![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
You can characterize it that way if you wish, but I think that the reality of it was that with only a small number of officials in the area and they all belong to the same association, the schools didn't have a choice once the officials decided that it was time to go to three. They basically got told this is what we are going to do and if you don't like it, then you can find and provide your own officials. The schools made a reasonable claim that their yearly budget which had been set prior to the start of the school year didn't account for the desire of the officials' association. Therefore, the officials group agreed to work under the current amount for that year and then the schools would have to budget for the increase the following year. Quote:
Plus it would save you a long trip to a rural area if you live in the city. I can only see this being a negative for officials who live in the less populated areas or if you have a school which is very classy and takes good care of the officials who work their contests. We have a few of those in our outlying areas and do enjoy going out there for those communities. Finally, I will add that I would consider a move to 3-man to be comparable to a raise. How big of a raise would depend upon how much of a cut it would take to get it introduced. Yet if you could get three at the same rate, then that would have to be considered a BIG raise. You are now only doing 2/3 of the work. So really if you drop your current per official game fee by anything less than 1/3, then you are actually gaining. For example, if each ref is getting $50 to work 2-man, then tell the schools that you will do 3-man for $40 each. That's only a $10 cut per ref, and only a $20 increase for the schools, but when the added benefits of 3-man are thrown in and the realization of the increase in opportunites are acknowledged, it has to be a positive. You could even get a $3 increase per year, per official and be back to what you were making in 2-man in only three seasons. |
|
|||
I have to preface this by saying living in a large metropolitan area has some advantages, but even for rural schools, ask the question: What percentage of an AD's budget is for officials? Think of the school's expenses for insurance, uniforms, paying the coaches, trainers, travel, etc. for all their sports, not just basketball, and I would guess official's expenses are a VERY small part of it. So asking for another few dollars a game for 3 officials would not cause the school to file for bankruptcy any time soon.
|
|
|||
From my area....23 team conference (3 divisions).
Column: Tri-Valley Conference will go to two officials next season - MLive.com |
|
|||
Poopie!!!
Quote:
__________________
![]() ![]() |
|
|||
I still say that the problem lies here:
"Each official working a TVC game in a three-man crew receives $60. With boys and girls varsity games on the same night, the home school pays six officials $360. Officials working in a two-man crew receive $65, but because just four officials would work the two games, it would cost schools only $260." What group of officials would accept only $5 more to work the game 2-man? These associations need to take a serious look at their fee structure: Saginaw Officials Association, the Midland Officials Association, the Heart of Michigan Officials Association and the Bay Metro Officials Association. 2-man is FAR more difficult and deserves a greater compensation difference than that. In fact, if the fee was $80 per official in the 2-man system, then the schools probably wouldn't be looking at this as a money saving option. The difference would be negligible. IMO these groups are suffering for their mistake of setting or allowing their 2-man fee to be set too low. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
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.
Quote:
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! ![]() Quote:
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. Last edited by Nevadaref; Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:18am. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. 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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association |
|
|||
Again a couple of excellent comments. I would like some clarification of your thoughts though.
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2 man crew | refbater | Basketball | 17 | Mon Jan 26, 2009 03:18pm |
The crew did nothing... | NewNCref | Basketball | 127 | Tue Feb 27, 2007 04:10pm |
3 man crew | fonzzy07 | Basketball | 11 | Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:50pm |
7 man crew | bateyes | Football | 5 | Thu Dec 02, 2004 07:38am |