For our AAU ball, 2-person crews usually work three or even four games consecutively in a weekend tournament (then they come back the next day and do it again). These are 28 or 32-minute games, tipping off 70 or 75 minutes apart, so there is little or no downtime for the officials. It's a long day's work, but we see plenty of good and conscientious officiating, even under these suboptimal conditions

In a sizable minority of the games (15-25% maybe?), however, the officials elect not to switch positions on the dead ball -- or ever, in fact. Maybe they will switch at a quarter of half break -- although in a game last week with two 16-minute halves, I heard them agree that they shouldn't switch at the half, because the teams' switching ends would negate their switch.

I've now coached about 300 games, and officiating issues irked me a lot more in my first 50 games than in the next 250 [funny, SOMEBODY must have grown a LOT more capable during that time, :) ]. But this really gets under my skin. The kids are trying to play the right way, the families are paying for the experience, and the officials are being paid (not enough, I'm sure -- but paid -- ). This practice is simply lazy, as far as I can see. Plus, there is at least some chance of an impact on the game where the same official is on the baseline for all of Team A's possessions and none of team B's possessions -- that's why the dead ball-switch rule exists in the first place, right?

So (finally), the questions are:

Is there some NFHS or other exeception to the dead ball-switch practice? Is there something about this practice that is NOT wrong?

Would this nonswitching bother you as a coach -- remembering at this is pre-HS ball, and in the context of these 4-hour shifts these guys are working?

If it would bug you as it does me, how and to whom would you get it off your chest?

My next technical foul will be my first -- I'm sincerely interested in: (a) ideas about respectful ways to raise this; or (b) a thoughtful view that it's no big deal and I should forget about it.

First...the "dead ball switch" is rare.
(Coach, officials switch after every foul...not after every dead ball)
We do have what we call "long switches"...briefly, this is when a ball goes out of bounds near an official and he/she dosen't want to make his/her partner run over to the OOB spot...so he/she takes the ball out instead, then the off official will do a "long switch". This is not really a mechanic that is used where I come from, but it can speed up the game, (especially during a running clock). I must admit, I have used this mechanic in lower level games and REC leagues.
Another switch that we might do during a dead ball concerns some front court activity...I'll let someone else explain it if they want. (It's getting late) :)

Basically, Coach, if you have a question about switching mechanics...I would have no problem with you coming up and asking me what they are...and maybe discussing your concerns as well. I suppose each official could take your questions differently...and there lies your original concern. If you are sincere and display good sportsmanship while you discuss these issues...there shouldn't be a problem.

Three or four games in a row with 2-man crews? I don't care how young or what kind of shape the official is in, it's impossible for that official to be physically able to get into position in the latter stages of their latter games. There's only so much in the tank to start with, and you don't get a chance to re-fill it when you work that many consecutive games. So, what it boils down to, coach, is you have the officials opting to save what's left of their legs for when it's needed for actual game situations, or maybe using up some of their available "gas" on switches instead. Your choice, coach. If you'd rather have them switch, don't be surprised when they're not in position to nail that block/charge call in their third consecutive game. Hell, if they're in their 4th consecutive game, don't expect hem to be in position a LOT of the time. It's just too much physically. Most state high school tournaments limit the officials to ONE game a day for those exact reasons. And that's with 3-man crews!

The solution? Hire enough officials so that they are assigned a maximum of two, maybe three games a day, with at least three hours to recover between EACH single game. If the tournament convenors aren't willing to do that, then they're the ones that you should be complaining to- not the officials. And if there's not enough good officials available to hire, as is usually the case, then you don't really have much choice about putting up with the officials' fatigue.

Make sense?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jul 17th, 2004 at 05:00 AM]

Around here, all rec ball, and most other non-Fed ball is done by folks doing three or four in a row. It's just simple economics -- it's not worth the preparation and the drive for the amount of pay we get for one or two games. The way we survive is that we don't switch on every foul. In general, however, I insist to my partners to switch on every "foul on the shot".

