I'll be Seeing These Guys Tomorrow
 

Broadcasting, not officiating. Should be fun...

Referees and Grafton coaching staff confrontation during Wisconsin high school basketball game - YouTube

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/MscBu6g2898" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I always was sort of envious of officials that get to work the playoffs.....maybe not so much anymore :D.

Good luck man,

I give them credit for trying to take care of business but why so much conversation with so many of the assistant coaches? I had to watch twice just to figure out the guy with the suit on was the HC.

They should have only been addressing the HC, especially after sticking his bench.

And it looks like someone from GM of the home team gets involved with the visiting bench. That really shouldnt be happening unless he's asked to do so.

And FWIW, I think the kid definitely got fouled on the shot. Tough to see in 2-man but he got hit.

Wow. Was game management involved in that mess? Way too much discussion with the bench by the officials...and holy cr@p! How many assistants were on that bench? Looked like they had more coaches than players.

If you're going to whack 'em...do it and move on. This looked like a nightmare in the making.

I had the same thought about the number of coaches on that bench! Good grief.

And no clue why at least one of those assistant coaches wasn't tossed. Possibly even two or three.

And also no clue why the two refs stuck around that bench area for so long. The young looking guy with the "Sit down now!" repeated three or four times really cracked me up.

Agree with most of what has already been said here, but what I'm curious about is which AC got the T (video cuts away)....reason I'm asking is if it's the one who I think got it, it looks like he was in the huddle(s) when the officials were talking to the HC.

Going into the throng of players and coaches there at the end of the quarter to talk to the AC....bad.

Continuing to talk to AC/HC combo (I too took awhile to realize the person in the suit was the HC) even worse.

In that situation best to let the HC know that before any conversation takes place that he needs to get his bench under control. Then we can have a conversation...

I'd be curious to know if bench decorum had been dealt with before this sequence of events...2 minutes in a youtube clip just doesn't explain show what happened before (and I'd bet this was going on prior to this play)...

+1

Especially the bolded.

+1 on everything that has been said. This is waaaay too much interaction with the assistants. I wouldn't entertain the HC at all unless the howler monkeys were under control first. Chances are, with the way they were acting, at least one of them wouldn't be around very long anyway.

Seriously, what was there to explain for that long while in the team's bench area? "Coach, assistant #X picked up the T for complaining and it needs to stop." Heck, I doubt I'd even say that much.

In IL, you're allowed 15 team members, and 22 total "bench personnel plus players". The V team often brings the S and F coaches to the playoffs. Since those coaches are used to standing / actively coaching (vs. assisting), it can lead to some interesting dynamics.

Others have said it...a case of way too many assistants. I'd bet at least a couple are former HC's that, for what ever reason (I'd offer a guess), lost that position and cannot behave benchside like an assistant should.

Who are you seeing tomorrow? The Grafton team or the officials from this game?
Was this a playoff game?
Does your area have consolation games? The video shows that despite leading 36-35 at the end of 3 qtrs, Grafton scored a whopping 9 points in the fourth and surrendered 20 to lose 55-45.

BTW I don't see the whole scene as that chaotic. It isn't good behavior. It isn't smoothly handled by the crew, but the officials don't seem to lose composure. Strangely, there is some person, possibly and admin, who comes over behind the bench and chastises the coaches, then gets shooed away. Don't know his role or if he made things better or worse, but doubtful that he is someone for the officials to worry about. I don't believe that he is a coach from the opposing team. I could be mistaken here.

Bottom line: a T was issued, the officials heard some from the staff, it was passed the time to walk away and get on with administering the game.
I wouldn't have any ejections. I've seen far worse behavior from coaches.
By penalizing this and keeping it to only one T and just 2 FTs, the officials seemed to be doing the fair thing for the kids involved.

Apparently this is also a conference that decided to revert to 2-man and most of the experienced officials decided to not work the conference.

Good on them for the technical, but after that there's no reason not to get out of there and go opposite the benches until it's time to shoot the free throws. If an assistant is going to get run, let it happen from a distance.

And this was a regular season game. Some teams have a lot of coaches on the bench. Not in our purview. Also, even if they are head coaches at other levels, there's a seat belt rule in WI for all but varsity head coaches. JV and FR coaches have to sit with the exceptions listed in the rules.

Thanks for the extra info Rich.

