I had a discussion about this yesterday with some local colleagues. We all agree that we -and the UIL - cannot expect officials to expend more time with this avocation without additional compensation. But, let's first understand why the jurisdiction was extended.
The jurisdiction was extended largely due to the fact that most (if not all) teams conclude their pre-game warmup around KO-minus 30 minutes, and return to their dressing rooms. So, when the crews arrives on the field at KO-minus 30, there is often only one team - or none - on the field. Even if there is a team(s), they are usually only there for 2 to 5 minutes, and then they depart. That leaves precious little time to check uniforms, observe snaps, talk to ball persons, and other pre-game actions we might like to perform. (Note: NCAA guys have been on the field at KO-minus 60 for many years, giving them more than ample time to perform their duties; that, too, has been extended to KO-minus 90, to help mitigate interactions between teams.)
I have not heard if this was a factor, but, as in the NCAA, there, too, may have also been consideration to help mitigate interactions between the teams.
Pros and Cons
Pros: More time to check uniforms and equipment, and observe snaps, notify game management of dangerous field conditions that need to get corrected, and perform other pre-game actions. However, we see more and more teams warming up without shoulder pads/jerseys, which hinders the ability to confirm compliance. And, many times when non-compliant items are recognized and the player/coach is notified, the baloney excuse, "Oh, this is just what (or how) I wear this for pre-game; I'll have it right for the game" is offered. So, checking uniforms/equipment is almost useless.
Cons: The biggest 'con' to the extended jurisdiction is the loss of dressing room time for the crew, to conduct a meaningful pre-game conference. Unless officials arrive more than 90 minutes before KO, then there is no time to conduct a pre-game conference. If the R and U are to meet with coaches beginning at KO-minus 75, they need a few minutes to dress; we allot 15 minutes for that. Allotting 15 minutes to complete the meetings, they are back to the dressing room, just in time to enter the field for pre-game. Assuming one teams has left the field at KO-minus 30, the crew can return to their dressing room with some 20 minutes of undedicated time. Hardly enough, or the appropriate time, for a meaningful pre-game conference at the game site. So, unless a crew is a true 'fixed crew,' and they meet during the week to prepare for a game (as some crews do), there is no opportunity for a pre-game conference, UNLESS they arrive much earlier than the prescribed 90 minutes before KO. As stated earlier, neither TASO nor the UIL can expect guys that are, for all practical purposes, volunteer officials, to put more time into this avocation than they already expend - and certainly not without significant additional compensation.
On the issue of team interactions during pre-game, it is complete BOVINE SCATOLOGY that we should be saddled with this. The coaches need to be adults and take responsibility for the behavior of their players, and THEIR behavior.
If the extension had been 15 minutes, PLUS the meetings with the coaches moved to KO-minus 90 minutes, we could still have 30 minutes for a pre-game. The R and U could go visit the coaches immediately upon arrival (in street clothes, if necessary), and be back in the dressing room by KO-minus 75. The R and U could dress while the conference is taking place, and they could get on the field by KO-minus 45. 15 minutes is enough to observe the teams and talk to ball persons. Talking to the chain crew crew can go as long as needed.
60 minutes creates problems.