Part of the reason for switching is so that the players get some kind of consistency at both ends of the court. If I always call certain contact a foul, and my partner never does, then if we don't switch, the teams are getting two different games. But if we switch at least periodically, then the play is seen from the same angle by the same ref at both ends, and the calls are more consistent.

Jay, we use the word "switch" to mean changing ends of the court. So if I'm under the basket nad my partner is out by the arc, and I call a foul on the shot, the switch would put me out by the arc and my partner under the basket during the free throws. But when the defense rebounds, and we go to the other end, now I'm under the basket and partner is out by the arc again. That's why switching helps. I'm calling the plays under the basket at both ends, partner is calling plays up top at both ends.

What RookieDude is calling a "long switch" I don't understand at all. But suffice it to say that in your setting you're probably not going to get anything that might be called a long switch, and don't sweat it.

Cross-court "switches" are less important, although in an ideal world, they do have their advantages. But you'll only get those rarely, as well.

in general, I wouldn't accept refs who literally never switch throughout the entire game. I would insist, politely, that they switch at least every minute or two. Yea, they're going to be tired, but they need to just suck it up and dig deep and all those other cliches that we give players when they're tired. Sheez, if I can do three or four in a row, and do a decent job, anyone should be able to! If you discuss this before the game begins, and if you describe reasonably why you think it's important, then I think you should get at least some cooperation.

Otherwise, you might have a talk with the person who hires and assigns the refs. Perhaps away from the overheated situation of a certain tournament, you could get some satisfaction.

Just got back from doing three games in a King of the Mountain HS tournament this morning. Games were 18 minute running time halves (clocked stoped last two minutes of halfs)-three minutes between games--you can bet we did not switch every time we would usually have--as mentioned above save these old legs a bit-we did switch on shooting fouls--game went well coaches and kids had no problems

Switching is done on fouls as Juulie pointed out. Som makes a good point about not switching on common fouls. But in addition to saving our energy for when we need it e.g., fast breaks, presses, etc., not switching on common fouls helps the game move along better. Good officials have numerous ways to have to game move along without unnecessary delays.

Coach, don't want to sound like a snob, but why not let the officials choose their methods. If you are getting good officiating, why are you questioning HOW they do things? We don't complain about HOW you coach....

Coach - this is called "convenience mechanics".

We typically switch on shooting fouls as well, and as a close games wraps up we treat it pretty much like a school gane. Prior to that, we do some non-standard things such as long bounces of the ball inbounding and piggybacking timeouts(having the closest official report).

If there is not a shooting foul in several minutes and an oppurtunity presents itself on a non-shooting foul or violation we may switch then as well.

I just finished 4 AAU games under the exact conditions you said (70-75 min intervals, 16 min halves). I feel it's best to switch on almost every shooting foul no matter how tired you are b/c you don't have to run during this time. It takes a little time for everyone to get set up for the free throw so you don't have to run on these switches. If you don't switch then the lead has to come around the players, report the foul, get everyone set and administer the FTs while the Trail is left picking his nose. The only time I don't switch on shooting fouls is when I or my partner is lagging behind in transition and they have to come a ways down.

I tell you though we sure were tired of switching after the 3rd game (60 combined fouls, fire alarm for 30 mins, 2 T's on head coach, 1 T on Asst Coach, and an elephant ran on the court which took awhile to clean up the mess it left :)). The game took 2 hrs instead of the 70-75 mins. To top it off the same team played in the next game (my 4th)!

I think it used to be called, "Strothers-Style". As in, "yea, I've got 6 at the Hoop tonight. We're working Strothers-Style." Although, when I do that, I don't do the part about reffing from the concession stand!

