Two Man and 3 Man Knees and Joints

[River Ref]

How much easier is 3 Man on old joints? Best shoes etc...It's always the sudden stopping and the pushing -off. Left knee has had some clean-up surgery,but it is always the leg I push off of. Just interested in some of your comparisions.Twelve years(never missing a single game of my daughters...a promise I made) of 2 man and now going to 3.

[Terrapins Fan]

Over all in my opinion, 3 man is easier. You get more coverage, but if you have a fast paced game, you're still moving a lot.

Our association went to 3 man about 15 years ago, mostly because we had officials who could not work 2 man games. ( I'd say at that time, 1/3 of our officials were over 50 ) It helped to keep them a part of our association for another 10 years. Now I am in that group that is over 50.

Many associations will not go to 3 man for lack of officials. That's a shame in my opinion.

[Rich]

I will have worked 29 3-person games and 26 2-person games this season once my season is over. We still have too much 2-person around here, although there's a possibility that 1-3 conferences will be making the move to 3 soon.

I don't really find working 2-person to be any more physically taxing -- don't get me wrong, I put in more steps and I need to move more to cover the floor properly. I find 2-person a lot more *mentally* taxing, though.

I can see that knees and other joints could benefit from 3-person. I'm lucky to not have those issues right now, but we're all just one injury away from being there.

[Freddy]

I find that the guys who claim to prefer the three-man system for the sake of "less running" do not do a justice to the game. They tend to use the occasion of three-man to become lazy, especially at the C-to-C and the old T-to-new L transitions.
56 three-man games + 17 tubes of IcyHot and BenGay = This Year. Yes, if those were all two-man games, that probably woulda taken double the dose of the hot stuff.
On the topic: please don't entertain doing three-man at the expense of conditioning. Those I observe who do so end up lazy -- Trail stays in the coffin corner near the division line so as not to "get beat" back to the other end; C waits for the play to pass him by going the other way; new Trail gets a head start and bounces the ball back to the endline for a throw-in in order to be able to walk upcourt without running; Lead hesitates to rotate because it forces the other two to have to move.
Shortcuts develop. Laziness becomes apparent. Angles are neglected. Guessing predominates. Those are the kinds of things I see with officials who prefer three-man for the sake of "less running."
Two-man, done right, is indeed more demanding than three-man. But three-man done right still deserves a diligent expense of effort and demands suitable conditioning.
Depends, I guess, if a person wants to "work the game" and give it the best, or merely "do the game" and get a paycheck.
Sorry for the diatribe, but I'm just sick of watching guys being lazy and refusing to invest the conditioning expected, whether doing either system.
Hope you do well at whatever your schedule brings you!

[JetMetFan]

Conditioning or no, three-person will make life easier on your knees and other body parts because of the C position. As Rich and others have said it's not that you don't have to run/work hard regardless of the game you're doing but there's definitely less wear and tear, especially if you're in the C for a few minutes at a time. You still have to sprint from that spot but it's an "I need to stay even with these kids" sprint as opposed to an "I have to catch these kids" sprint.

Of course, if you're overweight/out of shape none of it really matters. I've dropped 45 lbs. in the past year. Huge difference in the effects on my body as well as the number of games I've received.

Rich's point about the game being a little less taxing on the brain can have physical benefits as well.