our state put the onus on the individuals and assignor groups to get their own training and experience. Be it camps or college experience. Also, the assignor groups had to sell this as a product to the schools that they support. Some schools still haven't converted. They don't see the better officials because the better officials only want to do 3-man, now.

Now, the state holds camps and recommend attendance every other year.

JR,

They did not GOVERN, instead they provided training and testing. A lot of people were unhappy with their performance verses their cost. The vote was to return to the original method with the state also providing the testing and training at half the price for the individual official.

The vote has been taken and I don't even know if it has been tabulated much less published. We keep hearing any day now.

They did not GOVERN, instead they provided training and testing. A lot of people were unhappy with their performance verses their cost. The vote was to return to the original method with the state also providing the testing and training at half the price for the individual official.

[/B][/QUOTE]Carnac the Ancient Magician sees in his crystal ball that you are a member of IAABO Board 305- Cherokee. If training and testing is taken away from IAABO, is it mandatory that you must still remain an IAABO member? Or will this Board no longer service your area? Or.....?

Just wondering how Georgia is looking at handling this.

JR,

For the past 3 years the state made membership mandatory in IAABO - all 1700 officials HAD to join to officiate. We have 26 assignor associations in Ga. and the leadership of those groups have already voted them out. Then, our commissioner thought there was some hankey-pankey in the manner in which that vote was taken and decided that the vote should be from the entire population. That vote is the one we are waiting on. If we vote IAABO out, then IAABO membership would go back to being an individual choice. However, IAABO would have zero role here. Most of our officials could not see what IAABO was bringing to the table, especially when you consider the additional cost. I will be surprised if they are not voted out.

Mulk

So, if you voted IAABO out, would you still be left with these exact same 26 associations in Georgia, with pretty much the same leadership as they had before?

If so, I can certainly see where you're coming from. IAABO can't really do anything for you that you aren't capable of doing yourself in-state anyway. True?

Exactly. So, why pay the additional money. I guess I should preface my following remarks with a statement that this was our association's experience and conversations we had with other associations' leaders.

All we could see out of IAABO was that it created another layer that frustrated the leadership of the associations. For example: Tests came down from IAABO, never in a timely manner. Then, they disagreed on who would grade, who would pay. IAABO only requires you to pass a test but Georgia wanted their officials to be tested every year. It was like pulling teeth to get rules books. Their registration period was months off our registration period making enrollment a nightmare. Insurance levels and costs were never clearly communicated. Was that all their fault? I doubt it, but before they came those problems did not exist. Again, these were problems that the leadership dealt with. The average official saw his dues more than double with really no increase in training by IAABO. It had to be equally frustrating for IAABO but losing 1700 members was not something they wanted to happen.

Bottom line is that IAABO claims to be training experts but all we saw from them were questions to us on what we needed. In defense of IAABO, people here probably expected more out of them than they normally provide.

Thanks for the info, Ronny. Very interesting. I can see how you were frustrated, seeing that a "Ronny Mulkey" happens to be listed as the vice-president of IAABO Board 305- Cherokee.

I thought this stuff was not important to you?
 

Ronny,

Why would any of this matter to you? I thought you were only interested in officiating, not the process of associations and moving thru the ranks? All this process has to do with the bureaucracy that helps determine who goes to the playoffs or not, not the "spirit of officiating" that you so much like to talk about. :rolleyes:

Peace

Going from 2-man to 3-man games is lot like using a remote controlled TV for the first time. You may hit a few wrong buttons and get the wrong channel a couple of times, but once you "get the hang of it" you will be amazed at how you survived with out it! You'll never want to do a 2-man game again......

The biggest benefit IMO, is game management. You have time to talk to players and coaches (they all just want to feel like you're listening to them) during key situations. You significantly reduce the chances of losing shooters, timing/scoring errors, and in general have a smooter game (substitutions, time-outs, etc).

Coaches who say they don't want a 3-man game should be "whacked" w/ a T to start the game for being REALLY stupid. Those are the coaches who have absolutely no clue about officiating.......

Re: I thought this stuff was not important to you?
 

Jeffrey,

You thought wrong is all I can say. IAABO being here had nothing to do with state tournament selection. But, you are right if you are saying that I care more about doing things the right way, rather than worrying about advancement.

Mulk

Tough call.
 

Do things the rule way ---> no advancement
Do things the accepted way ---> advancement

If those are the only choices we are allowed, then we are right between the shaft and the screw.

This remains a game, but show me your (assignor's) rules!

mick

Re: Tough call.
 

Mick,

Judgement is the factor that will determine an official's success. An understanding of rules knowledge will enhance that judgement.

I've asked this before, but do the assignors in your area teach methods contrary to NFHS rules/interps/case book
rulings? If not, where do these "acceptable" practices come from? Are they different than those published by the FED? If you applied a casebook ruling would you not advance?

Or, are talking about judgement and "spirit of intent"?

Re: Re: Tough call.
 

Ronny,
It doesn't matter here.

Athletic directors assign games. I think game management is important. I do not know who tells them which officials to select.