Coach,
I'd be happy to switch by the book, if you wanted it, but if the game is played with a running-clock just know that you will be wasting a lot of playing time.
To put it more plainly, the main reason that we don't switch is to give you more playing time.
Now for summer games that are played with a clock that stops on every whistle, I have some different thoughts. I believe that the officials should be paid a fair amount for their work, so I compare the games to regular-season HS games. We know that a standard HS game is 32 minutes of stop-clock time. We each know what the pay is for these games. I simply ask ahead of time what timing rules the tournament will use and what the pay will be. I think that 80-85% of the HS fee would be fair for summer stop-clock games. If the tournament isn't offering that, I simply don't make myself available. I am convincing more and more officials in my local area to do the same thing. A local assignor and I have talked about this, as he has noticed that it is becoming considerably more difficult to find officials to cover these weekend tournaments. We figure that the tournament coordinators are either going to have to raise the pay or go to a running clock, otherwise they will soon find themselves going to the local city league guys. They may not be happy with the quality of officiating they receive. But you get what you pay for.

PSI would NEVER be willing to do this! No way am I going to wreck an entire Saturday by spreading out my schedule of games like this. I have things to do in life, so I want to work my games in blocks and then get out of there. Also, the back-to-back-to-back schedule generally prevents officials from having to see a team more than once. If there were a few hours off between games, you might return to have the same team again. Probably not the best situation.

That's mighty altruistic of you, Nevada. I don't think that's really true for most officials at summer games. Most officials are pacing themselves, and understandably so.

I would NEVER be willing to do this! No way am I going to wreck an entire Saturday by spreading out my schedule of games like this. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's not very altruistic of you, Nevada. And I also think that it's true for most officials at summer games. :)

[Edited by ChuckElias on Jul 20th, 2004 at 07:01 AM]

T'other day, I worked three in a row.
Except for the last minute of the game, we only administered free throws on shooting fouls.

At every free throw, I forced the switch.
mick

I don't see how this is a problem.

My freshman year, intramural refs would work 3 games in a row, and we'd switch on all appropriate fouls (although there was quite a bit of disagreement on the need for the long switch).

As to the three hour between games comment? I wish I could implement that at GW!! :p

Since nobody has responded to Juulie's quizzing over RookieDude's "long switch" I just thought I'd throw out that it sounds like what he's talking about is not doing the "bump and run" when the ball goes oob in front of the trail (who would otherwise become the new lead). Instead the trail takes it out and the lead runs the length of the court.

On the topic of the long switch on a foul, I was counseled at a camp this summer to never do the long switch. The reason given is that it puts both officials in the back court while most of the players are making their way down court with less supervision than they should have. How do you all feel about this? The argument against it makes sense to me. Are there any good arguments for doing the long switch?

Are there any good arguments for doing the long switch?

Sure...one official gets to rest and one official gets to run. One outa two ain't bad.

I could see forcing it if the upcoming arrangement puts one ref too close to a certain coach, but I sure prefer the bump and run as a general rule.

As a person who did a three game set last night in a summer league, I concur with minimizing the switching. The clock is running so you don't want to slow the game down to give the players/coaches time to play/work on the things.

For some reason when you have these long sets, it seems the last game of the night seems to be the best one. So last night both teams decided to turn the game into a glorified track meet. The gals were sprinting up and down the floor like gazelles.

Though I have relatively young legs to work with, I was quite gassed by the end of the game.

Speaking only for myself, having officials who hustle even is probably what I'd look for first, that and consistency. Seeing I don't know all the switching mechanics, I wouldn't know or necessarily care about how much they switched in a summer game, as long as they hustle.

I'm not sure if this is the norm, but last year in a summer a game, the trail was about 6 feet shy of crossing half court and called a travel down in the opposite block with the ball handler in heavy traffic. I'd love to know how he keeps his eyesight so sharp ;)

Coach, you know it is not the norm. There are times, however, when a call like that has to be made if (1)trail is not guessing (2)it is a "Must-make call, i.e., hard foul and (3)lead partner missed it (trail should hold up slightly on whistle).
__________________________________________________ _______
“Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery.”

Jack, I'm going to disagree with you here, to the extent that you're saying this particular travel is a must-get. And if trail really thought it was a must-get, he'd better double hustle before he starts blowing and be clear down to the 3-point line before he's done. Either that, or find another hobby.

