3 crew-v- 2 crew
 

Good vs evil, Dark vs light, Big vs little. 3 crew vs 2 crew? What are our feeling on the advanteges,disadvantages, likes, dislikes, personal preferances of these 2 crews? There seem to be a constant battle with officials between these two options. Wanted to see how it was viewed outside my little world.;)

I really do not need to go into great detail. There is a reason every advanced level uses 3 Person crews and not two person crews. It is better for the game and the players, coaches and officials hands down. The game is much better called and officials do not have to guess.

Peace

An advantage of 3-man?

More no-calls b/c the officials are not guessing.

The biggest difference is that I'll accept assignments using 3-person. :D

Must be nice to have that option. Elitist.:D

I can't think of any advantages of 2 person, except to the organizations that cut the checks.

Assuming that all parties involved are accustomed to 3 man, and properly follow its guidelines, it is simply logical that 3 can see/correctly call the game better than 2. However, when an association (such as mine) calls mainly 2 man, and only an occasional 3 man, I find that the unfamiliar surroundings result in more uncertainty of what to call/not call, so the net result may or may not be an improvement.

All of you who are using the terms "3 man" and "2 man" better switch to "3 person" and "2 person" before Juulie has a hissy fit. :rolleyes:

Here's a solution
 

3 'man and 2 'man

now everyone can be happy

Not elite, just a primadonna. ;)
And therein lies the problem. If more organizations would simply quote the schools a flat game fee no matter how many officials are used, then this "money saving" idea would go away.

Just keep it simple and have the officials divide the fee equally. That way the schools have no valid reason to prefer only two officials.

Are you suggesting that this "flat fee" be the current 2 man fee, the current 3 man fee, or some other number?

I wasn't suggesting any number for the flat fee. I really don't think that it matters. The main point is simply to get the schools out of the mindset of paying different fees based upon how many officials work the contest. Once the officials are able to accomplish that, the resistance to 3-man will disappear.

However, if you want a suggestion for the fee structure, I propose what my state did about three years ago.

NV has four classifications by enrollment. We were already using 3-man for both boys and girls varsity games at the largest schools. We wanted to introduce 3-man in the 2nd biggest classification. We made a deal with the schools that we would provide three officials for the price which they were currently paying for two officials. The 2-man rate was about $10 more per official than the 3-man rate. So, yes, we each took a temporary cut to get 3-man into that level. We also told the schools that the following season we would be charging the same price that the biggest class was paying for three officials. It went through without any problems. Think about what we got. We put in 3-man at a whole extra level and only lost a few dollars on a few games for one season. In the long run we are far better off. We have more slots for our officials and thus we can work many more games, which probably made up for the difference and then some in the very next year, and if not then certainly over the next two seasons.

Obviously, not every group is going to be able to strike such a deal. They may have to go 3 for the price of 2 for a year and then 3 for the price of 5/2 for a couple of years and then achieve 3-man at the per official rate that two were previously getting. However, even if it takes five years to complete the process, it is my opinion that the officials come out better off. They simply have to understand that there will be more officiating opportunities available with more 3-man games in the area. In the long-run that means more games to work and more $ to be made.

Lastly, less physical demand on the body means extending the career a few extra years, feeling better the next morning, and probably the ability to work more double-headers.

Afterall, some of the current D1 guys are in their mid to late 60s. There is no way that they could be out there if it was 2-man.

I agree Nevada.
Sometimes thing are bad before they get good. People suffer all the time if the reward is worth it. I started working three crew three years ago. My first games I was thinking "this is boring". The more I worked it however the better it got. You get more off ball coverage is an advantage I like. Pay is still a issue at State games for smaller schools. 1A and 2A is still two crew. I had the boys championship game and believe you me i was run preety hard. We still run 2 crew for C and JV games but most all our V games are three crew. I'm sure in time the rest of the world will come around and see the advantages outweigh the cost.

This part makes it sound like the cost would be the same either way, but let us look closer.



So, you distract them with a discount for a season or two, then they just accept the higher fee and like it?

At many small rural schools, paying 2 officials takes a significant percentage of the gate. Couple that with the fact that the average fan/coach/principal/AD/whoever would not be happy with the officiating regardless of the number involved, I think it is safe to say that 3 officials for all varsity level games is not something we will see any time soon.

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.

