Four-man crew

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

One official under each basket and one at half court.

Hey. I've seen some guys work like this, but in a two man game, without the third official at half court.

[Kansas Ref]

Notwithstanding the advantages, disadvantages, and presumed confusion that will arise, I'm sure that if it were put to a vote, then the majority of refs would be "in favor" of this new tact---for the simple reason of more game$ to work on.
I conducted an informal poll of some campers (read as: asked 5 refs during a lunch break) and all of them said in one way or another they'd be good with it.

[Rich]

Personally, it's why I was thrilled to see most of the conference I work more to 3-person. More games to work, better coverage, how could I not like it?

4-man may happen in the NBA, but I don't think any of us have to worry about it in HS games.

[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.

[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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

So, at the risk of being naive, why exactly would you need any rotations or detailed mechanics at all? If you have 4 guys, why not just split the half-court into quarters, L1 has his side, L2 has his side, T1 his quarter, etc. If the ball is high back up a little, if not come down to C area, but still everyone has their quarter. If the ball is high and forces the T up, the L on that side can easily look through and get the middle. I'm sure there are some other details, but the basics seem straightforward. What am I missing?

Doubt we'll ever see this, the benefit just doesn't appear to be worth the cost.

[Rich]

Why not just go to 8 and make it where nobody runs at all?

I see the benefit of a third official. I'm just not sure that, for us anyway, there's any benefit at all to adding a 4th.

I'd prefer to see a 3rd in baseball or a 6th/7th in football before we do this.