2 or 3 Man

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ajs8207

Would you guys rather:

Run a 2 man system and split the game fee two ways?

or

Run a 3 man system and split the game fee three ways?

This was brought up at our meeting last night. They are somewhat considering going to 3 man for all scholastic games and I was wondering which everyone would rather have.

2...doesn't make any sense to split it 3 ways. The fees paid for 2 just barely cover the cost of actually doing it. It would be an insult to ask officials to take 66% of the money for nearly the same job (same amount of travel, same amount of time, same amount of BS, same amount of expense, a little less physical exertion, and a generally better outcome).

The customers are getting a better product and should fairly pay for what they're getting. That amount may not be the same per official as a 2 person crew but it is certainly NOT the same amount split 3 ways.

[Mwanr1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

2...doesn't make any sense to split it 3 ways. The fees paid for 2 just barely cover the cost of actually doing it. It would be an insult to ask officials to take 66% of the money for nearly the same job (same amount of travel, same amount of time, same amount of BS, same amount of expense, a little less physical exertion, and a generally better outcome).

The customers are getting a better product and should fairly pay for what they're getting. That amount may not be the same per official as a 2 person crew but it is certainly NOT the same amount split 3 ways.

Crew of three doesn't mean the game is better officiate. So I can't agree that the customers are getting a better product because there are three stripes on the court.

[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

[lukealex]

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

Depends on the level of play if you're thinking from the player's view.

For me, I was an IM supervisor for a couple years, so I like teaching people and I would go with 3-man.

[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.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

Crew of three doesn't mean the game is better officiate. So I can't agree that the customers are getting a better product because there are three stripes on the court.

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

Crew of three doesn't mean the game is better officiate. So I can't agree that the customers are getting a better product because there are three stripes on the court.

It does if they are 3 officials who know the 3 man system.

If it's just 3 guys who only know the 2 man system then we agree, better off leaving the 3rd at home.