Three officials since 1988-89: Why?

[Beattheohiostate]

(Also posted on the WBB board)

The eye test clearly shows officiating hasn't improved one bit by adding the third official . . . in fact, anecdotal evidence might suggest it is worse now than in the two-official era. So if officiating hasn't improved and may even be worse, why have the third official? Going back to two would save one third of the money spent on officials and would, theoretically, allow the firing of the worst one third.

Another option might be to put the third official in a booth with a big screen and sit there and call the game via an ear bud or buzzer or some other electronic device connected to the head official on the floor.

Like with KF's football offense, continuing to do the same things and expecting different (better) results is the definition of insanity. If it ain't workin', fix it . . . or at least try to. And basketball officiating is clearly not working. After 35+ years, it would seem the sample size is sufficient to draw some meaningful conclusions. I already have. You're welcome.

 

[LukaDuka]

(Also posted on the WBB board)

The eye test clearly shows officiating hasn't improved one bit by adding the third official . . . in fact, anecdotal evidence might suggest it is worse now than in the two-official era. So if officiating hasn't improved and may even be worse, why have the third official? Going back to two would save one third of the money spent on officials and would, theoretically, allow the firing of the worst one third.

Another option might be to put the third official in a booth with a big screen and sit there and call the game via an ear bud or buzzer or some other electronic device connected to the head official on the floor.

Like with KF's football offense, continuing to do the same things and expecting different (better) results is the definition of insanity. If it ain't workin', fix it . . . or at least try to. And basketball officiating is clearly not working. After 35+ years, it would seem the sample size is sufficient to draw some meaningful conclusions. I already have. You're welcome.

you're right, I think they need a fourth. That way old "high knees" won't have to run nearly as much.

 

[unipanther1999]

If you haven't officiated before it might seem logical that four would be better than three, but that is not necessarily the case. Officiating is all about seeing things from the correct angle. Three gives you that better than four in my opinion. The NBA and others have experimented with four, and it just doesn't work as well.

Also, I will completely disagree with the assessment that officiating has gotten worse since 1988. IMO, it's much better. But we now have high definition, slow-motion replay on every game - across all D1 conferences, where there are now a ton more teams and games played.

There's more scrutiny on officiating now than there ever has been. If you want to improve officiating, there is only one way that will work for sure. Start officiating junior high and high school games and/or encourage others you know to do it. Expanding the pool of available officials to move up the ranks is the best way to improve quality at the college level.

 

[Beattheohiostate]

If officating is all about seeing things from the correct angle, then like I said, put one in a booth with a big screen. Every game I see multiple times when officials are staring directly at a play and call it wrong. Or I see the official under the basket a few feet from the play call nothing, but the official on the sideline calls a foul that would require X-ray vision to have seen through the half dozen players between the official and the alleged foul. Just sayin'.

 

[LukaDuka]

I say less is more, let'em play

 

[unipanther1999]

If officating is all about seeing things from the correct angle, then like I said, put one in a booth with a big screen. Every game I see multiple times when officials are staring directly at a play and call it wrong. Or I see the official under the basket a few feet from the play call nothing, but the official on the sideline calls a foul that would require X-ray vision to have seen through the half dozen players between the official and the alleged foul. Just sayin'.

No system can be perfect when it comes to officiating. Adding more layers of technology might improve accuracy, but it will slow down the game. In football they have to use the buzzer pagers to get the officials to stop the game because often they may not be able to hear in their earpiece when the snap imminent. It would be just as bad in basketball, you'd have the stop the game - you can just say in an officials ear, "call a foul on #43," when meanwhile 3 other things might have now happened in the few seconds it takes to do that, and how do you explain that to the crowd?

The human element has always been part of sports, and accepting that mistakes are sometimes made and you need to be able to accept that and move on is a valuable life lesson. The need to be right about absolutely everything and prove it to your opponent (sports, politics, business, whatever) is a bad trend in our society.

 

[pgsailor]

Bad officiating is directly related to the vast expansion of sports betting National wide. In all major sports pro and college!