I can't imagine having this much conversation with anyone other than the HC. If they want to have that many assistants and said assistants want to run their mouths, whack-em-all!! That is just crazy. How they got out of that sequence with just one T is amazing.

BTW, who is the dude in the pullover that comes in at the end? He must have been from the home school by the way they were heckling him. He didn't help matters by being hot headed when he got there.

Watching it again, it appears that after the initial disagreement and subsequent T on the assistant coach, the rest of the whole mess seems to be the coaching staff yelling at the table crew and the officials trying to get them to knock that off. So maybe that's why there were no more T's handed out?

2 man crew for playoffs??? Weird.

I'm in agreement with others who have posted. TOO much yapping between officials and bench personnel.

Talk to the HC and only the HC. Tell him to get his bench under control. If he doesn't immediately turn to them and tell them to sit down and shut up, then it's a T to the bench indirect to HC.

Here in Wisconsin, they use two officials through the regional semifinal, and then three for sectionals and state.

This was a regular season game. I'll be seeing the Grafton team.

A PSA ad for 3 man in your state.......3 man crew would have grabbed foul. Lead was probably screened, foul on trails backside

I give those two guys A+ for their composure, the younger, shorter guy didn't blink.

Coaches acted like schoolyard bullies. In hindsight, as noted could have been handled better, but I applaud these two.

Hey Wisconsin, wake up and smell the cheese.

Did you not read the thread? My post above clearly mentioned that this was a regular season game.

I've given up. Too many people simply don't care if we work 2 or 3. Many coaches see no benefit or openly say they prefer 2.

We are necessary evils.

Some crews have decided to take 3 to places )where it's been blessed) and split 2 checks. I *will not* do that. If the schools want me to bring 3, they'll pay for 3. Now, if *everyone* takes a small hit and we all get $5 or $10 less to work 3, I'm all for that. It's what I've advocated all along.

But working a varsity game for $40, less than the JV officials made? It's not going to happen. Not with me involved, that is.

2 refs and 7 coaches...... quite a contradiction

That says something, they don't mind three but will only pay for two.

No wonder those coaches went off.........there's no respect before officials even enter gym

Love the fan in vid yelling that's a push

Here locally, before we lost the AAA contract we took a hit across the board for Varsity refs to add a 3rd official to the GV games. Before that we had been getting $75/offficial for the 3-man BV crew and 2-man GV crew. Cut our fee down to $62.50/official but it was worth it get more 3-man experience to the association, even if every girl's game really did not need that 3rd official.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd take a hit. But the schools need to put some skin in the game.

Most conferences here pay $60 -- $120 per game for 2 officials. If the schools kicked in $30 per game, I'd be happy to work for $50.

Sad thing is, I know that even if money wasn't an issue that some conferences would still resist going to three.

The state could've required this years ago and they *still* refuse to make that call. Hell, they still assign the first two rounds (boys and girls) 2-person. Why would these conferences NOT think it was OK -- if it's good enough for the post-season, it's good enough for the regular season.

(The state still only requires 4 football officials at the varsity level. As far as I know, no varsity game is scheduled with a 4-man crew and hasn't been for years.)

Luckily on the Peninsula that is not the mindset. All 3 classes of public schools do 3-man for BV. AA & AAA do 3-man for GV. Still have some Single-A schools who do 2-man for GV but a lot those games really don't need a 3rd officials. The larger private schools will schedule 3-man for selected games.

Everything is 3-man for public schools once the play-offs hit.

ô!ô
 

OK, Oregon uses two person crews for all games at all times for all genders completely through the state championship games.

Cameron will come here and will say he sees a change coming (that means for the first time Oregon has developed a committee to review going to 3 person crews) the sticking point is Title 9 and GV.

As an ex-basketball official (for 25 years) I see no advantage at all in the extra official in 99% of high school games that I have observed over the past five years.

Just sayin"

T

You must be observing some pretty boring games then.

No missed off-ball screens?

No missed fouls on shooters when L is screened off and T is too far away (or vice versa)?

Nothing missed in rebounding action with all those bodies in the paint?

No close games where getting those missed calls would have made a difference? Or the "guess" call be an out of position official that did make a difference? No games where a third set of eyes would have made a difference?

Find that all really hard to believe.

Wow. No thanks.

I don't find it hard to believe, I find it impossible.

I do a few soph tournies over Christmas and it's two man, so I can speak first hand, I miss plenty.