If the people in charge of those schools don't care for the officials anyway and want to hard@sses about the few extra dollars on top of it, then what have you got to lose by telling them to take it or leave it? If they won't give you guys three, then work somewhere else that will and let these folks find other people willing to stick it out in the 2-man system.
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.

They are talking about adding 8-man or 9-man football in WI at the WIAA meeting today. I can already see it -- they will try to do it with 4-man instead of 5-man crews. Since these schools will be a distinct minority in the state (if any), I will simply not take any games that don't use 5 officials on Friday nights. My crew is set.

If we ever get to the point where more schools use 3 in basketball, I will use the same mindset. Pay for 2 or 3? 2? No thanks. We're not there yet, not even close.

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

2 Person
 

One huge benefit of 2 person is the ability of the crew to be consistent throughout the game. With 3 you increase the chances of someone not being on the same page.

Even if there are only 200 people in the stands, it would only cost them each about a quarter more each to pay for a third official. Whining about budgets is just an excuse. We're no more important to the schools than the basketball they play the game with and considerably less important than the uniforms (which they seem to replace far too often).

With all due respect, that sounds like a poor excuse for a weak pre-game. IMO, there is no benefit to working 2 person games, 3 is always greater than 2.

Disagree. With smaller primary coverage areas and less guessing on calls across the key, drives to basket, etc., there is MORE consistency in three person crews than in two person crews. JMO, of course.

thanks for a good laugh, and a great suggestion, eyez. I love it!!

With regard to the subject, I think 3 'man is always better than two, although not always practical. Budget may be "just an excuse" in many districts, but there are lower levels and small or poor districts that really truly can't afford that third official.

Rich, specifically, many of the things you say are true. But there are a lot of games played even at the varsity level where there AREN'T 200 fans present, and even the 44 that are there didn't pay to get in, because if the school did charge, literally only 5 or 10 would show up. For larger schools, most middle-class districts and especially at the hs varsity level, I personally think 3 'man would always be an advantage, and worth the cost.

Wow. Seems kind of cowardly to not accept two-person assignments. Kinda makes you go "Hmmmmmm".:D

I've not worked much 3-whistle yet but I like that I don't have to concentrate on as many things at once.

The trade off for me is the relative lack of movement throughout the game. One reason I enjoy officiating is the exercise. I have found the 3 whistle games almost too easy from a physical standpoint. Related to the lack of motion and lesser court coverage, I have also found it tougher at times to feel involved in the game, leading to lack of concentration.

If you aren't moving much, then your crew isn't doing it right. You should be moving all the time to get angles on plays, rotate for coverages, etc. When done correctly, three person involves LOTS of movement!

To feel involved:
Double whistles aren't a bad thing, try to double with your partner when you haven't had one in a while & take it to the table.

To sharpen your concentration:
Rotations & position adjustments will assist with improving concentration.

JMO

The opposite is true for me. I haven't felt good about a 2-whistle game for a few years. I've had them, I just didn't feel good about them afterwards.

In 3-whistle games, the C and T have to move a lot to avoid straight lines and get angles. Since I am focusing on a smaller PCA, my movement increases to always keep this area in view. In 2-whistle, I typically just widen my angle to watch the whole PCA. This leaves me with a bad angle and poor view of some areas, but does let me see the entire area.

3-man v. 2-man
 

3-man, just like everyone else has been saying it is better for the game, players, coaches, and even us officials. The one thing I like about 3-man is that it is a great way to help gain confidence in a young official. Putting a young official into a game with two veterans it gives them the confidence to make the right calls and be in the right position (angle) to make the correct call without having to guess.

I am so glad I live where I live. We work practically exclusively 3 Person in every conference. There are a couple of situations where people do not work 3 Person, but it is rare. And I will not take games that are not 3 Person. No discounts or concessions to work with 3 officials. This has been the 11 year we have had 3 Person in all playoff games and it makes pre-games a lot easier to discuss things. No need to talk about where to stand, we can talk about plays and situations. It was rocky to work at the start, now almost everyone is on the same page.

Peace

Poopie!!!
 

Horse manure reasoning is being used by that conference. I worked one GV game this past season. It was due to a late season addition to the home team's schedule. The calls that I remember the HC from the visiting team complained about would have come from the C had we had one that night. So, I have a hard time believing that a 2 person game in general is the same for all involved that a 3 person game would be.

