Pay cut to work 3 man?
 

Having moved from a 3 man state to a 2 man state, I am missing the old days. I have come to a realization that I will miss more calls working a 2 man game.
My question is this..... Would officials who work in 2 man states/areas be willing to take their pay for the 2 of them and split it 3 ways? This would show the schools how much better 3 man is without an added cost to them. In NW IL this is what some of the veteran officials were doing to break 3 man in to some of the smaller schools. They would call the school and tell them they are bringing a third, and they can pay them if they want, otherwise the officials will split their pay. I know this would be a big pay cut, but would you be willing to do it?
Personally I would do it. After cutting 2 checks 3 ways, it would be about half of what I made a game in IL, but I don't ref for the money, I do it because I enjoy being yelled at by strangers ;)

Here are my opinions:
1. The 3-person system is superior to the 2-person system, if done correctly. There is no question about that.
2. The 3-person system requires three strong officials, not 2 varsity guys and someone who really should be working JV. If the area doesn't have enough quality officials to staff the games adequately for 3-person, then it should just use 2.
3. I enjoy working 2-person much more than 3 at the HS level. I enjoy the challenges that 2-person officiating presents and like the better physical work-out.
4. I don't believe that the HS game really warrants 3. The college game does. The bigger court, bigger players, faster action, and longer game length all justify it.
5. I'm in a state that currently uses 3 for all varsity games on both the boys and girls sides. I wish that we would revert to 2.
6. There is no way that I would work a 3-person system and split a 2-person fee. If the schools want a third official then they should pay for that person.

+1

Utterly absurd
 

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.

To get to the question: Am I willing to take a pay cut to convert two man to three man where it isn't used? Not particularly, although perhaps the reduction in the abuse of my aging legs is worth a small discount. But in general, no, you are paying for my experience, training, certification and willingness to appear and I'm not at all interested in splitting a two-whistle three ways because school or league decides it wants an extra set of eyes.

I disagree with this. Lots of small school two-whistle crews add a third for experience.

Are you seriously suggesting that a school would even consider turning away the third official?

My association did exactly what you say we shouldn't this year. Our local metro league has been using 3 whistles in JV games, and this year decided they wanted to save about $300 per school by dropping to two. At first, we asked them if they'd meet us half way, they refused. Then, we took the total fees they paid out for a night, F/JV/V games at 2, 2, and 3 whistles per game and added an extra official to the JV game. We had a couple options of how to split it up, and voted on them.

We really didn't give the schools a choice in the matter, as their costs weren't going to be affected.

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.

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." :rolleyes:

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.

In my area of CA (Central Section)
 

We get paid $65 each for two-man and $50 each for three-man. So the school ends up paying an additional $20 for a third official. I guess you can say, buy two and get $45 off the third.

I would love if Oregon would mandate that every varsity game were 3 man, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Every veteran official I talk to here says they think it will be at least 5 years! I would love if the state stepped in this next season and mandated every varsity game goes 3 man. Just curious, how did Washington handle the transition? IE did they say by the year 2007 every varsity game must be 3 man? Also how did they make sure that all the officials are 3 man proficient? In Oregon it seems that only the college guys know 3 man mechanics so it would obviously take a little while to train all the officials in 3 man.
Another way I think 3 man could be brought in would be to do 3 man for summer leagues and the schools could see how much better it is versus 2 man. Granted, I haven't been in Oregon for any summer ball, so I don't know how things are handled in the summer.

Fair is fair is fair
 

Interesting to see the quote from a coach who liked a two-official game.

So if he's in a two-whistle league or state, and officials at one of his away games went to the AD and demanded three officials and got it, that is somehow fair?

We can't stop his physical play, so we'll call in an extra official.

Is it fair for the home team to order up a three man crew with a team comes to town that is more physical than Hometown H.S., but goes with the crew of two when Featherweight H.S. is visiting?

Every coach in every basketballlllll game tries to get away with whatever s/he can get away with. It is not up to officials to change the ground rules on a game by game basis, and school should not be able to vary league or state policy on a game by game basis.

You want a crew of three, get it into the league rules before the season starts, or by league-wide decree during the season. Officials seeking to change the parameters on a game by game basis are flat-out unethical.

While I admire your noble intentions, officiating isn't a charity case; otherwise, let's get every call right and put 6 whistles on the court [of course, no amount of whistles in the world may achieve this goal]. But as you said, where's the fun in that? :cool:

1. I completely agree.

2. I do not agree for this reason. It is not uncommon to get someone that has not worked 3 Person on a crew or is not as "veteran" as we would like. The bottom line is if the officials work together you can have success. You do not necessarily need three of the strongest officials to work in my opinion. Many newer officials have a lot of 3 Person experience, but have very little overall officiating experience. And you might have a veteran that knows the game, but knows little about 3 Person and they are ineffective. You just need three people that work together and you can handle a 3 Person game easily in a high school setting.

