Four-man crew

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There are plenty of ADs and coaches who still think the 3rd official is unnecessary.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by brainbrian

This sounds like a post I would read on April 1st.

Did you know that Sidd Finch is now a basketball official?

[chseagle]

How about running a 4-person basketball crew like they do in hockey? Have 2 referees (who call all fouls & violations) & 2 umpires (who do the out of bounds plays).

The other idea would be, like others suggested, 3-person floor crew with the 4th person at the Scorers' table either doing the official book, running the scoreboard/clock, or overseeing the Timer & Scorer, while monitoring the benches.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by chseagle

How about running a 4-person basketball crew like they do in hockey? Have 2 referees (who call all fouls & violations) & 2 umpires (who do the out of bounds plays).

The other idea would be, like others suggested, 3-person floor crew with the 4th person at the Scorers' table either doing the official book, running the scoreboard/clock, or overseeing the Timer & Scorer, while monitoring the benches.

I don't think either of those suggestions would help with anything. The first would likely provide worse coverage in both areas. The second would improve anything. You would just be making the scorer/timer an official. Not really a change.

For four officials to be of any benefit, they would all have to be fully authorized to make all calls on the floor. The only real issue is the mechanics...positions and coverages.

I would suggest two leads whether the ball side lead would cover to the corner suits now done in some systems. The other lead would have off ball post play and/or curl plays. There would still be a t and a c with the t being dictated by the ball location.. But opposite the current system (opposite ball side) and the t would stay much higher to guarantee at least one new least would always be able to beat a fastbreak.

Another option would be to have 2 c's with the off-ball c working even lower than now and the on ball c working high but not trail high. The t would work higher but could roam across the court to be on he off ball side.

In both of these schemes, the rotations would be incredibly simple and there would never be a question of who I us supposed to be the new lead(s). It would only be minor shifting.

The primary benefit with either would be the provide one more possible angle for plays to be covered.

[Rich]

One benefit of having someone cover C to C is the transition coverage between the tops of the arcs which the C is ideally positioned to get. If we go to 4-man with 2 Ls, it ends up being 2-man going up and down the floor -- just on both sides of the floor.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

One benefit of having someone cover C to C is the transition coverage between the tops of the arcs which the C is ideally positioned to get. If we go to 4-man with 2 Ls, it ends up being 2-man going up and down the floor -- just on both sides of the floor.

Not what I meant.

2 leads but still a center and a trail where only the trail takes off on transition to lead and the center would still lag behind to cover the start of the transition but would just continue to the endline instead of stopping at the ft line. By that time the old leads would be in the front court. Who is c or t would not be dictated by the lead anymore. Not sure what would be the key but it would only involve 2 of the officials (the c and t). Having any sort of rotation where 4 have to dynamically.shift in sync is likely to be very difficult if not impossible.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think either of those suggestions would help with anything. The first would likely provide worse coverage in both areas. The second would improve anything. You would just be making the scorer/timer an official. Not really a change. .

Actually by having the Scorer/Timer be an actual official, the training & understanding of the rules is would be there. More often than not the scorer & timer is someone who was just asked to do the position with just the basic understanding of the game & who does not do rule/casebook studies.

The idea of copying how hockey officials operate is just another way to look at options. Another idea would be have 3 Rs & 1 U (similar idea to the 2 R, 2 L in hockey), have the 3 Rs do all foul/violation calls, & the U do the OOB throw-ins.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Actually by having the Scorer/Timer be an actual official, the training & understanding of the rules is would be there. More often than not the scorer & timer is someone who was just asked to do the position with just the basic understanding of the game & who does not do rule/casebook studies.

Quite frankly, an official in this position is overkill for all but the most important games. Rather than do this, I'd rather be on the floor working a game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Quite frankly, an official in this position is overkill for all but the most important games. Rather than do this, I'd rather be on the floor working a game.

Exactly. Most scorers/timers do fine. Rather than cover for the 1 case that happens one time every few weeks, i would rather have one more angle on plays that happen several times per game. That would have a far greater impact on the game. Call accuracy should improve noticeably.

[BillyMac]

Video replay?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Video replay?

Two more words....

Too disruptive

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Too disruptive

The NFHS allows video replay under some very specific situations at this time. Don't you think that, over the years, the video replay will "creep" into more situations?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The NFHS allows video replay under some very specific situations at this time. Don't you think that, over the years, the video replay will "creep" into more situations?

I hope not... At least not the way it is done now at the upper levels. One more official to improve the angles to get it right on the fly is far better than a 5 minute delay several times per game for just a few reviewable situations. Games Doylestown take an extra hour if you reviewed everything an extra official could see.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No way I see this implemented at the amateur levels. There are plenty of ADs and coaches who still think the 3rd official is unnecessary, no way they'll go to 4.

This.

My opinion...this sounds like a solution in search of a problem. The NBE's response to the criticism of officials by people like Mark Cuban.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Was just at a camp over the wknd, a clinician told us that currently under experimentation / consideration is the use of a four man crew--yes 4 refs on the floor during a game. The reasons this clinician proffered were: 1) to employ more refs for games, 2) to improve floor coverage.
Are 8 eyes better than 6 eyes? Are 6 eyes better than 4 eyes?
Presumably this would apply to upper level games of college and pro.

I predicted a 4-man crew a number of years ago. I posted to this forum, but can't find the post. I even included the mechanics they should use.

It was basically 3-man at each of the court, with a fixed L on each end line. Only the C and T move. Unused L rotates with the crew if they rotate at the other end of the court.