+1

And +1000 from experience.

Peace

Do you think they coulda used a third in these clips?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s2puU3OEPoA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Spoken like someone who has never worked 3 man. Or never figured it out.

Yep. Or never worked some big kids while working basketball. You get some 6'4 and above kids, all the Lead does is watch those clowns in the middle. You cannot do that very easily in 2 man.

Peace

Ok
 

I admit freely that over the last 30 years the game, even at the high school level, has evolved.

Bigger and faster players like in all levels of all sports.

For you guys to take a shot like I have worked bigger and faster kids don't comment on something you know nothing about.

I will assure you that I worked basketball at a higher level than many of you.

I am just of the opinion that trends always work there way down from NBA, to College to high school. We see a trend.

True I only watched about 30 high school games this years (including watching Cameron @ the Les Schawb Christmas tourney) and, as in all sports, calls average out over a quarter, a game and a season.

Just sayin"

T

I would suggest you take your own advice and not comment about something you know nothing about.

I am incredulous that anybody who has EVER worked 2 man v. 3 man can make the the assertion that there is no advantage to a third official. Simple geometry of court coverage would go against your claim.

All 3 person crew does is cover for lazy officials.

Work the game and all will be find.

And you are right . .. I retired long before three person crews. I just know what I see.

let's work four person crews so we really cover anything . . . how about five person crews with a person just managing the bench area.

Soft.

:rolleyes:

Ignorance and arrogance.

Nice combo.

ô!ô
 

Actually I know quite a bit I AM FAR FROM IGNORANT.

Arrogant (not), cocky yes.

You guys just can't accept an opinion different from your own.

In Oregon I will fight forever to be cost conscience and not support three person crews.

That is my personal opinion and I will retain it.

The problem with these sites is that the officials are very non-receptive of any other opinions than their own.

Cost is an issue. Ignore it if you want but your are pricing yourself out of the market.

I am writing an article right now for High School Today titled "Can We Afford High School Athletics?"

Not sure we can . . .


T

Hard to be receptive to an opinion that 3 person is only to cover for lazy officials. No one on an officiating forum is going to be receptive to that. Seriously, what did you expect the response to be?

If your opinion is games in high school should stay 2-person due to cost reasons, that's a lot more reasonable position to take then simply stating that 3 person is just to cover for lazy officials.

The game has changed. A 3rd official improves coverage in 100% of boys games and about half of the girls games I work.

When's the last time you worked a game?

Edited to add: I responded to your first post without reading the rest of them. I see you've moved into your usual role of provocateur. I'll pass, thanks.

If you wish to argue we never need a third in baseball, I'd be more likely to agree and listen.

You're cocky but not arrogant? Whatever dude....good luck with your writing career.

As APG said if you want to argue the cost for high schools of 3 person vs 2 person that is one you can make but it is entirely different than saying, "all 3 person does is make officials lazy."

And the cost argument is a weak one. If whether or not "we" can afford high school sports" comes down to an extra official for basketball games for a certain school district or area then they probably can't afford scholastic sports. Because to say that is a deciding factor the overall affordability of all scholastic sports is simply ridiculous.

And who is pricing themselves out of the market? I work all 3 person varsity ball and if that were to change I would not officiate HS ball anymore. Another ignorant statement.

Really Tim? Really?

Peace

I respect other opinions. I don't respect ignorant a$$ comments.

Just got back from the game. No real issues. A couple times they got all up in arms over one thing or another. Their crowd takes after the coaching staff.

Like I already said, :rolleyes:

Sure we can, if we're willing to say no to the leaches on the system. But too many politicians can only get reelected by giving them money they take from someone else. The kids only get used as a bargaining chip after they shuffle that money off to guarantee their next vote. Need more money...need more money. NO. Just need to stop giving it away for votes. At over $10,000 per year per kid in most jurisdictions, there should be PLENTY of money to get a great education and have extracurricular activities, but it disappears into a black hole. Everyone seems to be claiming they're not getting it, but someone is.

