3 crew-v- 2 crew

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Rocky,

Now with alot of the crews that I saw in this area the past year, you and I could do a much better job as a 2 'man crew than the 3 'man crew that was actually working the game.

Ouch!

But, sadly, true in many cases!

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ouch!

But, sadly, true in many cases!

An arguement could be made both ways. I've seen 2 crew that needed a third. All things being equal (great 2 crew vs great 3 crew) Do we really think the 2 crew would do a "better job". AKA "miss less action"

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

..... AKA "miss less action"

That is precisely the reason why the NBA started 3-man. The 2 official crews were missing plays away from the ball. It wasn't so much missing plays as it was missing rough play and non basketball plays. Go back and look at the old Lakers-Celtics games, or Knicks-76ers.

There are games that definitely require 3 person crews, but there are still plenty of games that are more than adequately covered using 2 person crews.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

According to this logic, when 3 man crews first appeared at the high school level, the officials who had previously been working 2 man should have then taken a per-game pay cut. I'm guessing this did not happen.

Your guess would be incorrect concerning my state.
NV added 3-man in top classification (largest schools) in 1997. The officials did so by dividing the previous 2-man fee three ways. Clearly not great then, but look where we are now.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your guess would be incorrect concerning my state.
NV added 3-man in top classification (largest schools) in 1997. The officials did so by dividing the previous 2-man fee three ways. Clearly not great then, but look where we are now.

Still not great in Nevada is where you are.

[Nevadaref]

Camron raises some good points concerning the true value of an official in the different systems. I'll give my thoughts on the concerns that he raised.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not a chance. I have no interest in spending the same amount of time, working just as hard, taking just as much grief, for 33% less money than if one of the other guys wasn't there. And, given the issues of the day, the flat fee the shcools would be interested in would be the one equivalent to 2-person. So, we'd be taking a 33% pay cut. The "right" fee may not be directly proportional to the number of officials assigned, but it is also not unrelated.

1. Time - are we paid for our time or our service? Camron is 100% correct that it takes just as much time to work a game 2-man as 3-man. However, it is a debatable question whether officials should be paid like an hourly wage earner or as a contractor who charges a fee for completing a project no matter what length of time it takes.

2. Amount of effort and grief - I have to disagree here. I certainly don't work as hard physically in 3-man. I do agree that 3-man involves more mental concentration and awareness of your coverage areas and what your partners are doing. On the other hand, 2-man involves having to actually run to stay with play or cover the weak side of the court for your partner. It is especially difficult to be in the best positions when both teams are running from end to end and pressing. That is very different than two deliberate teams working the ball in their half-court offensive sets. There is definitely movement in 3-man, but it is of a totally different nature. Far fewer sprints to cover a crash that your partner just can't help with because he is too far away, and much more simple adjustments of taking a step or two for an angle. I'll take the extra mental effort over the physical exertion any day.

As for grief, you take what you allow. I can't say that it is necessarily related to the number of officials, but it makes sense that if there are more officials, then these people can take turns listening to whomever is complaining. Also, with the more frequent rotations in 3-man an official should find himself near a complaining coach less often.

3. Your last sentence is very valid. In fact, I am arguing that the number of officials should have NOTHING at all to do with the fee. It should solely depend upon the amount of work required to officiate a game. Therefore, the total game fee should be invariant. It is just a matter of how many people those involved wish to use to do the job. The overall task doesn't change though. Why aren't the schools asking to use only a single official? They could pay him 1.5 times his 2-man rate and save even more money!

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is assuming the officials organizations set their own terms. Here in Oregon (and I' bet we're not the only one), the state athletic organization establishes the fees. We can't ask the schools for a dime more.

Who do you think sets the fees in this state? Yeah, the state office. But the officials associations have to be consulted and there is a negotiation and contract involved. If the officials don't like the fees that are set, then they don't have to work the games and where would that leave the state governing body? I think that you are underestimating the collective power of your officials. A strong, united group can accomplish what they desire.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've done enough of 3 to know that it is not only 2/3rd of the work.

If you are doing more than 1/3 of the work in a 3-man game or 1/2 in a 2-man contest, then your partner isn't pulling his share of the load. It's really that simple.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron raises some good points concerning the true value of an official in the different systems. I'll give my thoughts on the concerns that he raised.

