Pay cut to work 3 man?

[LocDog249]

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by nevadaref

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.

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

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by LocDog249

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?

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.

[Adam]

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.

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.

[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.

[w_sohl]

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.

[LocDog249]

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.

[amusedofficial]

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.

[ibOfficial]

Originally Posted by LocDog249

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

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.
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.

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

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by LocDog249

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.

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.