Pay cut to work 3 man?

[LocDog249]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

It is not up to a crew of officials, or an association of officials, to decide how a state administers its games, let alone tell individual leagues what its priorities should be.

So it is completely out of line for a crew of officials to call a school and announce that it is going to add a third person, apparently whether the school likes it or not. We can advocate for three-person crews, we can even strike for three person crews and see which side gives in first. But it's not our call on a state or league basis, and it is unethical to try to force it on a game by game basis.

The practice of officials bringing a third and paying for it on their own was only started a few seasons after the state went to 3 man for all playoff games. The state never mandated that all conferences or schools must go three man, but from the officials standpoint.... if you want to be prepared for 3 man in the post season, you should practice 3 man during the season. This is part of the reason why it was only the veteran officials did this, plus they had the best rapport with the schools and assignors. Personally I think it was a good idea because it showed the schools the benefits to 3 person, without the added cost to them. Then if they decided it was worth their money to get a third for every game, they would pay for it.
I fail to see how it is unethical for us to provide a better service for a cheaper price.

I figured I would pose the question because I have seen (on here and in person) officials say they can't wait to get 3 man and I just thought I would see how willing the officials were to help get 3 man in their areas. For me, it is worth a pay cut to be able to officiate a better game. While the money is nice, I hardly expect to make a living off of officiating. Plus there would be more games available when adding a third, so you may work more nights a week for the same money, they overall pay probably wouldn't decrease much.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by LocDog249

The practice of officials bringing a third and paying for it on their own was only started a few seasons after the state went to 3 man for all playoff games. The state never mandated that all conferences or schools must go three man, but from the officials standpoint.... if you want to be prepared for 3 man in the post season, you should practice 3 man during the season. This is part of the reason why it was only the veteran officials did this, plus they had the best rapport with the schools and assignors. Personally I think it was a good idea because it showed the schools the benefits to 3 person, without the added cost to them. Then if they decided it was worth their money to get a third for every game, they would pay for it.
I fail to see how it is unethical for us to provide a better service for a cheaper price.

I figured I would pose the question because I have seen (on here and in person) officials say they can't wait to get 3 man and I just thought I would see how willing the officials were to help get 3 man in their areas. For me, it is worth a pay cut to be able to officiate a better game. While the money is nice, I hardly expect to make a living off of officiating. Plus there would be more games available when adding a third, so you may work more nights a week for the same money, they overall pay probably wouldn't decrease much.

I was willing to do it for a few years until the conferences caught up and paid for 3. With the exception of one or two conferences, it hasn't happened.

I'm happy to work as a lesser-paid third on an off night, but when I'm scheduled 2-person, that's what we bring. If they want 3, they'll pay for 3. Otherwise, they get 2 and we do our best.

[zebraman]

Here in Washington State, we were mandated to go to 3-person for all varsity games not too long ago. We took a pay cut to do it. IMO, it was the best thing that could have happened.

We call a better game with 3. And yes, even if the 3rd official is a "JV official." There is just too much guessing going on in 2-person because we see the end of a lot of plays (in 2-person) rather than the entire play from beginning to end. Two strong officials can help a not-as-strong official through a 3-person game.

Also, going to 3-person has kept around a lot more of our veteran officials who also do some college ball. They would have been gone from our HS group long ago if we still officiated 2-person HS games.

The state has gradually been raising game fees each year since we went to 3-person. It took the schools a while to figure out how much better the game is with 3 officials, but most of them have it figured out now. One coach I talked to said, "I liked 2 person better." When I asked him why he said, "we used to get away with tons of illegal backside screens." I said, "the game was better that way?" He said, "it was for us."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Here in Washington State, we were mandated to go to 3-person for all varsity games not too long ago. We took a pay cut to do it. IMO, it was the best thing that could have happened.

I would be happy to take a pay cut if *all* games went to 3-person and we were assigned in 3-person crews. But I don't want to be assigned 2 and then have to secure another official and wonder if the schools/conferences want or will allow a third.

I think the state could take more initiative to make this happen, but they haven't and I doubt they will.