Nonrotating two-person crews

[jayedgarwho]

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.

[RookieDude]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by jayedgarwho
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.

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.

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]

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

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.

[som44]

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

[TravelinMan]

Originally posted by som44
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....

[Mark Padgett]

Coach - this is called "convenience mechanics".

[Tee]

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.

[cford]

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)!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Coach - this is called "convenience mechanics".

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!

[Nevadaref]

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.

PS

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

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. 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.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
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.

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.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
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.

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]

[mick]

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

[Mark Dexter]

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!!

[Back In The Saddle]

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?