I think that Tim C has a point. If one will take a look at the level of play and the level of officiating in his/her respective area and objectively ask which games warrant a third a third official, we may be able to have a civil an informative dialogue on this topic.
I can tell you my experience is that NV uses 3-man on probably 75% of varsity games for both boys and girls and that about 85% of those boys games and 95% of the girls games don't need the 3rd official. That is likely different in Vegas on the boys side.
For CA almost every game is 2-man and the quality of play is significantly higher, plus there is a shot clock. CA doesn't use 3 until after the first two rounds of the playoffs. I have far more games in CA for which it would be helpful to have another person on the crew.
Some people won't like me writing this, but I know several officials who are physically unfit and could not do a decent job in the 2-man system yet perform just fine in 3-person because the amount of movement required is so much less.

When the majority of the officials in an area fall into this category, it puts the administrators in a difficult situation. The leaders of the local officials association, the coaches, the school ADs, and those in the state office must consider what those working as officials are physically capable of and how that will impact the kids when choosing between 2 and 3. If a large number of officials will simply quit should the choice be made to use 2-person crews, the decision makers must understand the shortage this will cause as well as who will be available and capable of working the games.
Right now I don't think that my area could change to 2-man successfully. By that I mean be able to supply enough officials who are physically capable of handling the games properly. By keeping 3-person the area makes a trade off. They greatly enlarge the pool of those who are capable of providing what is needed, but pay a little bit more for it. Afterall these are HIGH SCHOOL officials. This is not the NBA or even college at which the officials make thousands of dollars. These are people who do this in their spare time and come to the games after working a full day doing something else. I believe that it is unreasonable to expect most of them to be 30-45 year olds in prime physical condition. You will have several who are much older and several who are significantly overweight. I believe that the 2-man vs 3-man debate must acknowledge what an area has to choose from. Some people are capable of doing certain things and others just aren't. Asking them to do what they can't and then complaining about it when they don't is truly absurd.
I don't believe that NV will switch back to 2-man because of the Vegas area having the need for 3 and thus it will remain statewide. However, this certainly opens the door for what Tim C called the "lazy officials" to work games. Perhaps that is why there are so many complaints about 3-person.
It has nothing to do with the system itself. 3-man is obviously superior to 2-man when done properly on the the necessary games. It has everything to do with who is out there and what perception that gives to those making the observations.

I worked in Portland for 8 years - before that several years in California and other states - all 2 man. I didn't know anything about 3-man so I figured 2-man was just fine. Then I moved to Texas and learned 3-man and work both 2 and 3-man depending on the size of the schools involved. There's NO WAY that 2-man is sufficient. I hate working 2-man for any boys varsity game. It's impossible to see everything.

One thing I will say is that the level of talent in Oregon is lower than some of the other areas I've been. Certainly here in Dallas, the talent and skill level is significantly higher than in Portland. So I can see why someone who has never worked 3-man would have the illusion that 2-man is enough, but I do not see how anyone would be so arrogant as to admonish 3-man when they have never worked it, or have never worked high level boys basketball.

ô!ô
 

Having been taken to the woodshed for perhaps the final time I do have another question concerning the OP and the video.

As I am a baseball guy first so why would any official allow the intrusion of assistant coaches at all?

My point would be: As an official that worked upper Division High School Basketball in Oregon/Washington and many college games (that's for you Smitty) in my history why wouldn't one of the officials simply take the head coach (I assume that is the guy in the suit) aside and say: "hey, I am going over to talk to the scorer's table, when I return I want all your assistant coaches to be sitting "quietly" on the bench NOT to stand again. If they are not controlled I will take that as a sigh that you cannot control your bench I will call as many technical fouls as necessary until I DO YOUR JOB!"

As I am a member of the staff of High School today magazine we consider any sporting event to be an extension of the classroom. I have never seen seven teaching assistants in a classroom.

T

T,

I don't think any of us are thrilled with how the officials handled the bench and the way those guys are acting. It's part of the reason for the posting of the video.

I am one of those people who work a lot of 2-man and 3-man. When scheduled 2-man, I keep up just fine physically. No problem getting up and down in any game we work.

(The other side is that we have to make decisions based on inferior looks more in 2-man. Some fouls probably would be no-called in 3-man and we'd probably get some we no call with an extra official on the court. It's a compromise.)

These days, it's not the conditioning required to get up and down the floor. It's the fact that physical off-ball play is so much more prevalent now than it was even 26 years ago, when I was getting my start.

To me, there's no reason to work 2 when one more official can make the environment so much safer for the participants at such a small cost.

