I'm going to love the new hit signal. Our commissoner is a sticler for the open hand hit, now we get to use the fist. Nice.

I find this amazing and different from what I'm used to. I don't want to put you on the spot but about how many games do you have for next season? I'm just sitting here wondering what it would be like to know when I'm working next season. I think a place I worked in the past doesn't even have schedules finalized for next season. I know this because an assistant coach told me a few years ago that they were having a hard time getting teams to play them. This was in the summer. Of course they went on to win state pretty easily. Anyway, how does the system work?

I have no problem with the table-side switch in the big scheme of things and beleive that the incidence of T's will increase for those thin skinned officials. I do wonder if coming table side may have the effect of "baiting" a coach to question a call more than he would have had I not been there in front of him. Maybe even to the extent that it would be distracting or disruptive to the flow of the game. Venting to the off-call official had its merits and may have saved many a coaches from T's.

Is requesting an explanation a priviledge for a coach or a required response by an official? I think a well-managed game will afford a fair amount of explaining, on a situational basis, but may be tempered by the mutual level of respect that exists between the coach and official. In any event, I think this change will work out just fine.....at least for me.

The same conversations about going table-side came up in higher-level ball over the last few years..."More T's will be called because...", "thin-skinned officials will...", "the coaches will be able to..." After several years of this (speaking only from my own experiences reffing, observing, evaluating, etc) I have seen fewer T's called because the coach isn't screaming across the court at someone and because the calling official is now right there where they can have an actual conversation about the call...coaches who were jerks before will still be jerks, and refs who couldn't handle being griped at before will still have problems with that...but in the larger picture, it will make things go a whole lot smoother...

In Wisconsin, assigning is done by Conference Commissioners or by the AD for non-conference games. It is typical for the commissioners to schedule 2 years or more in advance. The AD's normally do the games a season in advance.

Mregor

League commissioners send out availability sheets about 2 seasons in advance -- when this basketball season was about done they started coming in for 05-06. I probably have an almost full schedule for next season and about 16 scheduled thus far for 05-06.

We will pick up some for next season later as schedules get finalized.

--Rich

Rocky, I'm with you all the way on this one.

What do we know as far as percentages of areas of the country using 3 man in H.S.? From tidbits of info I gather from here and there it seems like they are still fairly small. So most will not be affected, right?

State of WA looks like they may be going to three man at State Tournament time, which some are speculating there will then be pressure to implement this at the playoff levels as well.

Other changes are afoot in this area for suggestions on how to get approval for 3 man during reg. season, much of it involving reduced pay for the first 2-3 years to the officials. Another instance of the officials getting dumped on, IMO. At least there is movement to get us there (3-man mech.)

I know our local Assoc. in Vancouver has been fighting the State the last two seasons to go to 3-person, but they keep telling us no for different reasons...I think we might be able to break that this summer - we have all of our area 4A and 3A coaches and AD's on board, and have $$ issues all figured out (I don't know the details of that for sure) and WIAA office has been more receptive, so we will see...

So what's the reasoning in moving table side in a 3-person game vs. NOT going table side in a 2-person game?

I guess maybe you figure with only two sets of eyes, we can't have one set being dedicated to a coach?

When they made the switch here in Iowa to 3-whistle, they had the refs do two games instead of one (usually boys/girls double header, but sometimes V/JV). I believe this cut down on mileage expenses as well as per-person game fees to make up for the extra official.

[/B][/QUOTE]Originally posted by Rockyroad
[B]

Quote:

I know our local Assoc. in Vancouver has been fighting the State the last two seasons to go to 3-person, but they keep telling us no for different reasons...I think we might be able to break that this summer - we have all of our area 4A and 3A coaches and AD's on board, and have $$ issues all figured out (I don't know the details of that for sure) and WIAA office has been more receptive, so we will see...

Rocky, would be interested in some of the details on this. I serve on our on the Exec. board for our assoc. and would be very curious as to any details you may be able to get on what the different factions were able to agree on--esp. the $$ issue.

The WIAA is more receptive because they have put in motion the changes to use 3 man at State. And supposedly, to qualify to work State, officials assigned must have been through a 3 man, certified camp that the WIAA/WOA will be sponsoring throughout the off-season. Also, they are looking at reducing the # of officials at each venue from the current 16 back to the 12 they had in years past.

Could I ask you to email me the specifics if you are able to out what they are? Thanks, David

Dan, it just doesn't really make sense for the calling official to go table-side every time in a 2-whistle game. Mainly b/c sometimes the table-side official will be the Lead. And if the point of going table-side is to foster communication with the coach, then it won't help much.

Unless you're willing to say, that the calling official always becomes the table-side Trail. (You could do this with FTs, with only minor adjustments.) But then we're going to have to adjust all kinds of other mechanics.

Just doesn't seem workable or practical a lot of the time for a 2-whistle game.

My guess is that it's more the fact that the switch in 2-man is the "north-south" switch combined with the basic positioning on a 2-man throwin. If the ball is being inbounded on the baseline tableside, then it's kinda hard for the trail to also be tableside.

The only two changes that would really be helpful weren't adopted: team control fouls, and POI for Ts. :(

Why would they have instituted this change and not carried it over to the block signal as well? I just think the fists on the hips is such a stronger \'more in control\' certitude than the \'mamby-bampy\' curtsey signal of the open hand on hips we have to use now. Maybe next year, huh?