two man chop?

[Rich]

I wish people would stop saying "watching the ball." I can mirror a chop WITHOUT WATCHING THE BALL. I can sense when it's touched on the court without looking in that direction at all. I don't sit and put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm the T, 3-person. Hell, I don't put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm *administering* the throw-in -- I'm actually looking for illegal activity in my entire primary area, including violations by the thrower.

If you can't watch your primary and chop at the same time (using sense and peripheral vision) don't try something advanced, like chewing gum and walking at the same time.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Except that in 2-person if BOTH officials are watching the ball, there is NO ONE left to watch off ball. At least in 3-person, we still have ONE person focused completely off-ball.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the trail chopping (in either case) for sight line purposes. However, I think if NFHS wants the trail to be watching to chop, I think that the trail should have 100% of the responsibility for starting the clock. In the event that the pass is tipped by the inbound-defender, the lead could give the infamous "foul tip signal" to indicate to the trail that the clock should be started. I think this current mechanic (especially if done in 2-person) causes too many eyes to be on the ball and not enough (in the case of 2-person -- NONE) eyes off of the ball.

Just my humble opinion.....

Personally, I think you can (and probably do) chop without staring at the basketball.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I wish people would stop saying "watching the ball." I can mirror a chop WITHOUT WATCHING THE BALL. I can sense when it's touched on the court without looking in that direction at all. I don't sit and put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm the T, 3-person. Hell, I don't put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm *administering* the throw-in -- I'm actually looking for illegal activity in my entire primary area, including violations by the thrower.

If you can't watch your primary and chop at the same time (using sense and peripheral vision) don't try something advanced, like chewing gum and walking at the same time.

A big +1 to my brutha up North!

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I wish people would stop saying "watching the ball." I can mirror a chop WITHOUT WATCHING THE BALL. I can sense when it's touched on the court without looking in that direction at all. I don't sit and put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm the T, 3-person. Hell, I don't put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm *administering* the throw-in -- I'm actually looking for illegal activity in my entire primary area, including violations by the thrower.

If you can't watch your primary and chop at the same time (using sense and peripheral vision) don't try something advanced, like chewing gum and walking at the same time.

As stated previously, I do it in both two and three person.

I can see the entire court, watch the action, and see the catch out of the corner of my eye if necessary. Plus, a good many times the ball is tossed deep in the frontcourt or into the backcourt where I have a better view than the L anyhow.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by grunewar

As stated previously, I do it in both two and three person.

I can see the entire court, watch the action, and see the catch out of the corner of my eye if necessary. Plus, a good many times the ball is tossed deep in the frontcourt or into the backcourt where I have a better view than the L anyhow.

It is rare that T would not see the touch in the periphery. Opposite corner down low near the arc might be the exception if there is a lot of activity in between.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

It is rare that T would not see the touch in the periphery. Opposite corner down low near the arc might be the exception if there is a lot of activity in between.

Then you simply catch and mirror the chop of the L.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Makes no sense.............I'll continue to chop as I have one or two small school two man games and want to be consistent.

Here is why I think it is different. In three person the trail has a lot of coverage area on the same side of the Lead. You will be looking on the same side of the court and the ball will be passed to your side. In two person you are on the other side of the court and if you are watching the ball you will miss a lot in your area. The C can cover a lot of off-ball screening and movement. I guess you can do that, but if you miss a screen or something I would wonder why you were doing that. After all there is a reason that hardly anyone uses 2 Person at the varsity level. Not sure why tournaments are being so cheap to only use two. Glad that is not the case in the games I work in the same area and I would refuse but I digress.

Peace

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is why I think it is different. In three person the trail has a lot of coverage area on the same side of the Lead. You will be looking on the same side of the court and the ball will be passed to your side. In two person you are on the other side of the court and if you are watching the ball you will miss a lot in your area. The C can cover a lot of off-ball screening and movement. I guess you can do that, but if you miss a screen or something I would wonder why you were doing that. After all there is a reason that hardly anyone uses 2 Person at the varsity level. Not sure why tournaments are being so cheap to only use two. Glad that is not the case in the games I work in the same area and I would refuse but I digress.
Peace

Well, someone has to do them and I'm more than willing to pick up your discards

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is why I think it is different. In three person the trail has a lot of coverage area on the same side of the Lead. You will be looking on the same side of the court and the ball will be passed to your side. In two person you are on the other side of the court and if you are watching the ball you will miss a lot in your area. The C can cover a lot of off-ball screening and movement. I guess you can do that, but if you miss a screen or something I would wonder why you were doing that. After all there is a reason that hardly anyone uses 2 Person at the varsity level. Not sure why tournaments are being so cheap to only use two. Glad that is not the case in the games I work in the same area and I would refuse but I digress.

Peace

You are writing this as if I am not doing anything other than mirroring a chop.

I guess I just don't understand why posters in this thread are being so dense. Let me summarize:

(1) My mirroring a chop in 2-person or 3-person *does not* take my attention off of anything else. I *am not* watching the ball. I AM NOT WATCHING THE BALL.

(2) I can either sense the touch on the court and chop or mirror a partner's chop without staring at that activity. I mean, I administer throw-ins all the time without staring directly at the basketball.