You may go almost all season without having something happen just off an official's periphery -- and then in that one game, you miss a bad screen or an elbow because of the limitations of a 2-person crew. If that's worth the $660 (at $30 per game based on what I calculated above for 11 homes games, boys and girls) or isn't enough of an incentive to find that $660, then I don't want to hear pissing and moaning when something is missed. We do the best we can.

Not really. He's expressing his observations - there's nothing arrogant about that at all. He says that HE sees no difference. I, for one, completely believe that.

Consider this situation that happened in one of my games last week:

JV boys. 2nd half. 2-person game. I'm trail, tableside, trapped, double-teamed ball handler A1 at the FT line extended very close to the sideline. My lead is rotated over to the strong side watching a very intense post matchup. Team A coach starts screaming about one of his players getting held at the top of the key.

Which one of us should be looking in that direction?

After the ball ended up going out of bounds off of Team B when A1 attempted to pass to his post player, the conversation went like this:
"Did you seen that hold?"
"No, coach, I didn't."
"Who is looking at that play?"
"Coach, that's the responsibility of the 3rd official who isn't here."
"Oh. Ok."

With that said, I do know a few officials in my association who will only work girls 3-person games because of some age/mobility issues. These are guys who are very good officials and who have officiated for 30+ years including State Finals games in the last few years. It's not because they're lazy, in one guy's case it's due to the fact that his knees are starting to go and he can't handle the extra running that a 2-person game requires. But if I was a coach, I'd want him on my game every time.

For some reason, it's held up as a badge of honor when officials can run like gazelles up and down the floor. Very few officials with a lot of good experience can run like they could 20+ years ago. Should only the younger officials at peak conditioning be assigned to high level games?

(Don't we make better decisions when we are already in position and not trying to make all decisions on the dead run anyway?)

I doubt the coaches would be happy with that and many officials would be out of the game when their decision-making and situation handling are at their peak.

These are the comments I referred to as ignorant and arrogant.

Having never worked 3-man he is apparently ignorant to the benefits of it when he makes the statement, "ALL it does is cover for lazy officials." That is pure ignorance. Plain and simple.

He's entitled to his opinion and observation that he sees no difference. And you can believe it all you want as well.

But to say that ALL 3 person does is cover for lazy officials and that it's "soft" is ignorance and, combined with some of his other comments, arrogant as well.

Saying Tim C arrogant and ignorant is you expressing your opinion based on observations.

I completely believe that.

Cameron:

I respect your answer but follow my logic.

If you go to the Mast Head of High School Today you will see that I am on the publication committee and I am on the committee to represent ALL CONTEST OFFICIALS. That's the only reason I am qualified to be on the magazine.

That being said many of us at an administrative level feel that high school sports may be in trouble.

8,000 high school "futball" players have left high school teams in the mid-west to play Club Sport (AAU type) soccer.

More and more players are taking their AAU basketball skills to non-traditional venues.

High school football must change from to simply a contact sport OR insurance companies will no longer cover the damages of head injuries.

Many high school baseball coaches in Oregon have given up there life long dream of coaching high school baseball because the pressures of fund raising to keep their sport alive has damaged there home/family life.

Cameron I hate to see where things maybe headed but we need to keep an eye on the direction things are headed.

Thoughtful reply Cameron and I appreciate it.

T

My 2 cents:

This is why you stay away from benches. There is absolutely no excuse for this much dialog.

"Coach, maybe I missed the play." Then walk away from the situation.

The approach by the crew was very confrontational and only made a bad situation worse.

Tim- While I obviously take issue with your characterizations of 3 person officiating, I think the larger point you raise is very interesting and respect your position with NFHS's publication.

As a graduate student in my sports management program I had the opportunity to travel to the Netherlands and Germany and study the European model of sport. The club model is very different from the scholastic model and addresses many of the financial concerns you seem to be talking about related to high school sports.

I'm not suggesting that's the best model for us here in America but if the conversation you want to have is "can we afford high school sports" then that's something we should be looking at.

Having worked briefly in both high school and college athletic administration I do have some first hand knowledge of athletic budgets and related issues. And IMO to characterize using 3 person vs 2 person basketball officiating crews as a cost prohibitive factor within the larger context of athletic budgets is very short sighted and in most cases, simply not true.

