two man chop?
 

Rarely do any two man varsity in my area, but had a few two man tournament games over holidays. Does trail chop clock only in three man? I was surprised to hear from a partner in a two man game that I didn't need to chop.

Is he correct??? Doesn't make sense to me. I must confess my two man mechanics are weak.

That is correct.
You do not mirror the chop in 2 man.

The trail mirror chop mechanic (front court, three man only) was instituted a year or two ago. Someone should be along soon with a page reference in the Officials Manual. I think I saw a reference in an earlier thread.

I believe the reasoning was to make it more visible to the timekeeper for starting the clock.

Personally, I'm not sure it's really necessary but I try to comply. A lot of veterans I know tend to ignore it.

The timers rarely watch us, they watch the ball. I hate the mechanic.

Our timer today rarely listened. We must've put time on the clock at least 5 times today. I do like the mechanic. It would be tougher with two, but it could occur. I wouldn't mind it. Especially, if they coupled it with coaches only requesting TO during a dead ball.:D

My records show it as a Mechanics Change for the 2009-2010 season and for the reasons as discussed - to help the timer with "sightlines" especially when the ball is in the corner.

I must confess, as the T, I always chopt it now - regardless if it's two or three person.

I did it tonight as T in two-person. About 90% of the throw-ins were to my area anyway.

Wouldn't the reasoning for the mirrored chop in three man also apply to two man? Are sight lines different in two man? I think we still have ten players on court regardless of number of officials.

It would seem that it would, but the FED didn't do it that way. Nor did IL

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

In my area we've been instructed to mirror the chop when at trail in 2 whistle.

I always thought that the reason FED didn't want the T to chop in two person was that the trail official has a different coverage area and if he/she had their attention on the ball, they would miss the off ball illegal stuff.

Stop thinkin like that you are sounding like a well informed official.........

Jurassic Ref or Billy Mac won't be able to scold you if you sound reasonable !!!!!!

The same is true in 3-person.

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.....

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.

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

A big +1 to my brutha up North!

Amen!
 

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.

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

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:)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.....

With the commonality of motion offenses, off-ball screens and other rough play I would rather leave the trail doing other things. If you choose to do it that is up to you, but I see why it is not done. Again by practice you are on the other side of the court and unless the ball is thrown to your side of the court I could see you missing the correct chop if you are watching other things. The Trail in a 3 Person I guess could do the same but they have another official that is watching stuff on the other side of the court and the ball is likely to be thrown to their side. This is why I do not advocate this and my state at this point does not advocate it as well.

Peace

Don't worry, I do not turn them down I do not even consider working them at that level.

Peace

That is too bad. Of course, some are weak officials, and some are learning officials. But as you said, the weak ones are weak in 2 person crews anyway.
One of the ways to develop a 3 crew official is to use Frosh DHs as a training ground IMO. A veteran can partner with two learning officials and split the fees 3 ways. That would also bring better officiating to frosh games from time to time and doing a double with 3 would not be as taxing as a double with two, of course. So, perhaps the smaller game fee would be the price of training and developing. All this is moot, though, if your state doesn't think it is important.

What's worse is that the officials don't want to split the $160 (a FR DH pays $80 per official here) and many vets wouldn't want to take a night off a varsity game to work a FR DH (quite frankly, I don't, unless it's some kind of organized program).

Matter of fact, some officials prefer working the FR DH because it pays $20 more than working one varsity game. Those are the people you don't really want to see in the varsity games anyway.

The guys in it for the money are not very often your top tier officials. Giving back to the association by working one or two FR DHs a season to help train isn't a bad thing, but I can see that unless it was a mentor type program and came as an association directive, that few would do it. But, everybody got help along the way, and the best help I ever had was actually working with folks with experience who were NOT in it for the money.

We convinced one conference that on one night the prelim games (it's the Soph game, here) across the entire conference would be three person. We put officials on the game who are nearly ready to move to Varsity on the games and assign the V officials to get to the games from the beginning to observe / provide feedback. The three officials split the two fees.