1. Time - are we paid for our time or our service? Camron is 100% correct that it takes just as much time to work a game 2-man as 3-man. However, it is a debatable question whether officials should be paid like an hourly wage earner or as a contractor who charges a fee for completing a project no matter what length of time it takes.

Both.

Contractors build "time" into their bid since they can only do so much at one time. If they guess wrong, they eat it or profit, but they do build it in. The amount contracted for officiating a game should consider the time it takes to provide the service, not just the service itself.

Adding the 3rd person increases the quality of the service...and should the pay should scale accordingly....Chevette vs. Corvette.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

As for grief, you take what you allow. I can't say that it is necessarily related to the number of officials, but it makes sense that if there are more officials, then these people can take turns listening to whomever is complaining. Also, with the more frequent rotations in 3-man an official should find himself near a complaining coach less often.

Somewhat true. I was not necessarily talking about solely the coach/player behavior. Sometimes he situation is just not ideal you just have to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. Your last sentence is very valid. In fact, I am arguing that the number of officials should have NOTHING at all to do with the fee. It should solely depend upon the amount of work required to officiate a game. Therefore, the total game fee should be invariant. It is just a matter of how many people those involved wish to use to do the job. The overall task doesn't change though. Why aren't the schools asking to use only a single official? They could pay him 1.5 times his 2-man rate and save even more money!

However, if you agree that the quality of the product provided by 3 is imporved, you can make the claim that the amount of total work done is actually increased.

They could even have 0 do the job and have no need for that part of the budget...but you know the quality of those games would be like.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you are doing more than 2/3 of the work in a 3-man game or 1/2 in a 2-man contest, then your partner isn't pulling his share of the load. It's really that simple.

You inferred the wrong baseline....I'm saying one officials workload in 3 doesn't drop to 2/3rds of the workoad in 2. I'm not talking about the share between members of the crew.

[Nevadaref]

Again a couple of excellent comments. I would like some clarification of your thoughts though.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, if you agree that the quality of the product provided by 3 is imporved, you can make the claim that the amount of total work done is actually increased.

A thought-provoking statement. We agree that the 3-man system does a superior job of covering the game, but whether the total amount of work done is actually more may not logically follow.
For example, the 3-man crew may catch an illegal screen or other off-ball play in the 1st quarter that the 2-man crew wouldn't have seen, and by penalizing that action the players might understand that they are being better observed and adjust by playing in a cleaner manner. Presumably that would then result in LESS total work that the crew would have to do for the rest of the game.

I'll come back to this thread when I have more time and post some thoughts based upon the assumption that the game is contested in an identical manner, but officiated by a crew of 3 instead of 2, so that more illegal activity is observed and penalized. That is the only premise upon which your claim would have merit.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You inferred the wrong baseline....I'm saying one officials workload in 3 doesn't drop to 2/3rds of the workoad in 2. I'm not talking about the share between members of the crew.

It doesn't? Please explain to me how that is the case. The way I look at it in any given game there are X fouls, Y violations, and Z plays for which no whistle is the correct decision, but a decision must still be made. Add to that some game management situations, G, and that is the total workload for the officials no matter how many are used. Just because a higher percentage of the sum total (X + Y + Z + G) is observed and correctly called doesn't mean that the overall workload is increased. It simply means that the crew of 2 was covering less of the whole, say only 90% vs 98% that is handled by the team of 3. However, if we assume that the total remains constant, then the amount that each official is responsible for MUST decrease as the number of officials increases. Furthermore, if we are going to pay each official equally, then in fairness each one must be held responsible for an equal share of the work. Thus, I get 2/3.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The way I look at it in any given game there are X fouls, Y violations, and Z plays for which no whistle is the correct decision, but a decision must still be made. Add to that some game management situations, G, and that is the total workload for the officials no matter how many are used. Just because a higher percentage of the sum total (X + Y + Z + G) is observed and correctly called doesn't mean that the overall workload is increased.

