Turnback of Games

[PeteBooth]

As the Winter approaches, there's not much to talk about these days so I'd thought I'd continue on our current topic of Assignors.

In one of the responses I received, it was told to me that I should treat taking game assignments as if I had a part time job. I agree with that philosophy except:

Whenever I took a part time job for a variety of reasons, my employer paid me by the hour. Whenever, we take a game assignment we get say a $50 game FEE whether we are there for 5 minutes or 5 hours - it doesn't matter.

In my area the varsity FEE is $80.00 and the Modified FEE is $54.00. While it can be said that an assignor needs his most qulaified individuals on a varsity game the fact remains that on average most good varsity games are completed in less than 2 hours.

The same cannot be said for the modified level. Yes, you get that occassional gem but by and large the modified games last longer except if there is a time limit on the field.

Ok what's my point in all this. I'll use a mathmatical term if you will.

The Turnback of games is Directly proportional to the quality of the Game itself

In my rookie season my availability (becasue of my job at the time) was adequate. Plenty of times I would get that last minute call "Pete can you go so and so" for me.

I got many assignments that way and thought that the association thought I was the next coming of Steve Palermo (Remember I was a rookie and didn't know the ropes yet). Little did I know at the time that the only reason I was getting all those games is because they were originally turned back by someone else.

Also, in general much travel time involved and the qulaity of the game stunk.

In conclusion, if Umpires got paid by the hour perhaps there wouldn't be so many turnback of games. As mentioned one gets a real good game FEE at the vasrsity level where the games last on average less than 2 hours vs. modified games in which you receive $25 less but are there for at least an hour or more on average.

For those of you who assign, is the main reason for turnback of games due to the quality or am I way off base (No pun intended) Thanks

Pete Booth

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
As the Winter approaches, there's not much to talk about these days so I'd thought I'd continue on our current topic of Assignors.

In one of the responses I received, it was told to me that I should treat taking game assignments as if I had a part time job. I agree with that philosophy except:

Whenever I took a part time job for a variety of reasons, my employer paid me by the hour. Whenever, we take a game assignment we get say a $50 game FEE whether we are there for 5 minutes or 5 hours - it doesn't matter.

In my area the varsity FEE is $80.00 and the Modified FEE is $54.00. While it can be said that an assignor needs his most qulaified individuals on a varsity game the fact remains that on average most good varsity games are completed in less than 2 hours.

The same cannot be said for the modified level. Yes, you get that occassional gem but by and large the modified games last longer except if there is a time limit on the field.

Ok what's my point in all this. I'll use a mathmatical term if you will.

The Turnback of games is Directly proportional to the quality of the Game itself

In my rookie season my availability (becasue of my job at the time) was adequate. Plenty of times I would get that last minute call "Pete can you go so and so" for me.

I got many assignments that way and thought that the association thought I was the next coming of Steve Palermo (Remember I was a rookie and didn't know the ropes yet). Little did I know at the time that the only reason I was getting all those games is because they were originally turned back by someone else.

Also, in general much travel time involved and the qulaity of the game stunk.

In conclusion, if Umpires got paid by the hour perhaps there wouldn't be so many turnback of games. As mentioned one gets a real good game FEE at the vasrsity level where the games last on average less than 2 hours vs. modified games in which you receive $25 less but are there for at least an hour or more on average.

For those of you who assign, is the main reason for turnback of games due to the quality or am I way off base (No pun intended) Thanks

Pete Booth

Pete,

You are under the mistaken belief that all jobs are paid by the hour. If that's the case, then I don't have a real job. The entertainment industry works on a per performance fee basis. But, it's still work. It's still a job. If I treated it like a hobby, I would lose my home.

Umpiring at higher levels is a job. We don't even have an $80 game fee - I'm basing it on our regular $54 fee for Varsity games - all varsity games. That's it.

No matter what the fee is, no matter what the skill of the players might be, no matter how long it takes to play, you agreed to work for that amount under those conditions.

Turning back assignments is absolutely wrong. It makes your assignor pull his hair out, and it inconveniences those people who must take your place. You're either available and willing, or you ain't. You know what the job entails.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by PeteBooth

For those of you who assign, is the main reason for turnback of games due to the quality or am I way off base (No pun intended) Thanks

Pete Booth

Pete;

Umpires who turn back games drive assignors crazy. Jim Porter is right on with regard to that.

Yes, you are right. Umpires turn back crappy games far more often than they turn back good games. We assingors are well aware of the "games" that the umpires are playing with us.

In that regard, I never minded the rare occasions that an umpire turned back a good game. I got to make points with other umpires by offering them good games. Good games are never difficult to give away. For some reason, the umpire who can't make a crappy game, can clear up his schedule to make a good game. I wonder why that is. :o)

Peter

Umpires turn games in for many reasons. Quality may be one reason but who your partner is can be a big one. I've know some guys that nobody wants to work with. I think the best reason is work related. The end result is turning games in drives assignors nuts.
For the guys that are turning bad games in, when it comes time for the good end of the year games guess who gets first dibs. The guys that didn't turn games in and the guys who took the turned in games.
JV games should pay as well as Varsity games because they are harder work but in the real world there just isn't the money.

[Rog]

I wonder if there is any correlation between those umpire's who turn games in for dubious reasons; and, umpire's who show up late for a game but then want to hurry the game so then can get going early?????

[edhern]

In my experience if you take the crappier games in the first couple of years you umpire and show you are available, you will start getting mostly the "better" games. Even if you are just filling in, you often get your choice of "better" games or get called first for the "better" games. One assignor even sometimes switches umps if I can work out some availability.
One note on crappy games. I had to work a few for one team that didn't make it past the third inning (mercy rules). They didn't win a game all season when I did the assignor a favor and took a one man game. The $75 fee and half I guess is good enough incentive. The other team was 2 and whatever and never showed. While I was waiting I was talking to the coach. He was disappointed the other team didn't show even though they would probably lose. They were terrible and didn't belong in one of the higher quality leagues. He pointed out he joined the league knowing they were overmatched and wanted the education. What he pointed out was that even though they were 0 for the season, and it was near the end, about game 30, that he had 13 players ready to go. They showed up for every game knowing they would get blown out. Not that I would do them every game, but if given an assignment, I would have respect for their commitment and show mine. It may be more interesting and a better use of your skills to do "bigger" games, especially when you are accustomed to do so, but nobody should have that big an ego that they can't work the "dogs". When I first started I always wanted the highest age game I could get (17/18, never adults) to work on skills and they were more interesting. I could not understand why many vets wanted 12y/o games. After a couple of years I realized 12y/o rarely lasted more than an hour and a half for the same or slightly less money that games went 2 hrs with time limits and sometimes much longer without. Now I make sure to have some 12y/o games in my schedule.

[Rog]

the Jr's division's; and, NABA games.
Jr's are 2 - 1/4 hours max.
NABA rarely over 2 hours,
had one 9 inning game which was done in 49 minutes!!!!!
High school jv games are the worst,
some are up to 4 hours +
but, those are the breaks!
As long as I have a full schedule.