2 man vs. 3 man debate

[WindyCityRef]

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southt...pro/144sd1.htm

Hi guys,

Thought you may enjoy reading this.

[JRutledge]

It just proves how uneducate coaches can be.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

3-person versus 2-person has nothing to do with "calling every handcheck, every illegal screen," etc, etc.

If we're in a situation where coaches feel there's "a whistle every 17 seconds" we don't have a problem with the 3-person crew, have either have a problem with teams clubbing each other to death, or officials calling too many ticky-tacky fouls. Either way, 3-vs-2 is irrelevant. You can just as easily have the same thing with 2 refs.

It's been made very clear from the top level (NCAA) down (I exclude NBA, of course) that off-ball fouls, etc. are a point of emphasis, and have been for several years...not because the officials are interested in "dragging the game down", but because the coaches want it called. The simple fact is, having three whistles means less area to cover, no chance (theoretically) of missing off-ball activity, and virtually none of the "guesswork" referred to by officials interviewed in the news article. As you get to higher level ball, the difference becomes more obvious.

The concern expressed about calling outside your primary is valid, but again, has nothing to do with the 3-person system, but is rather a general officiating issue.

The key quote in the article:

"When you have three good officials, the game is run very excellently,"

I enjoy working 2-man games, as a little variety is always nice. But if I have to do a big, tough game with lots at stake, I'll take 3-man all the way.

[mick]

Windy City,
Thanks.
Interesting.
Sad.
mick