All ignorance means (as people tend to take offense to the word without knowing the meaning) is that you are unaware and not knowledgable of something. It does not mean that you are stupid or cannot be educated. But when you clearly make statements about a system you have never worked and try to equate it to only covering for a lazy official, well that is rather ignorant. I am sure Tim would not suggest that 4 man in baseball is covering for 2 lazy umpires when the game can be covered with 2. That would be ignorant if someone made that statement about baseball.

And unless I am missing something, most schools only play around 25 games a year in basketball. Maybe 10 of those games are at home. So if you are paying an official at $60 an official and in those 10 games that only comes to $600 a year. A school is not paying officials for the tournaments or shootouts away from the school. And usually those types of events have sponsors and part of the cost of the tournament is added in the cost of the officials and at least around here is not always held by a school and has a big sponsor or sponsors to cover the cost of many things in that tournament. And that does not include when you have safety used for everything, we want officials to see the end of plays where things can get rough or flagrant acts would be better seen clearly and use two officials that have to constantly focus on the ball and have dual areas where we miss more than half the court at times. I think Booster Clubs can raise $600 for basketball to cover their costs if needed. And if not sponsors can cover costs as well. But if that $600 or $1000 is too much to cripple a high school program, then you probably should not have the program in the first place considering all the other costs that are associated with sports.

Peace

The same schools that can't afford a third official sure seem to have new uniforms all the time. It's priorities. We're not near the top of the list.

Or travel all over the country. We have some rather high profile schools in my area that have been on National TV more than once and went to other states to play multiple tournaments. I am sure it cost them more than a couple of thousand to accomplish that trip, whether it came out their pocket or not.

Peace

For those of us who work in a state where 2-person is the norm, this is an interesting, but purely theoretical discussion. My state tournament game last night used three officials, but that is virtually the only time 3 officials are used in public high school games in Massachusetts.

I have heard several reasons why we don't do it here:

• The officials don't want to take a pay cut.
• The schools can't afford more money.
• The coaches don't like a third set of eyes.

Rut's math ($600 per season for a third official) would be a little low here. Varsity officials get $77/game (so 10 home games would add $770), plus there must be gender parity: so if the boys get 3 officials, so must the girls. That doubles the cost to about $1,500/year.

I have talked with many veteran officials and it disappoints me that most are not interested in making less money and don't see the advantages of a 3-person crew. At a post-season scrimmage last week with a 3-person crew (two teams who will be in the state tournament), both coaches affirmed they do not like a third official. That is hardly a "sample" of high school coaches, but I have heard it regularly enough that there must be more than a little truth to it.

As a mere official, with no other portfolio in public schools, association politics or state office hierarchy, I am interested in hearing how other states got 3 officials on their games. Where did the push come from? Officials? Coaches? A strong state office?

In Washington State, the WOA basically made an agreement with schools that said, "Let us start using 3-man crews, but you will pay for just 2 officials." That agreement was for something like 3 years. So our own state association made it's own members take the hit starting out. It was so much fun, it seems like it was just yesterday...... :D

I'd make that deal for a limited amount of time with the promise that we'd stay 3 after that limited time was over.

First of all these were some rough estimates based on a couple of things. Not everyone gets paid $60 for a varsity game. Some get paid more, some get paid less. Many here pay less depending on the conference you work for. Private school conferences tend to pay more as well. And those schools do not have a girls basketball program to even factor in the cost. Public schools do, but they have other constant revenue coming into the school that private schools do not. Private schools often have to raise their money and Charter schools are corporate owned, so that is apart of their mission to pay for activities that the school participates in. Even if you factor in both programs less than $2000 is not a lot of money when you consider all the expenses that go into running an athletic program.

So my example would apply to many schools and certainly not all of them. One private school conference I am going to work will pay $75 each for a 3 person crew next year. And I would expect a lower payment if we worked 3 person as opposed to 2 person. Two officials are doing more work.

My state went to 3 person back in 98 for all playoff games and that pretty much changed the landscape. It took a few years for some schools to go that way full time, but when schools realized that they would not get a chance to see either the same officials or the same style of officiating in the post season that they do in the regular season, they changed quickly. There are a couple of schools that you can find that will assign non-conference games 2 person, but that is few and far between. A school that had some controversy about some transfers played their regular season games at home with 2 person. Well they lost in the Sectional Semi-final the other day in their own gym and I wonder if their adjusting to 3 person played a role. And they were bigger and taller than everyone in their class of 1A which is the smallest class.

Peace

Which is what WA did...we still are not paid enough compared to other states, but it is getting better.

