Four-man crew

Camron Rust

Rich wrote
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

Camron Rust wrote
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

chseagle wrote
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

Rich wrote
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

BillyMac wrote
Video replay?

Two more words....

Too disruptive

BillyMac

Camron Rust wrote
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

BillyMac wrote
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

BadNewsRef wrote
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

Kansas Ref wrote
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.

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.

Kansas Ref

Rich wrote
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".

scrounge

JugglingReferee wrote
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.

« Previous Page