I agree, Juulie.
I had 4 games yesterday, and I had a few plays where my partner went fishing. One play in particular, I was trail and he was lead when he blows the whistle on an OOB on my sideline.
A: He blew the whistle before the ball actually landed OOB.
B: The entire play was in my primary and he was looking through the players in the lane to get it.
C: He immediately pointed the direction he thought the ball should go. He was right, but I was a little miffed about it.

A 2nd play occurred on a fast break when he called a shooting foul as the trail from 3/4 court away. I was right on the play and saw no contact.

No, I didn't respond by going on my own fishing expeditions. I did, however, initiate a few more switches than were necessary to make him work a bit harder.

No Juulie, I am not saying this particular travel is a must-get. I said hard foul is a must-get. I think trail was, in this instance, not hustling and then calling out of their primary when they were in poor position.

Many thanks for the comments so far. It’s neat to see a topic percolate over a few days. (Although now I may kill it . . . .)

Rookie Dude: My fault for not rewriting “dead ball” when “foul call” was the term I wanted. Of course you’re right, nobody expects or would want a switch on every whistle. A switch every couple of minutes or on the shooting fouls is plenty good.

And I’d second Stat-Man’s views: if the officials are hustling, the rest of it is largely moot. But then I can’t remember seeing too many hustling officials who failed to switch at least a handful of times per half, whether the game is running time or stop time, first game of the day or last game of the day. I’d say switching on a regular basis seems to be a leading indicator of hustle, good positioning, consistency, and talent. And spending an entire half unswitched is a leading indicator of the opposite. If fatigue, the pay, a running clock, the month of the year, etc., are factors, so be it – those things will figure in to some limited extent. But if you do something well and you’re proud of that, you’re going to want to do it the right way, and that usually wins out.

Unfortunately, I think that means that the officials who have been planted at one end of the court for an entire half are going to be the least receptive to being called on it (even respectfully), as Rainmaker suggests.

Last April I saw an official, working SOLO, getting from baseline to baseline for one 28-minute stop time 6th grade AAU game and part of a second one. Then he caught a partner, and hustled his way through that game and a third one. And he is an extremely solid official. I think there’s some correlation there. The active players who care about positioning are generally (generally) the better players; the active officials who care about positioning are generally (generally) the better officials.

And (all together now . . .) the coaches who are active in practice but then sit still long enough to get their game chair warm are generally the best coaches. :) No argument here.

6th grade aau is known by another name: stealing money. I've worked my own share of solo games, up thru JV HS, and I go from free throw line to free throw line, never baseline to baseline. Your friend was getting a good workout but I bet he didnt see much.

We agree that it's all about your position on the floor. I, for one, practice solid mechanics even when working multiple games, which includes generally switching when required. But switching or not switching on fouls has nothing to do with your position to make good calls.

[

[/B][/QUOTE] "Your friend was getting a good workout but I bet he didnt see much."[/B][/QUOTE]

Not my friend -- never said a word to him other than "Great hustle -- when's your partner coming?" And I'm not sure why he wouldn't have a better view of the "far side" of the court doing it his way as opposed to yours -- but the point in both cases is that you're taking pride in what you do, you're hustling and not coasting, just as we tell the kids to do.

[/B][/QUOTE] "But switching or not switching on fouls has nothing to do with your position to make good calls." [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. Except that both have to do with effort. And officials who make the effort to do one but not the other are very uncommon, as far as I can tell.

[/B][/QUOTE] "6th grade aau is known by another name: stealing money." [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't follow. The games are too easy to call? The officials aren't good enough to be paid? Your use of the phrase "your friend" suggests the latter, but I'm honestly unsure what you mean.

"Your friend was getting a good workout but I bet he didnt see much."[/B][/QUOTE]

Not my friend -- never said a word to him other than "Great hustle -- when's your partner coming?" And I'm not sure why he wouldn't have a better view of the "far side" of the court doing it his way as opposed to yours -- but the point in both cases is that you're taking pride in what you do, you're hustling and not coasting, just as we tell the kids to do.