This gives the officials some game experience in three person when they get to Varsity and doesn't cost the schools any more, or put anyone at a disadvantage (since it's done at all schools on that night).

Great idea.

[QUOTE=JRutledge;711523]Don't worry, I do not turn them down I do not even consider working them at that level.

Peace[/QUOTE

Somebody has to do them!

Mike Rowe
America's dirtiest jobs

Sloppy Saying ???
 

Didn't NHL player Sean Avery make a similar comment a few years ago?

Be Careful, You Might Get What You Wish For ...
 

Splitting two checks three ways? I can't speak for the other local boards here in the Constitution State, but in my little corner of Connecticut we wouldn't have enough varsity officials to cover all busy night (Tuesday, Friday) games.

We're already having some trouble covering all these games with crews of two. Illnesses, injuries, and changing snow dates often present a major challenge to our assigning commissioner. Last season, after a major snowstorm, he actually sent us an email asking us to unblock a few dates, if possible, on our Arbiter schedule. We've asked leagues, and conferences, to move some of their games to other nights. We've also asked leagues, and conferences, to split their games by gender (one gender on Monday and Thursday, the other gender on Tuesday and Friday). Nobody wants to change. Especially that Friday night one gender at home, the other gender on the road, mentality.

And if we were to promote qualified subvarsity officials to varsity, that would leave us with a severe shortage of subvarsity officials to cover afternoon, and early evening, middle school, freshman, and junior varsity games.

I know that many of you non-Connecticuters work boy/girl varsity doubleheaders. For some reason, working two varsity games in one day is frowned upon here in Connecticut. The most common doubleheaders we see here are the middle school/junior varsity, or the freshman/junior varsity, doubleheaders, and those are few, and far between, only assigned when absolutely necessary, usually due to a shortage of officials available in the late afternoon, as well as a shortage of subvarsity officials in general, especially on those busy Friday afternoons, and evenings.

Recruiting basketball officials has become a major challenge here. $88.28 for varsity, and $57.25 for subvarsity, doesn't seem to cut it in a state where the median household income is around $54,000. Connecticut unemployment hovering around 9% hasn't seemed to help.

We will always be the "Land of Steady Habits". Unfortunately, it also appears that we may always, at least in the foreseeable future, be the "Land of the Two Person Game".

Every season I lose a few games because of the weather. What do these schools do the second they cancel? Decide to make the game up on the one Friday later in the season both of them are open.

Then, the AD seems annoyed when I tell him I'm booked on that, and every, Friday the rest of the season and then has to put out an APB and take any warm body they can get to work the game because nobody though that getting officials on a Friday night would be a problem.

What I'd like to say is, "That's what you get when you think of the officials last. Why didn't you call us (the scheduled crew) and go over a list of dates and see which one would work for ALL of us?"

Sports is not a necessity to life and yes someone can do them but many of the people that have a choice will not (I am by far the only one that chooses not to work them). There are reasons people go to college to have options in their career. I am glad I have options and do not have to do them at the varsity level.

Peace

That's very odd to me. What does the school size have to do with whether you mandate 3 man or 2 man? :confused:

Surely it's not based on the gate. I routinely work 1A and 2A schools that have a larger attendance than the bigger 4A schools. Many small communities provde better support for their teams.

With the exception of one conference, all of our JV games use 3 man. That's been the case for alonst 10 years.

The conference where we work 2 man plays JVG, JVB, VG, and VB all at the same site beginning at 4pm. The JV games have a running clock, except for the last two mintues of each half. That was the compromise we negotiated to go to 2 man; shorter games and a shorter night for everyone.

They Roll Up The Sidewalks By 11:30 p.m. ...
 

Same here in my little corner of Connecticut. We have one conference of very small schools that always have big crowds on a Friday nights. Of course there's absolutely nothing else to do in these very small towns on a Friday night. It's either watch a high school basketball game, or mosey on downtown and watch the one traffic light change colors.

