If you understood how unskilled some of our bigger schools VG games were you would understand they might be afraid of being pulled off that VB games and put on a miserable VG game instead. And how boring some of those games might be for them. Who knows... I am just excited about possibilities for the upcoming season.

Oh, so they're ready to retire rather than work girls games at all. 2 or 3 isn't the issue, except that needing more officials for girls games might mean they have to work a few. Is that accurate?

Thats my guess Adam. Once the decision comes down I look forward to asking some older vets what they are going to do or how they feel.

Then who is going to be doing those boys games? It is more likely that they will stay where they are and they'll pull in new officials to fill the needed spots.

That's why we have three-man certification here. All post-season games are three-man. In the pre/regular season, the home team has the option to hire three. It's usually seen at the more competitive, higher class games.

It's Not Your Father's Basketball Game Anymore ...
 

I really enjoy the challenge, both the physical challenge, and the mental challenge, of a two person game. In that way I guess that I'm glad that Connecticut is stuck in the twentieth century in terms of three person games. However, deep down inside, I know that three person games are best for the game of high school basketball. These kids today are a lot bigger, a lot faster, and a lot more skilled, all the way down to the end of the bench, than we were back when I was in high school (three favorite subjects: hunting, grunting, and cave painting). I was six feet tall and a center. I see point guards taller than six feet in high school games today. I can see more dunks in a single high school game today than I saw in my entire high school career. I only saw one basket interference call in my entire high school career, when I got my hand accidentally tangled in the net while trying to block a shot.

The 3-person system provides a better product, than the 2-person system all factors being equal.
Yet what happens when these factors aren't? It really matters which individuals fill the slots.

If there are three physically fit and well-trained officials working, then that system will work well. However, if one of the crew members is unfit or lacking in proper knowledge of rules, positioning, or judgment then this will cause a real mess. The other two partners will be depending upon this person to handle his coverage area and when he doesn't, the call will be missed or made incorrectly.
In fact, if there aren't enough quality officials to staff the 3-person system for the games in a league or area, then 2-person with two quality individuals will actually provide a better result.
There is no question that objectively the 3-person system is theoretically better, but the subjective factors will play a much larger role in determining the quality of the outcome in real world practice.

True, but you can't get to the better product of a 3-man game without some growing pains. Do it now, and your better product will be there in two or three years. Wait longer, and the entire process is delayed.

I also like that challenge, but the attitudes of players has also changed and IMO not for the better. Sportsmanship is worse and I think players attempting to get away with harming an opponent has increased. That extra set of eyes helps to discourage this and protects the crew from missing such behavior.

I agree here. But the third guy makes it so much easier to get the stuff that always seems to get missed with 2.

Agreed. If two of the three officials know three-person and the third person is a decent official, you'll be okay. If the argument against doing it in the regular season is not enough people know how then how is anyone supposed to learn? A couple of scrimmages in the preseason isn't enough and neither is a few times during camps in the summer.

As for guys who wouldn't want to do three-person GV because of the quality did it ever dawn on them that's the place to get practice?

You will never have a great system if you never have people work it. So since the biggest games of the year will be in the post season, then schools, conferences or tournaments would be better served to have many 3 person games the entire season. It tooks us a few years for everyone to feel comfortable when we changed in the late 90s. Now you almost never have to talk about basics and we can just officiate games even when you work with people you have never worked with previously.

Peace

I suspect that in most cases, the mouth running over this will be just that - mouth running. I bet MOST of your veterans who have said this will change their tune if it really did come down to "Call girls occasionally or quit".

I don't do many HS games anymore, just Fridays and some Thanksgiving and Christmas games, so it wouldn't matter much to me at this point, but I am glad that here in Chicago nobody is forced to do both boys and girls games. You can do both if you want, and there are a few people who choose to do so, but you can also work just one or the other if you want that path as well. If we were required to work both, it would mean that I would give up HS ball altogether. Sorry, but I couldn't make it through a girls game.

Can someone give me some insight into the differences you see between calling the girls games and guys games that make girls so undesirable. Obviously the pace of play and style is going to be a little different but at least around here it's not so glaring that girls games are unpalletable. The boys game is more physical and faster but both genders can have great pace or poor pace and both can have skilled varsity teams and unskilled. Maybe its a regional thing but I wouldn't say our local girls games were that much less desirable then boys games.