[/B][/QUOTE] "But switching or not switching on fouls has nothing to do with your position to make good calls." [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. Except that both have to do with effort. And officials who make the effort to do one but not the other are very uncommon, as far as I can tell.

[/B][/QUOTE] "6th grade aau is known by another name: stealing money." [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't follow. The games are too easy to call? The officials aren't good enough to be paid? Your use of the phrase "your friend" suggests the latter, but I'm honestly unsure what you mean.
[/B][/QUOTE]

In no particular order:

"Your friend" is a way of referring to people we don't know in informal discussion. If it confuses you substitue the word "he".

6th grade games are very easy to call, rarely are 2 officials required.

The view from the free throw line extended, what we normally call the C, is probably the best single view on the court to officiate from. Generally nothing to be gained by moving all the way down to the baseline, except you might get an attaboy from a coach who might not know better.

Hustle does not equate to quality, finding and maintaining the optimal position does not equate to coasting.

"Your friend was getting a good workout but I bet he didnt see much."[/B][/QUOTE]

Not my friend -- never said a word to him other than "Great hustle -- when's your partner coming?" And I'm not sure why he wouldn't have a better view of the "far side" of the court doing it his way as opposed to yours -- but the point in both cases is that you're taking pride in what you do, you're hustling and not coasting, just as we tell the kids to do.

[/B][/QUOTE] "But switching or not switching on fouls has nothing to do with your position to make good calls." [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. Except that both have to do with effort. And officials who make the effort to do one but not the other are very uncommon, as far as I can tell.

[/B][/QUOTE] "6th grade aau is known by another name: stealing money." [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't follow. The games are too easy to call? The officials aren't good enough to be paid? Your use of the phrase "your friend" suggests the latter, but I'm honestly unsure what you mean.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There could be a couple of takes on this....


Depending on the speed of the players, he may be running so much he can never square up to the play to get a good look. Your worst view of a play is a view in motion. Your eyes function a lot better when not bouncing up and down several times per second. He might get a better angle on a play or two but will miss the stuff in transition. If he's that much faster than the players and getting baseline to baseline before the players get down the floor, he might have a good look but it's overkill if they're running that slow.

I'm not out there to impress anyone by beating the kids down the floor from baseline to baseline. It may even begin to appear that you're trying to draw attention to your self by doing so.

All that said, I do sometimes go baseline to baseline in a 1 ref game....not as a rule but as the play dictates.

Re: stealing money....many 6th grade games are done by 1 ref around here because that is more than is needed in most cases. They're usually young enough to not have problem attitudes. They're usually slow enough to not be exhausting. Even if they can run fast, they often can't run fast while they're dribbling, passing, or playing defense.

In other words, those games are pretty easy unless the official chooses to make them hard.

The responses from Dan and Camron, and especially the lack of condescension from Camron, are much appreciated. Points well taken.

Although I would disagree about elite 6th grade boys where I come from -- if an official thinks that he or she is above hustling there because the game's too easy, then most of the time that official would be, by my definiton, stealing money.

Talk about condescending.

No one said he/she/it's ABOVE hustling because the game's too easy.

Camron & I said these games are EASY. Believe me my friend, there is nothing "elite" about 6th grade basketball...unless your 6th graders happen to be around 17 years old or so. I guess it could happen.

And I don't need your definition to validate my opinion. I already told you it's stealing money.

Jay,
I think Dan's point is that there's no reason to over-hustle. IOW, just because a ref moves further than anther ref doesn't mean he's got better position. In your particular instance, the ref is likely missing most guard activity because he's sitting in the post. FT line extended is a much better spot to be in if it's just you; for two big reasons.
First of all, you have a better view of the court than from anywhere else. Second, you're stopping sooner and therefore getting a better look. Better to be stopped and a couple feet from ideal position than to be in the perfect position but still moving.
Don't confuse activity with productivity, in other words.