Some of our guys don't like doing these games, a lot of below the rim stuff, but I love them. I'm a big believer that games like these are the most important games being played that night for these kids, fans, and coaches, and I make sure that I officiate the game keeping that in mind, through my effort, and my attitude.

Billy, I doubt that your schools are smaller than ours. Most of our high schools have less than 700 kids total 9-12. Many we referee for about about 200- 300 kids. We have 11 high schools and 13 middle schools.

All the high school games are 3 person.

Everything else is 2 person.

Let me expand: Largest schools [with biggest gates] are expected to have 3 crews for 4 GV & 4 BV home games. Next biggest, 3 of each, and so forth. Largest schools also have larger budgets AND there are not many private schools in VT, which here in FL seem to be in the lowest 3 of 6 classifications. [I presume that there may be more private schools in NC that populate some of the smaller classifications, hence some larger gates.]

Also, in VT, coach buses are used by many larger schools and the large schools tend to not have to travel as far for many of their games.

A Numbers Game ...
 

My local board covers seventy high schools. Only two public high schools in my local area have fewer than three hundred students, the smallest having 218, and 236. On the other end of the spectrum we have a twenty-one public high schools in my local area with over one thousand students, the largest having 2568 students.

I could make an argument that bigger schools likely have better athletes and their games likely need 3 officials more than smaller schools. Sure, there are exceptions that prove the rule.

But from a money standpoint, it makes little sense, I agree.

From a completely non-PC standpoint, I'd be thrilled to go 3-person for all boys games and none of the girls games.

Nope. There are only 2 private schools among the almost 400 schools that comprise the NCHSAA.

Athletic budgets are based solely on individual school district funding. Size really doesn't have much to do with it.

Keep me in town on Tuesdays, in town being where the 4A schools are, and send me out of town where the gyms are packed on Friday night.

I don't have any desire to do any 2 man games. No thank you.

I enjoy it from time to tim, actually. If it's an easy game to work where I can get into a good run up and down the court, there's nothing like it.

Of course, it's hard to predict when a game's going to be easy to work.

It is not a matter of staring at the basketball. The point is that in a 2-person game, if BOTH officials need to watch for the same thing to happen -- peripheral vision, walking-and-chewing-gum-at-the-same time, etc. not withstanding -- I believe (and, since the NFHS did NOT put the mechanic in the 2-person mechanics, they must agree) -- is overkill and increases the risk that an official will miss something significant. I don't consider myself to be particularly dense, but I do know that any additional activity will at least occasionally cause something to be missed.

I KNOW when I have to do JVB, two-person in some of the larger schools here, I'm going to have a good workout....and sometimes have my hands full.

I don't see it as a particularly compelling argument, to be honest, but I don't see the T mirroring the chop to be particularly compelling in 3-person, either. The timer can start the clock on the touch on the floor and, in my experience, doesn't really look at the officials anyway.

I have to agree here. I don't see too many girl's games around these parts that would 'require' 3 officials.

+1 I was waiting for somebody to say that.

I have two girls DHs this week. 2 officials for both games each night. This assn never has 2 on the BV games. My secondary assn has 3 on ALL V games.

Depends on the timer.....

I lurk here quite a bit. I don't post much because the best answer has usually been given by the time I see a post, but I'll add two cents here since I don't think anyone from Georgia has added anything to this topic.

Here, varsity crews are 3-person, and most assignments are b/g doubleheaders paying $46/game. Sub-varsity is 2-person, usually b/g doubleheader, at $37/game. Some sub-varsity tournaments (very few) use 3-person ($41/gm). In our 2-person crews, T chops the clock in the frontcourt. T is also tableside on FTs.

I'm with Multi-County, and it usually takes an official 3-4 years to work up to varsity, and in that time they will have had to go to camps, and been evaluated by several of our veteran officials. While it's not verbalized, anyone with decent eyes will notice the association prefers its varsity officials to look athletic, and definitely well-groomed. Rules knowledge and a professional attitude are a must.

I've worked varsity in the past, but for personal reasons I've worked sub-varsity for the past few years.