Hehehehe,
 

Oregon is two whistle crew for all games (including State Championship) at the high school level.

We have always been two whistle and there is little, to no, chance of that ever changing.

As an ex-basketball official I am fine with two whistle crews.

T

LOL, I'll bet.

Nevada, which isn't far away from you, is retaining 3-person for boys and girls varsity games at the 3A and 4A levels.

Around Here
 

One conference of mostly class D schools, the smallest of the four classes in our state, by virtue of an administrators' decision, went back to two-man last year. Word has it the coaches are compelling the AD's to prompt the administrators to go back to three-man again this coming season. They lost the willingness of the most veteran, seasoned officials they had grown to like doing their games because many of those guys blocked themselves off of two-man games. Further problem they had was that many class C schools were hesitant to schedule home-and-home contests with them knowing that they'd get a two-man crew when playing the away game at the class D's gym.
BTW, as most on this board would agree, two-man done correctly can be done very well, as the Oregon's "archaic" way of doing it attests. Better than three-man with two or three guys watching the ball all the time. I'd rather do two-man with a good partner who exercises proper primary coverage than three-man with one or two guys whose primary consists of being able to count the number of seams on the ball at any given time.

The state association mandates 3 man crews for all varsity games. There is no choice.

One conference wanted to go back to 2 man for jv games. We went to a running clock until the last 2 minutes of each half.

Translation: Most of the veteran officials either do not wish to make the physical effort which is required to properly work the 2-man system or aren't capable of doing so, and thus elected to remove themselves from consideration for those assignments.

How Cynical Can You Get???
 

Nevada,
Right. Someone had to do it. Leave it to you to take the low road. Reading between the lines to draw out any negativity you can squeeze out of my comment. The positive slant could have easily been taken by the simplicity of the words expressed, but no. Aspersions cast. Crushing critique delivered. Hope your appetite for smartaleckiness has been satiated.




(P.S. - Facts are facts. You are quite correct.)

Or, they could just hate doing two-man.

Probably, but There's Another Reason or Two
 

Not so much "hate" as "perceived fear."
The more veteran officials declined two-man assignments due to the perceived fear of having to sprint longer distances than in three-man. (See thread of someone's conclusions as to actual differences in distance traveled for both). Frankly, in both systems the trail should be stepping down to assist with rebounding action prior to heading back to the other end, right? So my partner and I did just as much sprinting as trail to new lead in our three-man games as our two-man games, in a way. True, in three-man one guy gets a little break being the C. But all in all it didn't matter to us. The decisions of some meant more games for us who were more than happy to do two-man.
Frankly, some of these class D schools are as quick as the class A schools in transition. With either system the trail to new lead has a hearty task with either system done correctly.
The real reason for going back to three-man I truly think is the coaches perception that their two-man varsity games were considered less than professional compared to the larger schools who stayed with three-man. That's the factor that'll lead them back to three-man, seems to me.

(Note: the number of times I avoided the politically correct term "-person". I feel so contrarian.)

My point is I don't want to assume the worst in why officials decide to work a certain level under certain conditions. Sure, some of them might have declined doing two-man because they might have to do some extra running...heck it might of been the majority. Or maybe some of them feel they can't do the game justice because they're so well versed in three man, that they wouldn't be able to work two properly. Heck, maybe not doing two-man was their way of protesting the change to two-man. There's a variety of reasons why an official would decide to work only three.

I agree. I do not think two officials can cover very well these motion offenses that constantly have screening and movement. At least not with the faster and bigger kids. I would not want to work 2 Person either and I am in shape. It is not about being in shape, it is about having so much to cover and seeing the end of a play instead of the entire play.

Peace

+1

I even find doing some of our larger school JVB games in two-man a challenge. Big, tall, fast, athletic, banging bodies. Especially tough to get proper angles and watch off-ball contact.

During our spring VB spring league I've had a partner show up late a time or two, and it's a great relief when our last P joins the team. Things just settle/slow, down.

I just don't feel I do the kids justice - and that's important for me.

+1

I felt this way about the GAME, players, partners then myself after 80% of my big school 2 person games last season.
Heck, I even had to make a few educated guesses in some instances.

I dont know Freddy, give me 1 good partner, 1 inexperienced official & we can make it happen!! The night(s) you get "a crew of three" that is on their A game should be cherished. I like to replay those on the drive home from other games, some nights...

You forgot to add your --->> :D

Like JRut says, a good motion offense... please! (unless you're working with a good partner)

As APG points out, its a little bit of each for me, well, except for the well versed in 3s part-- 2s is my foundation (I just have a larger primary, I'll pinch but wont rotate & instead of putting whistles on must haves from Cs side, I'm now putting them on plays from the Ts side).
Plus, working back to back nights of 2s followed by a night of 3s isnt the best practice. Especially when the 3rd night is at different levels of play, but hey, it CAN be done. But should it have to be?

The Cons definitely outweigh the Pros here.

Listen, I bust my balls to work 2-person in the games that are assigned that way. I can keep up with the youngest and most fit officials in the area (after getting in shape, certainly). I'll admit I wasn't always in great shape and not everyone is, but that's not the only reason to not want to work 2-person. I will not work baseball 1-person or football 3-person under any circumstances and that has nothing to do with being lazy.

But we have one conference locally that has decided to go to 2 officials after next season that's been 3 for about the last 5-6 years. It's a very athletic conference and there's a lot of contact and a lot of less-than-controlled play on the boys side. The conference should be careful what it wishes for -- I'm guessing the coaches will do one season of 2-person and wonder what they were thinking.

I worked the conference when it was 2-person and I'll work it once it goes back to 2-person (unless I pack it in entirely) and I'll give it my best. But not wanting to work 2-person has nothing to do with me not wanting to work hard. I work hard EVERY game. Running like an idiot up and down the court and having to sacrifice the benefits of a 3-person crew to save $60 a game just isn't an attractive option and I can see how people, given a choice, would rather not do it.

I just don't get why nobody asked if we'd take a small pay cut and stay 3-person. Most of the top officials would be happy to do that.

Here in the northeast corner, all varsity post-season games are 3-man, and most regular-season games are 2-man, unless the home team requests a 3-man crew. Sub-varsity assignments are always 2-man.

Of course, come tourney time, there are the inevitable fan discussions about if six eyes are better than four, or why is it one way in the regular season and a different way in post-season. Just the same, I don't see any changes from the way things presently are.