4. I will only say with the style of play you see with many schools and the screens and off ball activity, I do not agree that we could use 2 Person and be effective. I think 2 Person might have worked at one time, but with the 3 point shots and players of all sizes and shapes going to the basket and the short 10-15 foot shoot out of the game, 3 Person is the only way to go. The players at the high school level are bigger and faster than they have ever been, and if you are working games where the kids are college players, I do not see how you can do well consistently in a 2 Person venue.

5. My state has been using 3 Person in the post season since 97-98 and I do not see how they ever had it any other way. Of course there were some growing pains earlier, but now everyone is on the same page that you hardly have to even talk about things you did even 5 years ago. Now I can work with just about anyone in a 3 Person system and they will do many basic things that you did not see early on. Not to say that there are not people that cannot work, but 2 Person would just be too hard for most of us considering that we would have to make more calls individually and often not see those calls the same way.

The only reason I see the benefit of keeping 2 Person at the high school level is a financial situation. But if schools can afford it, all high school games should be 3 Person and certainly the varsity.

Peace

I moved from a 2-person state (OR) to a 3-person state (TX) this season. We work 3-man for all varsity, 2-man for all sub-varsity unless you do a 2 game set and one of those games is a Varsity game. I had never worked 3-man until this season. I thought 2-man was fine until I had a few 3-man games under my belt and then was assigned a JV game that was actually a Varsity game, so it was assigned a 2-man crew. I realized working that Varsity game 2-man how much we were probably missing without the 3rd man. I am a believer in 3-man.

I don't get your accusation. Unethical? Really, now.

Around here some conferences allow 3-person as long as the officials are willing to accept 2 checks. Some don't allow 3 at all. Some allow it if both teams agree to it. Some assign 3. The only thing consistent is the inconsistency.

As far as places where officials associations contract with schools, I simply recommend that if the association wishes to work 3-person in varsity games that they simply say "no, thanks" to schools and conferences that only wish to hire a 2-person crew. They can find their officials elsewhere. Of course, this could lead to a shortage of games for that group.

Fixed it for you, and this is exactly why we work games with three instead of two.

There is a coaches code of ethics in the rule book. I don't have any sympathy for coaches who complain they can't get away with stuff.

The only reason I ever hear given for using 2 instead of 3 is money. That's it. If the local officials want to take a cut to get experience with 3 (or use 3 for any reason), the schools really don't have any logical recourse. Of course, they can say no. But they never do (that's telling).

And to have you call us unethical for using a third official on some games and not others (completely within the rules) while defending coach's rights to try to get away with stuff (against the actual code of ethics) seems, at best inconsistent. At worst; hypocritical.

I would actually prefer to see 13 officials on each game.... 1 assigned to watch each particular player, 1 for each bench, and 1 for the table :) Nothing should ever get missed then :)

This seems like a great idea to me. Our association is the only one that provides officials for this area, so I would think that if we just stood firm and said we want 3 man, the schools would have to give it to us if they wanted our associations services. Now I know it wouldn't be something that would happen overnight, but if the schools were giving 2 years or so, knowing the change is coming, they could find the extra money for it. Easiest way to me would be to raise ticket prices $.50-1.00 each season until the change takes effect.

This would never work, BTW. There are *always* people willing to work the games. May not be the current set of officials, but could be those who feel they should be working varsity and aren't or whatever. And enough of the current set would work regardless of what the group decided, for whatever reason. When the games went on, officials would start coming back, too.

Do a search on "post-game handshake in Massachusetts". The only reason that's still around is that there were enough officials willing to step over those trying to do the right thing and work games. Or look at the minor league umpire work action of a few years ago....

Are they only getting about 50 people per game who pay? The difference between 2 and 3 is going to be anywhere from $20 to $40 per game. Here in CO, it's $31-$33, depending on whether its a rural school or a city school (city pays a $2 travel stipend to each official while rural schools pay a mileage fee to one official).

We went to 3 man full time about 5 years ago around here. Up until then, we did often take a pay cut to work 3 man. I had no problem doing it since I knew it made for a better game and made me a better official for the future. I'd say communicate with your partners and see what they think. If they are willing to take the cut, I'd go 3.

In Texas......
 

We have to take a pay cut for working 3 person in comparison to 2 person. We are also considering going to a "flat rate" next season with no mileage. What are your associations doing?

I think most areas have a pay cut of some degree compared to the 2 person fees. Here, it's (recommended by the state) $55 for two, or $47 for three.

Not us man. Three person pays more than two for a single game.

Peace

Must have something to do with Chicago politics. :)

Seriously, I'm impressed. Is it because the smaller schools are the ones using 2 person for varsity?