I heard that this year the athletic directors selected a very good official for the state tourney with the only problem being that particular official <s>hasn't worked in three years and he is living</s> hadn't worked this year and is wintering in Arizona. ;)

mick

(I got some new scoop. :cool: )


[Edited by mick on Feb 20th, 2004 at 12:07 PM]

I love to officiate, therefore I guess I would adapt but it just seems like a conflict of interest to let the schools or coaches do the selecting. Here, we have one guy that does the selecting and he very recently was a D1 official (think he still is) He is pro-official and he, at least, has an idea of what makes a good official. This is his second year and he made many changes.

ronny,
To have an assignor of that caliber, or to have someone like JR, with his vast knowledge and experience, do the selecting, life must be good.
Attaboy!
mick

Thanks for the kind words, Mick, even though I almost gagged on my cornflakes when I read them. :D

Now, to be serial( or cereal):I really think that to select officials properly, the person(s) selecting should definitely have officiating experience. He also shouldn't be swayed by any external issues, such as politics, etc. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, the ol' debbil "politics" can still be the determining factor in a lot of areas. I've had coaches ask me about having more input into the selection of officials. I usually ask them the same questions- i.e. "When you're coaching, are you watching the officials, or are you watching the play,players,etc.?"; "If you watch a game, do you concentrate on the officials, and not the game?"; "Did you read the mechanics manual so that you know when an official is where he is supposed to be, and not really out of position?"; "Did you pass the NFHS rules exam this year, and do you also keep current with the latest interpretations,etc.?".

When I read about states that assign games without any input at all from the officials, or without checking input if they do get some, well, you just have to wonder. Unfortunately, usually nothing gets done about it though. That's when you end up with guys going to regionals from their area, while better officials are staying home.

Re: Re: Tough call.
 

Well, that depends on what <b>you</b> feel is contrary to what the NF says. See we have kind of a close relationship with the NF. The editor left her job with the IHSA and went directly to the NF. So yes, there are rules that are taught to enforce closer than others, but that is the case in all sports at all levels. And if you are worried about one play in a casebook that might never happen, not sure any advancement is wrapped up in that one rule. But if you have no common sense and are always making unusual calls (multiple fouls), it can hurt you in the long run. Because our assignors can report to the state who they think deserves playoff consideration, but the state makes the final decisions based on many factors. But those "acceptable" practices have nothing to do with not applying the rules, but they are called philosophies. And if you are calling clean blocks, but contact on the body in my area, you might not be seen as a good official that uses good judgment. Especially if you are working that higher caliber of ball.

So the difference between me and you, seem to listen to the folks around me and what they want, because they are the ones that pay the bills or hire me. The NF does not.

Peace

Ya but
 

Yabut, she stopped in Michigan before that. ;)

Jeffrey,

I listen to the folks around me and most encourage NFHS principals and guidelines. I continue to ask, is that not the case in your area. More to the point, can you cite plays or rules that the people around you tell you not to call that is contrary to Fed rulings? And, I am not talking about judgement here - I am talking about an instance where some assignor told you to NEVER call 3 seconds, for example.

Re: Ya but
 

What did she do exactly? Because if I am not mistaken, she was offered the job when she left here. She then took another position but and then went to the NF. I just know that she was not loved by many around here (I am talking <b>only</b> about the officiating body here). There was more relief when she left. But she did a lot of good things here and that feeling seems to be in the minority.

Peace

Re: Re: Ya but
 

Weston -
Born in PA
moved to Wayne, MI (Detroit)
Played at Dayton, OH
MS Kent State
Worked a tourney in Michigan 70's
Taught Livonia, MI
U-Whitewater, WI
Central Mich U. Mt.Pleasant MI 31 years

(<I>Source: Referee Mag - Feb 2004</I>)

Ron, as usually you overblow the issue. Yes we are encouraged to use the NF guidelines. But the NF does not have a specific guideline for everything. The NF only gives rules, they often do not help interprete all their rules and their mechanics. Many states job is to fill in the blanks. And when they fill in the blanks, everyone across the country is not going to agree.

I have never had an assignor/IHSA Clinician or State Evaluator say <b>never call 3 seconds.</b> But I have had many of those folks refer to 3 seconds as a "game interrupter" and should not be the best call of an official. And when we talked about telling coaches how many timeouts they have as stated in 2-11-6, to not make a big deal out of that. Many have the attitude that the coaches should know their status, it is not our job to try to "find out" or go out of our way to tell them they have used all their timeouts. Mainly because if a coach is upset with you, you just gave him a great opportunity to get a "free shot" to rag on you about something in the game. I even have never heard anyone say not to call a Multiple Foul, but it has been said to not go looking for $h!t. And if you call one, that is exactly what you are doing.

But all those things I just said, have absolutely nothing to do with advancing or not advancing. It is the sum of many parts that will get you "moved up" or not. But if you are a maverick and doing your own thing, you can and will lose credibility in your officiating. But that is no different than anything else in life. But I have always said that basketball is about judgment, not rules. I do not have plays in many games that I would have to scratch my head over and wonder did I make the proper ruling. I think we tend to over-blow that here too often.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Ya but
 

I do not think we are talking about the same person. I am talking about Mary Struckoff.

Peace

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ya but
 

Rut,
M'bad.
Weston writes Marcy's Memos for NCAA.
I get credit for kickin' this one. ;)
mick

great post
 

Jeffrey,

You finally answered a question directly. I wish I knew how to save this post.

Mulk

Re: great post
 

Sure Ron. I have been at this specific site for about 7 years and this was the very first time I answered a question directly. :rolleyes: But then again, you are the one that assumes that if they do not do it your way, they have to be doing something in the face of the NF.

Peace