2 or 3 Man

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The problem is that as long as there are people that WILL accept the going rate, whatever that is, we have no leverage. So, you can work all you want to raise fees, and sometimes that gets done, but if it doesn't you have to decide whether you are going to continue officiating or not.

The Texas UIL (state association) has said loud and clear they don't care whether officials quit or not. They are in bed with the school districts first and the coaches association second. I imaging within the next 5 years, our basketball chapter will no longer work many jr. high games. Within 10 years, we may get to where we only work subvarsity games that are tied to varsity games (i.e. doubleheaders). We will lose officials left and right, I think, unless fees are paid, and this fall -- with gas prices going out of control, we will see the first taste of this.

Everytime a school/coach complains about the officials just mention that while there are some great officials who will do it for token amounts of money it is hard to keep a full roster of the best when they can make more money doing something else without all the hassles. If they want better, they've got to pay better. The average official is not going to take 2-4 days off work without pay and also pay $200-$500 for camp fees when they only gross $1000-2000/year form HS games.

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by zebraman

What is your point? If you have a crew of 3 quality officials vs. a crew of 2 quality officials, the crew of 3 will always provide a better game. Watch the tape.

I would much rather work a game with 3 quality officials. However, there's no measure to whether crew of 3 will provide a better game.... matter of fact, no one here can define what "better" is.

I've had coaches and players tell me they rather coach/play in a game with two officials only. Crew of three tends to call too many fouls/violations.

Just because there are more foul and/or violation calls, it doesn't mean the game is "better."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

I would much rather work a game with 3 quality officials. However, there's no measure to whether crew of 3 will provide a better game.... matter of fact, no one here can define what "better" is.

I've had coaches and players tell me they rather coach/play in a game with two officials only. Crew of three tends to call too many fouls/violations.

Just because there are more foul and/or violation calls, it doesn't mean the game is "better."

Done generally right, it does mean the accuracy of the calls will improve and the call selection improves. It doesn't mean there are more foul calls. Even if they are, it will generally lead to a cleaner and better flowing game.

In 10-15 minutes, you can teach a good, intelligent 2-person official a poor-man's version of 3-person and you'll instantly have better coverage simply due to the smaller areas of responsibility and better angles. You do it with no live-ball rotations and only basic primary areas. They may not be the smoothest with dead ball switches and rotations but just about anything they do will work and the only people that will even know the difference would be other officials. This doesn't give you all of what 3-person has to offer but it gets you most of it.

Even full 3-person is just not THAT complicated....it is simply an elitist attitude to claim so. I think that most officials can pick it up in just a few games if they are working with partners who already know it. So, the quality you get is largely a matter of how you phase it in.

Now, if you were to look at the other angle...who that 3rd person would be, you might have a different point. Assuming your top 100 officials were working your top 50 games on any given night, you now need 150 officials to cover the same number of games. You'll have officials getting games they otherwise wouldn't be getting.

Assuming that 2 of the 3 are the same two that would have been on the game already, those two will not drop in quality with the addition of a third. The third might be a little softer but in the long run it would far better to bring in a greener official with two vets in a crew of three than with one vet in a crew of two. You'll also have younger officials getting opportunities sooner and also get veteran officials that can keep up a little longer.

3-person is generally a plus in nearly every area....but no one should let the schools get away without paying for it.

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Done generally right, it does mean the accuracy of the calls will improve and the call selection improves. It doesn't mean there are more foul calls. Even if they are, it will generally lead to a cleaner and better flowing game.

In 10-15 minutes, you can teach a good, intelligent 2-person official a poor-man's version of 3-person and you'll instantly have better coverage simply due to the smaller areas of responsibility and better angles. You do it with no live-ball rotations and only basic primary areas. They may not be the smoothest with dead ball switches and rotations but just about anything they do will work and the only people that will even know the difference would be other officials. This doesn't give you all of what 3-person has to offer but it gets you most of it.

