3 to 2

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Or, they could just hate doing two-man.

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.)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[bainsey]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Or they simply chose to take a stand against the move backwards.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Or they simply chose to take a stand against the move backwards.

That wouldn't jibe with Nevada's worldview. All officials, after all, are lazy or out of shape if they'd rather stay home than work 2-person.

[tref]

Originally Posted by grunewar

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.

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

You forgot to add your --->>

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.