I say reasons 1 & 3 are the most problem. Officials who only do it for the $$$ who don't want any coming out of their pockets and coaches who know they get away with a lot more when only 2 officials are on the court.

The above three arguments were also noted in my state.
The state does not mandate three officials during the regular season.
The large schools went to three man right away and now nearly all schools use three officals. There are a handful of small schools that will contract either way.

The officials took a slight loss in pay ($5 per official per game was the norm).
Pay range is $50 - $85 an official per game for varsity contests.
The loss in pay has been made up and the above range is still the norm.
Some schools will also pay mileage on top of the fees above.

Schools claiming that they cannot afford the increase was given as an excuse by some schools. After the second year of allowing three officials, the excuse was never really brought up again.

The third set of eyes excuse came from coaches who liked to play a physical style of basketball. Physical to the point of grabbing players in the two man dead zone area. These coaches have adjusted to the third official.

Three experienced officials makes for a better called game.

I remember being told by an AD that they shouldn't pay me the same for a three man crew because I don't have to run as much. I told the AD you are not paying me to run, you are paying me to officiate. No further comments were made.

I think the real reason that three man is prevalent in my state is that the officials would ask the schools when getting contracts whether they wanted a three man crew or two man crew. The AD's started to go along with the three man crew. Younger coaches who had three man crews in college asked for three man crews.
The reason this worked is because my state contracts officials as independant contractors. There are no associations to belong to. There are a few assignors for some conferences, but your contract is still directcly with the school, not an association.

Interesting. Our 4 and 5 A boys division uses three man for regular season but the girls for the same division only uses 2. I wonder how long this will last.

Regarding the excuse of not enough money for three man crews, ever look around a game and notice how many staff bodies there are from schools who act as whatever?

I think it's safe to say they could cut back on the 8,9,10 + folks who I'm sure are making at least if not more than we are.

Elimanate one, and you have a three man crew.

If the two programs are provided the same budget and same facilities and they choose to spend it differently there is no issue. Maybe the went to a camp while the boys didn't. Maybe they bought new uniforms with the money. Using 2 vs. 3 is not necessarily a problem with equity.

I might agree with you if it was one school but it is an association/state thing. It is that way across the board. The only time the girls get three officials is during the state tourney. I kinda thought the whole Title 9 thing would have been brought up.

Except that the girls coaches had the choice and voted it down. (or is that a different thread...I can't recall if that discussion was in this one or not and I don't feel like figuring that out)

Interesting. Then I guess it is their problem then.

That was a different thread, regarding Montana I believe.

Oregon is considering using 3-man crews for the 6A and 5A teams within three years.
Cut in pay possible to get it enacted.

Heresy! Eliminate one of those make work jobs for teachers?

They'd sooner eliminate us entirely.

Don't get me started on teacher, union, pay issues.

I'm Not Complaining, But Don't Get Me Started ...
 

... and don't get me to finish it (says a retired teacher, with three college degrees, who had to work second, and third, jobs for over twenty years to move into the middle class, purchase a moderately sized home (2000 square feet) with a thirty year mortgage, that I'm still paying off, and who is always paying off four year car loans on two moderately priced cars that the family keeps for eight years, and then don't get me started on doing "schoolwork" at home at night, on weekends, and during non-paid vacations, and non-paid holidays, yeah, that's right, at least here in Connecticut, teachers don't get paid for vacations, and holidays). Can you tell that I wasn't an English teacher?

Oh, but its for the kids! :eek:

Hindsight is always better, but if one tech had been issued to the bench, a simple "If one more bench tech is given, you know that you are ejected, right?" might have made a difference. But knuckleheads seem to surround themselves with even bigger knuckleheads, so it may only have helped in a dream world.

Really? Really? Eliminate teaching positions in favor of getting 3 man crews?

That's ****ing ridiculous.

I think he's talking about the extra money they're spending for the overtime for each of those teachers "working" at the game; not actually firing teachers but giving them a bit less overtime to sit in the corner of the gym during the basketball game.

I changed careers and am now a teacher. Don't assume that every teacher is a union member. And, by the same token, don't assume that all teachers are tenured.

Exactly. Or maybe stop paying teachers keeping the book more than they pay the game officials.

Instead, they'll have 8 teachers there drawing pay and maybe an off duty cop or two but when it comes to a third official there's no money. Cry me a river.

