I just worked a big AAU tournament here at UVA this past weekend. A number of the top recruits on the east coast were here. The level of play was exceptional. We did all of the games 2-whistle until the semis and finals. Since our association only uses 3-whistle during the school year, I hadn't done 2-whistle in a while. I was a bit rusty, to say the least. I just wanted to say that I am impressed with all of you out there who manage to do a game 2-whistle. I found it much more difficult, especially when I had the ball and true post play in my area. With players who are this good and this physical, I always felt like I was missing something. When I got to the 3-whistle games, I had a new appreciaion for it. I saw another post about Wisconsin phasing in 3-whistle. I say, good idea.

Does anyone think that we will see more states move entirely to 3-whistle in the near future. And out of curiosity, for those who do use 2-whistle, what do you think about it?

Give me a 3-whistle game to officiate anytime.

MTD, Sr.

Once states get over the fear of more fouls being called and schools figure out how to use officials properly, then it will happen. I am so glad that my state was ahead and required it for the playoffs about 9 years ago.

Peace

I really doubt the primary obstacle to 3-man is the thought of more fouls being called.

Money is the biggest issue. Anyway you slice it, it's usually a pay cut. At $42-$48 per varisty game for 2 man, it would go to $28-$32 and the schools would still not break even when they now have to pay 3 mileages.

You would be surprised. When the NCAA started to use the 3 Man system that was the complaint. When my state changed the foul total was the supposed complaint. Money might be one of the reasons, but when you pay the table personnel more than you pay the officials. I think most schools can find less than $100 increase each home game.

Peace

This is the biggest issue in Western PA. The highest two classifications (AAA and AAAA) are required to have 3-whistle on all conference games, the smaller two classifications (A and AA) are mandated by each conference and the athletic directors individually. For the smaller schools, obviously there is less revenue, but many times the quality of play is only slightly below the larger classes. There is a fairly large movement by officials' organizations that are in areas that are primarily A and AA schools to move to 3-man crews, especially at the AA level; we'll see what happens.

At the same time, the AAA and AAAA schools are giving bigger checks to 3-man crews (55-70 a game per official) than the A and AA for 2-man crews (50 a game per official), although we don't get reimbursed for mileage like many other states.

You are both probably right. It depends upon who you ask and how well you know them. I have heard both complaints given as a reason for not moving to 3-man or for wanting to go back to 2-man.

Many schools and people state that the extra cost is prohibitive. Of course, they could dislike 3-man for other reasons (it allows older officials to keep doing games), but know that none of those are really strong enough to prevent its implementation, so they hide behind the money issue.
On the other side there are others, who perhaps don't want to admit that something as crass as money is at the root of it, so they say too many fouls are called and the best players don't get enough court time as a result.

My area went through a big battle over 2-man vs. 3-man last season.
It was my experience that many people weren't completely honest when giving their reasons. That makes it difficult to say what is the primary stumbling block to universal implementation of the 3-man system.

Nevadaref,

It depends on who is complaining. If the school board has to come up with an extra $50 a night (if they do not require both games to be worked by the same officials), that is their complaint. Coaches on the other hand are not as involved in the money side. Coaches tend to complain about foul counts and qualified officials. Coaches tend to yell the loudest and we here their complaints the most.

Peace

When I worked the table last season at my little high school I got $15/game cash. No mileage. :D

Just thought I'd throw that in there. ;)

Around here, I know that a lot of the table people are volunteers -- retired teachers, parents who like to stay in touch, others who just want to be around the game. For the school, hat's a price that's pretty hard to beat.

I never got paid a dime for doing the clock in high school. (The checks from my college are nice, though.)

That said, going 'back' to 2-person mechanics is one of my biggest worries in reffing in the real world. In the past 3 years, I've only worked 2 games with two officials, and I was rusty on both of them.

I don't mind 2-man games as that's still a majority of my games but when you have 2 really good teams, I know I'm usually tired after that game where as with a 3-man crew, I'm felling pretty good after games. So far for next season, I think 6 out of my 39 V games are 3-man. I still have some opps from another association but we still see limited 3-man games. It's growing as another conference is adding some this year and more next year.

That is the way is should be but it is not like that.
 

It is pretty common for the table personnel here to be paid much more than the officials.

In football it has become a running joke with the chain crew. For varsity games we use 5 officials. In many cases we might work two games on a Friday or Saturday varsity date. At the most HS official working a double header in football might get $95. In some cases you might not make $90 based on the conference. When we talk to the chain crew and ask them what they make they say "$100."

Switch back to basketball and the table personnel. They might make $60 each or some other outrageous number above what the officials (who do all the running) make and then they come back and complain that give us a $2 raise is too much. And sometimes these are employees of the school district that get paid on top of what they already make.

Peace

Thats sad that they would make more than the officials. In my area the table crew is paid about $15 a game. I could be wrong.

Money is an issue here (I live in the DC area NOT Nevada anymore :) ) as well as the third person. Fortunately we have an assigner who will send a 3rd official to a game if needed.

We really can't control the money but we can control the third person. If the U2 is weak and it shows they can easily become the target of the coaches. They complain that there is no reason to have the U2 because they aren't ready for the game anyway. I know for a fact this has been said before by coaches and administration and quite frankly they are often right.

