Four-man crew
 

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.

One day I am going to give up officiating, going to a 4-man crew might be that day.

Two referees and two linesmen? :confused:

I would have to change my tag line below...

What about modified 3 man to keep the aging veterans in the game? One official under each basket and one at half court. Coverage is two man on each end with no transitioning by the officials needed. The trailer official at half would not have to move very far. The officials switch on fouls so that not one official spends the game under one teams basket.

I was at a camp this summer and had a chance to hear Don Vaden speak and he talked about the 4-man crew. He indicated that he wanted to experiment in the D-League and see if it could work. His primary intent was to be able to better officiate diagonal drive to the basket that cross through primary coverage areas and he felt that a dividend would be a larger staff. He also said it was his job to improve officiating and trying out new things prevents stagnation.

Or maybe someone should tell them the game has passed them by, they cant keep up, and that they should retire.

I have a lot of respect for Donnie Vaden, and his son and I are on a couple of staffs together, but this is something I'm not fond of at all.

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.

And more doesn't always mean better, there is a point where the marginal costs of an input outweigh the marginal benefits.

This sounds like a post I would read on April 1st. But I am curious how the court position and rotations would work for this.

Would you have 2 leads and 2 trails?
Would you have 1 lead, 2 centers, and a trail?
Some other crazy configuration?

You know, I hire varsity officials for 21 high schools now -- and I'd rather have a veteran official that may have lost a step but has good people skills and good judgment than someone who doesn't but runs like a gazelle.

But you're probably right -- if someone can't keep up in a 3-person game on an 84' floor, it is time to think about another hobby.

Just do it like soccer -- have three floor refs making the calls and a fourth official taking care of the benches, coaches, timing errors, and fixing that score parents are always yelling about.

I'm thinking two wings, and R and a U.

You are right, these type of guys (bold and underline above) can still be an asset. I was referring to the guys who have lost multiple steps, to the point that no amount of people skills or experience can make up for the fact that they are constantly out of position.

The problem is that I heard this same argument when we pushed to go 3-person -- if people can't keep up 2-person, they should just get out.

Funny, it's not the coaches that want to push people out most of the time.

How Many More Travel Games Today ???
 

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

Welcome To My World ...
 

It's True, It's True ...
 

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

Run 4-person basketball crew like they do in hockey
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Two Words ???
 

Video replay?

Two more words....

Too disruptive

Not For It, But Is It Inevitable ???
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*I agree: NFHS won't have this due to among other things, adding another budget line item for h.s. sports administrators to have to deal with + the extra cost. I mean to say: things usually reach a point of "diminishing returns".

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.

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.