(3) I am going to get (or miss) that same illegal screen whether I'm mirroring a chop or not.

As far as not taking any 2-person games, I'll take any varsity game and work it however they want me to work it. If 2-person is good enough for those who are signing the checks and playing the game, it's good enough for me. We used to offer to bring a third and split 2 checks, but instead of convincing schools that it was worth it to pay for a third, I instead had ADs ask me if we would bring a third for free. Nope, sorry.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

We used to offer to bring a third and split 2 checks, but instead of convincing schools that it was worth it to pay for a third, I instead had ADs ask me if we would bring a third for free. Nope, sorry.

What's the difference in 3 splitting 2 checks and the third being free?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What's the difference in 3 splitting 2 checks and the third being free?

It's the same thing, just worded differently.

My point was that we offered to do it for a few years thinking that maybe it would encourage schools to figure out how to pay for 3 full-time. Instead, it just got schools to the point where they figured we'd bring 3-for-2 all the time. So (with a few exceptions) we've gone back to just bringing 2 officials to games.

10 years ago, football moved from 4 officials to 5 and no varsity game in the state now is played with 4 officials. We simply haven't been able to move basketball to 3 in the same manner. Personally, I think the state office could've been stronger in this regard (they still schedule 2-man for the first 2 rounds of the playoffs, for example), but they haven't been.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

(1) My mirroring a chop in 2-person or 3-person *does not* take my attention off of anything else. I *am not* watching the ball. I AM NOT WATCHING THE BALL.

Unfortunately, we can't say that about everyone. For that reason, the NCHSAA does not allow us to mirror the chop

10 years ago, football moved from 4 officials to 5 and no varsity game in the state now is played with 4 officials. We simply haven't been able to move basketball to 3 in the same manner. Personally, I think the state office could've been stronger in this regard (they still schedule 2-man for the first 2 rounds of the playoffs, for example), but they haven't been.

Agreed. The NCHSAA mandated three man for all varsity games in 1991. That's the only sure fire way to make all schools use three man.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Unfortunately, we can't say that about everyone. For that reason, the NCHSAA does not allow us to mirror the chop

I don't, either. It's not proper in WI, either. But the argument, I think, is specious. It's almost as bad as people that scream out "BALL WATCHER" whenever an officials so much as notices something outside his primary.

And I would be happy to take a small pay cut for varsity ball and split the difference with the schools. I would take $50 instead of $60 to work all 3-person provided the fees went back up within 3 years or so. It would cost a school $30 per game. Most schools have 22 home dates (11 boys and 11 girls), so it would cost $660 per season. Raise the admission by 50¢ a person and you'd easily cover that. Nobody's ever asked us about that, though.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's the same thing, just worded differently.

My point was that we offered to do it for a few years thinking that maybe it would encourage schools to figure out how to pay for 3 full-time. Instead, it just got schools to the point where they figured we'd bring 3-for-2 all the time. So (with a few exceptions) we've gone back to just bringing 2 officials to games.

10 years ago, football moved from 4 officials to 5 and no varsity game in the state now is played with 4 officials. We simply haven't been able to move basketball to 3 in the same manner. Personally, I think the state office could've been stronger in this regard (they still schedule 2-man for the first 2 rounds of the playoffs, for example), but they haven't been.

Too bad the state doesn't mandate the schools do x number of 3 person games.since the tournament uses them. It is not the same game from the officials standpoint and to expect them to all of a sudden adapt without practice, i.e. a certain number of 3 person games during the regular season, is a bit short sighted.

VT went that route, and the size of the school dictates the number of games they must have with 3. Officials must also have 10 3 person games during the season to qualify to do playoff games. FL has that as well, though I haven't figured out the requisite number of 3 person games each school must have.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Too bad the state doesn't mandate the schools do x number of 3 person games.since the tournament uses them. It is not the same game from the officials standpoint and to expect them to all of a sudden adapt without practice, i.e. a certain number of 3 person games during the regular season, is a bit short sighted.

VT went that route, and the size of the school dictates the number of games they must have with 3. Officials must also have 10 3 person games during the season to qualify to do playoff games. FL has that as well, though I haven't figured out the requisite number of 3 person games each school must have.

It's a process that has had enormous growing pains for just that reason. Coaches and assignors complain because it seems each crew (that isn't a regular crew) has one "weak" official, so why don't we just work 2-man? And I've never seen a single subvarsity game played with 3 officials here, either.

So, it's trial and learning by fire. People working games that count 3-person when they simply don't have the experience to handle those games properly. And then everyone, including those officials, wish out loud that we'd just work 2-man and be done with it.

If the state would mandate 3 and suggest a pay cut for 3 years from $60 to $50 it would take 3-4 years for everyone to be proficient (and some officials may never catch on, but those guys weren't working a good 2-man game, either) and coaches and sportswriters would have to hold their tongues and let the process happen. But the state office hasn't shown a willingness to advocate three person strongly enough. It's frustrating.

In the meantime, all of the good officials' education being taught now in clinics and camps is 3-person. There are no good intermediate-to-advanced camps being taught 3-person, so officials are pretty much on their own in developing skills on the 2-person side. That shouldn't be developed anymore anyway, but I digress.....