Don't think I did.... On both. ???

Take a deep breath and reread the post and follow the discussion

Really, really? Eliminate teacher positions

Oh wait we're talking about extra pay for table, ticket taking, security work

Silly me

Love this! As a current teacher, coach, table worker, and official, I make $32 to score the basketball game from 5:30 to likely 9:30 or 10. As a math teacher, that is darn near minimum wage. My timer compadre is even lower at 28 bucks. The supervisor is even lower at $20, that's below minimum wage when they have to deal with unruly fans. Don't slam teachers, period. If you want to, I will need your name and phone number to substitute for me next Tuesday.

Move here. I've seen the checks at some schools and they were bigger than mine.

And why is it that teachers get first crack at these scorer/timer gigs, anyway? Scorers and timers are supposed to be officials according to the NFHS -- why aren't those positions filled in the same way as officiating slots?

Drivers Ed in Illinois 140,000

Retire on 80% of that with guaranteed
3% increase every year

Cry me an ocean

Illinois pays almost double for scorer table duties. As a teacher at your school, how much extra in gas and don't forget windshield time

Typical varsity game for me say an hour to get there, arrive an hour before game time 1:15. 1:30 for game 15 minutes after game and hour drive home

So roughly over four hours, and 10, 12 for gas for a 60 buck check

Just watched the video and have not read the other comments yet*—*wanted to throw in my unsolicited feedback first :)

I don't know about the rest of the game or how it was officiated. The no call isn't the worst in the world ... yes, it is probably a foul, but it wasn't ridiculously awful and I can understand having a patient whistle here and passing on it.

SIX assistant coaches is beyond ridiculous. If this trend continues I can imagine the NFHS or state associations putting a rule in about it ... of course, the rules committees are generally run by coaches, so probably not.

Anyway, on to the technical foul... We don't see it, but I am assuming it was well deserved since there are at least a couple of others that *could* have been well deserved in the video that we DO see. The administration of the technical foul, however, was poor and the officials did several things that caused them more grief and trouble than necessary.

1) The best thing you can do after a technical foul is to shoot the shots and get the ball back in play as quickly as possible (without being so quick that you mess something up). Once the ball is back in play, the coaches will (most likely) go back to coaching. The entire time you are administering the technical foul shots they have nothing to do but say something to you, complain further, etc.

2) Since this technical will be administered at the beginning of the 4th quarter, we have an extended time period directly following it. That is out of our control. What is in our control, though, is where we spend that time —*which should be on the opposite side of the court from the coaches. Do not go over there. Do not engage. Do not explain. Get away!!

3) The officials engage the head coach and many of the assistants —*there is no reason for this. Talk to the head coach. Let him know you will talk to him and ask him to have his assistants sit down. There is no reason to argue with any of the assistant coaches —*especially when there are 6 assistants!!! You are in a losing battle.

4) Demeanor goes a long way. If you are standing 3-4 feet from a coach it isn't necessary to make hand gestures*—*like wiggling your finger in the air in admonishment, or leaning towards the coach with a stop sign signal.

Also, if there is an issue with the assistant coaches standing you should tell the head coach and ask him to have his assistants sit down. Waving your finger/hand down and yelling "Sit down!" across the court is adversarial and unnecessary. If you ask the coach to have his assistants sit down, he will then turn and ask the assistants to sit —*the request is coming from the coach not you, which makes a difference. You should see a better result —*and if you don't, you can assess a technical foul as necessary and the head coach has no excuse or complaint, since he was informed about it by you earlier.

Look at the demeanor of the officials in the screen caps below and ask yourself what message it communicates.

http://f.cl.ly/items/0l0q1o3Q0N213E0...er_wagging.jpg

http://f.cl.ly/items/2m2J0Q3T1b130s3h3D3N/stop_sign.jpg

http://f.cl.ly/items/3F0r1G352p0c2y2...down_coach.jpg

True, but they don't have things under control either.

Well, in the first play, the same guy would have been trail and had the play right in front of him in his primary!

http://f.cl.ly/items/2M35351L1o0q1P3...een_nocall.jpg

Film don't lie.

I wish I had a "Trolltastic" award to give you for that comment. Nice work.

There are some NCAA and NBA games where a 4th official could help in certain situations!

If you haven't called a technical foul you can say this.

If you call a tech, just get away quickly and silently.