Tommy

Don't talk about me like that!

Maybe they are "right" where you are, that is not the case in many situations where I live. The coaches just use that as an excuse to get rid of a system that they neither understand or that they are not used to. There even was a conference (which had no business getting rid of 3 person) used the excuse that officials were not "talking to them" and explaining calls. This was before the change was for the calling official to go table side. Well this conference decided to keep 3 Person before last season (they were informed about the new mechanic).

The other factors to this are our state playoff is all 3 Person in Girls and Boys. It is required for all officials wanting to work playoffs to attend a 6 hour clinic, which includes classroom and floor evaluation. It is also required that officials to keep their license attend an IHSA certified clinic every 3 years. You do not have to attend a 6 hour clinic to keep their license by the way, but a 6 hour clinic does fulfill the state requirement. That has made much more consistency and helped across the state. I do not know if all areas do this, but it sure has helped us here.

Peace

Give me 3 or give me death. Maybe not that extreme, but give me nothing!

My comments do NOT apply to areas I haven't been. It is almost as ridiculous for me to have to say that as it is for someone to constantly put "that may be the case where you live but......."

Can anyone who makes comments that describe what goes on everywhere raise there hand?

Now that we have that bit of business out of the way we can continue with different people from different areas using the internet to discuss basketball where they live.

W O W !!

Re: That is the way is should be but it is not like that.
 

Wow!! Even if that $100 is split among the entire chain crew, it's pretty good.

$60 bucks for the scorebook for a high school varsity game??? I'm moving to Illinois - I don't even make that much for the D-I games I do!

I have worked a 3-whistle game with a weak one weak partner before. In fact, due to an injury on our crew, I worked a varsity game with one guy who was in his first year and hadn't done anything except middle and JV. Even wtih that, 3-whistle is way better than 2. Coaches don't like it because the players can't get away with quite as much, which is why I like it.

I would prefer a 3-whistle game anyday. It saves the legs and you must also learn to trust your partners more. Some of our varsity games are 3-whistle, but I am hoping in the near future all varsity games will be 3-whistle.

Is that how you would like things to be stated where you live? :-)

Yes, things are different around the USA but they're not that different.

Camron, I know. Those statements were not directed for most if you know what I mean. :D

Gotcha...was getting little sleepy and missed your point! :D

What's 2-whistle? :D

Wait, I know! I think that's what we use for middle school games. :)

Around here V boys are 3 whistle, but the girls are still 2. Anything under V is always 2. I'm sure it all has to do with money.

Here in LA, there are a few districts that use 3 whistle but the majority is 2 whistle, and the reason is money. We are trying to get Baton Rouge coaches to go for 3whistle but they are reluctant. As for the table crews they dont get paid much, but as an Assoc. we are trying to get paid as much as the security gets paid. That is our biggest complaint.

Iowa is going 3 whistle for the tournament in 2006 and from the sounds of it they're starting to train everyone to go 3 soon. We're all crossing our fingers. Problems here seem to be selling some schools on the extra cost and finding enough officials in some areas. I have no proof or anything, but it seems that are some 2 man crews that are reluctant to learn 3 whistle.

Junker, you may be right. Part of the reluctance for some people learning 3 man might be that the NFHS changes the mechanics every year. No long switches, then long switches came back. The caller remained away from table. Now the caller goes tableside. I haven't done that many 3 whistles, but every time I do I have to learn it all over again! However, you get a whole different feel for the game with 3, your coverage area is much easier, and you don't run up and down the court near as much. RR

refnrev, I'm sorry but that has got to be one of the biggest crocks I've ever heard about someone being reluctant to do 3-man.
For anyone that goes to camps and/or belong to more than one conference/level/league officiating is all about doing what is required at the moment. If you think the NF changes mechanics every year, what about someone who has to change mechanics from day-to-day depending on what league they are working? What about working in a gym with one clock and you have a close game? Can we alway let the C or Trail (2-man) have the clock?
Changing mechanics yearly should NOT be an excuse for reluctance especially since officials do it on every level!

tommy, I don't think that's rev's attitude, but I know that it is the attitude of some older officials who don't have any aspirations of moving up. They have found their level of comfort and they really don't want to change it.

For them, it's not about the things you talked about. Some of them are even still very good officials. But they don't see the need to learn a whole new system at this point of their careers, especially if it means taking a pay cut.

Mr. Chuck,
you are correct older (I mean wiser) officials do not want to learn a new work habit. Your lower extremities do take a pounding over the years. I think working three will ease some of the pounding your body my take over the course of a three to five game day.

That's a complete crock of sh!t. It may be true of a <b>few</b> older officials. It sureashell isn't true of all or most older officials. Officials who want to do the best job that they can <b>never</b> stop learning!

tomegun,
I was just agreeing with Junker. Yes, I think that for some guys that's the attitude. It's not mine -- but some guys who have been doing things one way for a long time don't want to change. If you haven't seen this, you're lucky! AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE OLDER GUYS BY ANY MEANS. Some of them will tell you they're still working games -- lots of games -- because of less wear and tear on the joints with 3 officials. RR

[Edited by refnrev on May 24th, 2005 at 10:24 PM]