The number of calls/decisions does not necessarily correspond to the amount of "work" in a given game. A game may have a huge amount of turnovers which obviously translate into more trips up and down the floor, but possibly with very few whistles. Also, a game where one team sits on the ball for a large portion of the game, may have less trips and less whistles, but may be considered a boring, tedious job for the officials involved. "Work" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

[just another ref]

Even if we say it is a given that a game with 3 officials will be better officiated than one with 2, the difference is not a tangible thing which is easily pointed out to pointed out to laymen. Whoever is writing the checks might easily take the attitude that "Three would be better, but two is an adequate number." This is not unlike other issues.
Another custodian, security guard, or groundskeeper would be welcome at many schools, but the budget is a constant source of concern.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It doesn't? Please explain to me how that is the case. The way I look at it in any given game there are X fouls, Y violations, and Z plays for which no whistle is the correct decision, but a decision must still be made. Add to that some game management situations, G, and that is the total workload for the officials no matter how many are used. Just because a higher percentage of the sum total (X + Y + Z + G) is observed and correctly called doesn't mean that the overall workload is increased. It simply means that the crew of 2 was covering less of the whole, say only 90% vs 98% that is handled by the team of 3. However, if we assume that the total remains constant, then the amount that each official is responsible for MUST decrease as the number of officials increases. Furthermore, if we are going to pay each official equally, then in fairness each one must be held responsible for an equal share of the work. Thus, I get 2/3.

That is precisely my point.

(using your numbers)

The 2-crew has to chose to not cover something somewhere just becasue they have to...They're completing 90% of the work and leaving 10% undone/incorrect....each successfully completing 45% of the job at hand.

The 3-crew is able to cover a greater part of the work...98%...8% more than the 2 crew and with a greater certainty on the original 90% that the 2-crew covered. Each official has covered 32.67% of the workload.

The official in the 3 crews had covered less of the total load, but not 1/3 less (that would have been 30%).

This angle also ignores the fact that 3-crews often double cover certain parts of the floor, more so than 2-crews, in order to get a more accurate result. So, the officials responsibilities overlap a bit more and the amount of situations that need to be covered is less cleanly divisible among the 3 officials.

Now, the amount of running does decrease too, but not by 1/3....maybe 1/6. If feels a alot less only becasue the strain of running more/faster is not linear...running a little more/faster takes a lot more energy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

2-crew, 90%, 10%, 45%, 3-crew, 98%, 8, 32.67%, 1/3 less, 30%, 1/6.

Dear Mr. Camron Rust,

BillyMac didn't know there was going to be math on the Forum today, so he didn't prepare properly. Could you please excuse him until he properly prepares for this.

Sincerely, BillyMac's Mother

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The 2-crew has to chose to not cover something somewhere just because they have to...They're completing 90% of the work and leaving 10% undone/incorrect....each successfully completing 45% of the job at hand. The 3-crew is able to cover a greater part of the work...98%...8% more than the 2 crew and with a greater certainty on the original 90% that the 2-crew covered. Each official has covered 32.67% of the workload. The official in the 3 crews had covered less of the total load, but not 1/3 less (that would have been 30%). Now, the amount of running does decrease too, but not by 1/3....maybe 1/6.

Let's put a new twist on this. The 2-crew rides to the game on a train traveling 50 m.p.h, leaving New York at 10:00 a.m. The 3-crew rides to the same site on a train, traveling 60 m.p.h., leaving Chicago at 11:00 a.m. on the same day, and date. The distance between Chicago and New York is 795 miles. They get to the site at the same time. Where is the site?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's put a new twist on this. The 2-crew rides to the game on a train traveling 50 m.p.h, leaving New York at 10:00 a.m. The 3-crew rides to the same site on a train, traveling 60 m.p.h., leaving Chicago at 11:00 a.m. on the same day, and date. The distance between Chicago and New York is 795 miles. They get to the site at the same time. Where is the site?

Inside of a gym?

[Texas Aggie]

but there are still plenty of games that are more than adequately covered using 2 person crews

Yeah. They're called girls (HS) sub-varsity games and all jr. high games. In my view, everything else needs 3 person. I worked a 2-man small school game in a relatively small gym this year and we really needed a third whistle. The boys JV games I've worked in the last few years need 3 whistles. The JV coaches in our area are seeing enough 3 man (usually their non-district schedule because they get a JV/V double header crew) that they know how to take advantage of the uncovered areas left by 2 man -- especially 2 lesser experienced (or even 1) officials.

Can 2 good officials do it? Of course, but it isn't "more than adequate." Its a little less. Our problem, however, is numbers. We can't cover all Frosh and JV assignments with 3 man.