Even full 3-person is just not THAT complicated....it is simply an elitist attitude to claim so. I think that most officials can pick it up in just a few games if they are working with partners who already know it. So, the quality you get is largely a matter of how you phase it in.

Now, if you were to look at the other angle...who that 3rd person would be, you might have a different point. Assuming your top 100 officials were working your top 50 games on any given night, you now need 150 officials to cover the same number of games. You'll have officials getting games they otherwise wouldn't be getting.

Assuming that 2 of the 3 are the same two that would have been on the game already, those two will not drop in quality with the addition of a third. The third might be a little softer but in the long run it would far better to bring in a greener official with two vets in a crew of three than with one vet in a crew of two. You'll also have younger officials getting opportunities sooner and also get veteran officials that can keep up a little longer.

3-person is generally a plus in nearly every area....but no one should let the schools get away without paying for it.

well said...but there aren't too many " intelligent 2-person official " out there that don't know 3-person. T

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

I would much rather work a game with 3 quality officials. However, there's no measure to whether crew of 3 will provide a better game.... matter of fact, no one here can define what "better" is.

I've had coaches and players tell me they rather coach/play in a game with two officials only. Crew of three tends to call too many fouls/violations.

Just because there are more foul and/or violation calls, it doesn't mean the game is "better."

Yeah, I've heard that crap from a couple coaches too. The ones who never met an off-ball foul they liked because they always watch the ball and don't teach their players how to get open without an illegal screen.

The fact is that three person, worked properly, puts officials in better positions to see plays and also allows officials to see the entire play rather than just the end of it. I don't know how you could argue that not to be better.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

well said...but there aren't too many " intelligent 2-person official " out there that don't know 3-person. T

Except in a few remote areas, no HS games in Oregon are worked by 3. That means that few-to-none of the HS-only refs (and there are some good ones) have ever had an opportunity or a need to work 3. I'm sure Oregon is not alone in this regard.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Yeah, I've heard that crap from a couple coaches too. The ones who never met an off-ball foul they liked because they always watch the ball and don't teach their players how to get open without an illegal screen.

I had a coach this year that complained that we called about 5 illegal screens and the coach complained that I should not have called that many because of what happen all year. Now for the record these where the worst screens I have seen all season. All of them had elbows high and looked more like football blocks than basketball screening principles.

Originally Posted by zebraman

The fact is that three person, worked properly, puts officials in better positions to see plays and also allows officials to see the entire play rather than just the end of it. I don't know how you could argue that not to be better.

I concur.

Peace

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Yeah, I've heard that crap from a couple coaches too. The ones who never met an off-ball foul they liked because they always watch the ball and don't teach their players how to get open without an illegal screen.

The fact is that three person, worked properly, puts officials in better positions to see plays and also allows officials to see the entire play rather than just the end of it. I don't know how you could argue that not to be better.

You tackled the point: if these are competent officials that work properly, then Yes. The extra set of eyes will increase the chances of calling the play correctly. However, in my original post I said just because there are three stripes on the court, that doesn't mean the game will officiate better (given if the three zebras aren't competent of three-person officiating).

I'm not arguing two person officiating is better than three. But I would much rather work a two person game if I can trust one of my partners versus working a three-person game if I can't trust one or both of them. JMO!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

This question arise last week and I'm curious of what you guys think...

Would you rather work a

2 person game with another official who knows what he/she is doing

or

3 person, but one official is new to it and who doesn't know much about 3 person

I think in your second option, if the third official is a decent 2 person official, they can adjust. Personally, this is a no-brainer and I don't understand why there would be any debate.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

well said...but there aren't too many " intelligent 2-person official " out there that don't know 3-person. T

I'm sorry, but this is just crap.

[emtp]

3 any day, here in washington we went 3-man 3 years ago, IMO this was the first year that there was a noticable improvement of officiating as 3-man crews, when switching from 2 to 3-man crews there will be a learning curve but once that happens you will never want to do 2-man crews again, in the summer we use 3-man to help some of our less experienced people, this seems to help our local people the most....