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.

FWIW in our state, the officials associations do not set the fee, it is set by the State. The committee that votes to set the fees, 3 years at a time, is populated by ADs and Principles. there are no officials that have a vote.

Sounds like you are under control of the dark side.:eek: Use the force ref2. Most people don't appreciate what an official actually goes through unless they have call a game themselves. Get all thoes board members on the court and see how they feel after running a high level 2 crew game. :D

Then the officials in your state need to get together and take a stand if they don't like the make-up of that committee or the fees that it sets.

I do like the idea of telling the committee members to get out there and work the games themselves! :D

The strength of your partner didn't help that much either with such a big rivalry game. You do get more off the ball coverage and there certainly are some major advantages to 3-crew but if you hustle, work hard, work and communicate well with your partner you can call a good game too. Coming from a 2-crew specialist.

Specialist? I'm sure you are special, just not in the way you are thinking.:p
Is the weather getting any warmer?

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.

Hey - was Grace Christian in it this year???

They are 3A I believe and they didn't even make state. They were favored for regions and didn't get it done. I called the 3A regional at Grace.

No one has a vote except the Schools.

You say the officials need to get together and take a stand. Have you ever met a more independent, hard to lead, group of people than sports officials? :rolleyes:

Really. I thought they would be pretty good this year. I watched them a couple times last year when I was up there to do some games. I went to HS with their administrator and his son is the point guard - pretty good little point guard as I remember.

I know officials that would take a pay cut just to improve their schedules.

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 schools 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.

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.

I've done enough of 3 to know that it is not only 2/3rd of the work. I'm still there for the same amount of time whether it is 2 or 3. I may sweat a little less but I have to be there and be focused for just as long.

That would be about the limit of what I'd consider a resonable comprimise.

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!:mad:

But, sadly, true in many cases!:rolleyes:

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"

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.

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.:p

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.

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! :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Hey, Mr. Camron Rust, I got a note!"
 

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

Man, I Hate Word Problems ...
 

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?

my best guess:
 

Inside of a gym?

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.

Not Our Call
 

Round these parts, officials have absolutely no clout over whether it's a crew of two or a crew of three. It's basically tournament time only for the crew of three. This is not an area to draw a line in the sand, especially since our association made a collective *** of itself by suing over being asked to watch the kids shake hands after the game.

IN most high schools, the kids are paying user fees for sports. The schools are flat-out not going to increase the officials fees to handle an additional official over ten home games because as it stands they're putting the squeeze on the parents (so much for free public education), selling candy bars and cutting JV or frosh squads to keep a program going.

Whether or not there is another set of eyes off-ball does not matter to programs fighting to stay alive and fighting to have as wide a level of participation as possible. It simply is not that important compared to keeping kids playing.

I would be interested in what coaches say (can't believe I just said that) about what they tell the players about how to deal with it when suddenly confronted with a crew of three at tournament time.

Why do you think a coach would tell their team anything special about the number officials they are "confronted" with?

Coach - "Ok team. Now, all year we've had two officials. Tonight there are going to be three. Watch the off ball screens. Don't be so obvious with your hold - they'll see them now. Watch your travelling. Be on your best behavior - no trash talk. Drive to the basket more now, you're more likely to get a call. They're more likely to see three-seconds with more eyes on the court, so keep moving."

Just curious? As a coach, what would you say?

Side Note
 

My Association has several of us F/JV Officials working three-man during the spring/summer so if the opportunity presents itself during the year next year, and we're good enough, maybe we can move up. Training Committee and Evaluators are there to provide "help and advice." :eek:

Well, I worked my first three-man in a while on Monday and man-oh-man do I have work to do. By the end of the second game I was certainly more comfortable, but sheesh. Areas for me to work on - moving to get a better angle, settling into a position, closing down, getting wide, relaxing, trusting my partners more, slowing down, etc.

Worst part for me - twice, TWICE - was a lack of a patient whistle. I'm L, drive from C, BAM! Both times, double-whistle. Both times I didn't wait for my partner to make the call. Both times I signaled too early and stole it. First one was a BLARGE! Ugly! While my call was right, it wasn't my call. My partner(s) were very understanding and helpful.

Good training, but I have work to do and will listen and work hard to improve. Like anything else, the transition will take practice.....my $.02