Actually this is not about Chicago at all. I live in the suburbs, but I officiate all over the state from the Northern part to West Central Illinois and Central Illinois. I work big and small schools and every game is 3 Person. The only thing that might happen with some small schools is they ask the officials to work a JV/Varsity double header. But that is starting to go away more and more. I cannot speak for the entire state, but I work in a lot of places and this is the norm across the parts I have seen.

Peace

Gotcha. 2 man = JV. :)

Or Freshman or Sophomore (JV means the same thing based on what part of the state you are from) or any level that is not varsity. Again like I said there are some exceptions, but I have not worked a varsity game with 2 officials on purpose for some years now.

Peace

I wasn't aware of any schools in CO that used two until December when there were only two varsity guys following my JV double header. Smaller charter school in town. I guess they need that extra $33 per game.

The Constitution State ...
 

One problem here in Connecticut, especially in my little corner of Connecticut. We don't have enough varsity officials to cover three person games on our busiest nights. Heck, on a few Friday nights during the season, especially during flu season, and when a few officials might be injured, we don't have enough varsity officials to cover two person games. A few weeks ago, we received an urgent email from our assigner asking us to reconsider opening up a Friday night if we had previously blocked it out.

That, and financial considerations, are the two main reasons why Connecticut is, for the most part, a two person state.

LocDog and I are in the same association but have not yet met (he just moved here this season).

This is a nice idea except that the associations in Oregon don't get to set their fees...we have little say. The OSAA sets the fees that assoications are permitted to charge schools/pay officials for all JV and Varsity games (and, at the same time, it also sets the fees that the schools are required to pay). The OSAA also is in control of what kinds of crews are used for each type of games. Associations are chartered by the OSAA and are required to follow the OSAA regulations. Freshmane/Sophomore games are not as regulated...schools can use independant organizations/officials.

While there may be people willing to work the games, they can't. The OSAA will not let the schools hire through anyone but chartered organizations. And, the OSAA will not permit organizations to compete for schools. They generally assign the schools to the organizations.

This prevents a lot of conflict situations....schools can't shop for officials groups that they like based on a couple of wins/losses. The organizations are not incline to behave unethically to win a few more schools.

On occassion, there have been new organizations that have been chartered and areas split, but it doesn't happen often.

We do not have 3 person crews mandated except for sectional semi and championship games. We do have a some senior officials hoping for 3 person crews so they will not have to give up their varsity status because they are no longer able to keep up in the 2 person game. This actually hurst the younger guys who have to go to other areas to work varsity level games.

As for the comment of not having 2 good officials work with a 3rd who should be at the jv level how do you expect new guys to learn and improve at 3 man if they never get to work it? I may only be guessing but just because states and districts use 3 man at the varsity level does not mean they are using it at the JV level so the training for 3 man may have to ba at the varsity level. Just my opinion

I really don't understand why. I didn't really realize how much there can be missed in a 2 person game until I worked 3 almost exclusively.

Way back when when HS, Juco, and a large amount of small college was still 2 man, I agreed with an assessment about it not really needed at the lower levels. But the HS game now is better than the small college game was 15 years ago and with the floor spread from sideline to sideline up and down the floor, 2 man WILL miss something regardless of how conditioned you are.

Tonight was one of those nights where I wish we had 3. We had a lot of jockeying in the post and a lot of cutters and screeners who were either setting borderline screens or getting chucked/held. I remember calling at least 5 off-ball fouls (and we only had 26 fouls total in the game). With 2-person and a trail on ball, the lead has no choice but to miss some of the other activity.

These days I'm in good enough shape to work any teams 2-person. I get a better workout, sure. I do enjoy the challenge. But it doesn't make for better officiating.

Maybe I should try to get video clips together from some of the games and edit it together so that the coaches can see all the calls that were missed that would have gone in their favor... lol Then just hope they don't realize that there would be a similar amount of calls missed that would go in the other teams favor.

I've been told by several officials that the schools voted down 3 man (not sure if it would have taken effect this season or next) this past summer. I have heard anything from "it was voted down almost unanimously" to "it was about 60/40" to "all the big schools wanted it, none of the small schools did"
Do you know which is the closest to the truth? Do you know how it was proposed to the schools? Was it just, "do you want a third official for varsity games for the same fee?" or was it along the lines of "1 crew of 3 officials works JV/V double-header for just an overall small increase in fee?"
If the state is so in control of fees and 2 or 3 man, why aren't they more proactive in getting 3 officials for at least varsity games?
If the school is allowed to use non-licensed officials for F/S, why do they get paid the same for JV?
Sorry for a million questions, and maybe this forum isn't the best place to continue this discussion. If you want you can PM me or just reply here, or let me know and I can track you down through email.

NP will the questions. You're welcome to email me...all my contact info is on the PBOA roster. I'll just email you my reply to this.