The Requirements Of Pay
 

If we were to compute our pay in hourly form, for the sake of comparison only, we would be compensated in the range of $10 to $75.

Is it too much to ask that we would have testing, training and a certification process (all of which reflects the academic accomplishments by taking courseware, examination of OBR rules, mechanics, local rules and similar)?

Arguments are made that welders, longshoremen, plumbers, Realtors and others have standards, why not us?

What are your thoughts?

We already have testing, training and a certification process.

Mine are that if pay were based on performance, instead of every umpire getting the same game fee just because he draws breath, wears the "right" color jersey, and belongs to the "right" association, more umpires would work to get better on their own instead of meeting the minimum standard and calling it a year.

Realtors have standards?

It's a pisser alright. And it's irrational. And most orgs are run by Old Guard who get the elite games many of those Guardies are pisserpoor umpires.

Few. A Pulse is the only one I can think of. :D

Hell you know mine. You'd never make more than the $10 range. :D :D

Who is this "we" of which you speak? Some organizations just barely require a pulse to draw $50 per game, much less any sort of edumacation or seal of approval.

Love to hear about it. Expound, please.

Those who talk like the OP tend to forget the basic economic principle of supply and demand.

At the amateur level, despite the "great pay," there is a great shortage of officials across all sports. If there wasn't a short supply, those who simply "draw breath" wouldn't get to work or would work less games. In good associations, top umpires work the top games. In places where officials contract directly with schools or league commissioners, it becomes a "fill the spot" kind of game and anyone can work just about any game.

I work in an amateur adult league where we get $70 for a 9-inning wood bat league. I am also the assignor. I've talked to teams about the game fee, which I (as an umpire) would like to see increase at least $10, especially since single college games are paying $90 to $100. A prevailing comment is that "we wouldn't mind paying YOU the extra money, but there are guys who don't deserve (really) the money they get now."

I've seen some work and I know that anyone who wants to work will and it becomes harder to argue for an increase. Supply and demand. So when the top umpires sit down next season, we'll see how the league handles the situation. The cynical me says they'd rather save $20 a game than have good umpiring.

But I would like people to stop thinking we make SO much money doing this. For some of us, $70 on a Sunday afternoon doesn't just involve the time from the first pitch to the last out. We also have to drive to the game site, etc., and the afternoon becomes a 7 hour experience. We also have to (if we care about how we look) buy uniforms regularly and buy equipment.

We also have to fight some perception that what we do is "unskilled" and "anyone can do it" from the average fan/coach perspective. Everyone thinks calling balls and strikes is easy or running a game is easy, so $10 an hour therefore becomes a reasonable rate. In my real life, I have 3 degrees and I work in a very specialized field and have very specific skills and $10-$20 an hour wouldn't even get me off my couch.

And it doesn't when it comes to umpiring, either. I've been asked to umpire some JV and freshman games the past few years, but the pay rate for those games is barely half of what I make working a varsity game ($35 vs. $60). It's not that I'm too good for those lower level games, it's just I don't feel my time is being valued correctly (the games take just as long as varsity games) and I also risk not being able to pick up a makeup varsity or college game if I load up my schedule with lower level games. So I don't do it and haven't worked one since 2003. Now, in football where games aren't canceled and varsity plays on Friday night, I work anything I can get, also because it's a great place for my crew to get work outside the Friday night spotlight.

Would certification give us better umpires? I don't know. It would have to be meaningful, not just some hoops people jump through just to get a star in a box on an Excel spreadsheet.

[QUOTE]Not necessarily true.

We could start an entire thread on the reason for shortages of umpires at the amateur level.

Depending upon where you live some Umpire Associations are as Political as Washington DC

At one point in my life I inquired about umpiring at the Collegiate level until I spoke to a friend of mine who was in a Collegiate Association (ECAC). He travels "all over God's creation" to do games as his goal is to get to a World Series.

The Problem - The word NO is not in your vocabulary if you want to advance.
Therefore, for the most part the so called "top games" are not necessarily given to the "top officials" but to the "good ole boys" especailly to those who are ALWAYS available.


I would take comments from members of an "adult mens league" with a grain of salt. They would "wine" no matter who was umpiring. The reason for the so called "high" Fee in mens adult league games is because for the most part no one would umpire these types of games if it wasn't for the FEE. The contsant "crap" that goes on in these type games is also a distraction.

Case and Point: My partner and I umpired an adult league men's league semi final game. Close game. R1 trys for third ball from out field gets by F5 and gets "stuck" in the fence. I call TIME as soon as I see the ball "stuck" and award R1 home.

Coach goes balistic saying "how can you give them a "cheap" run etc etc.

Therefore, as mentioned take the comments from a mens adult league with a grain of salt. They are "lucky" to have umpires to begin with.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]The college umpire you speak of is doing what is necessary to meet his goals. How is it political for an assignor to expect that people that want to work at his level take what he assigns? Also, the supply and demand situation is inverted at that level. The assignor has plenty of guys who WANT to work that level. In my personal small college experience, I CAN say no -- first, I am not driving 6 hours to work a baseball game, consequences be damned. Second, there is still a shortage of good umpires available during the day from time to time and I've helped out there when I can.

Adult leagues aren't the same everywhere. I was sharing my experience. I assign the league and have a closer relationship with managers and teams than most umpires would. Some umpires are stunned that I would sit and drink beer with the teams after the games, but as far as I'm concerned, we are all there because we enjoy the game and most of the good teams appreciate good umpiring. I'm smart enough to know when a controversial call or situation means I should get in the car and drive away.

Thinking that all adult ball involves "tolerating crap" is not productive, either. I ejected a LOT of people my first 3 years in the area. My third year I started assigning the games, BTW. Since then, virtually nothing. No ejections at all in 2007. I've even heard managers remind players before games that it doesn't pay to screw with the umpires because it will just get them run. In other words, anyone that puts up with crap deserves it. We all have the tools necessary to put a stop to bad behavior.

We called to task that very idea, Rich, by breaking out the costs per player over an entire season to raise pay to $125 for the top flight umpires, less for others. In order to back the concept of "top flight", we instituted a required e-learning experience, graded tests and exams, (several other concrete qualification determiners) and a website for two coaches per team to evaluate umpires. Lack of evaluation means that team has to pony up a $50 per game per coach fine.

The cost per player as nominal, $20 more than the $250 league fee.

Put up or shut up, on both sides, players and officials.

That's a serious oversimplification, Ruck. We disagree but I always thought the best selling point was the recruiting program.

[quote=PeteBooth]That's a sad state of affairs, Pete. I look forward to adult ball (under 35); if you don't have the backing of a serious, no-lo toelerance policy by the organizers, then you have mutiny nearly every game.:o

meaningful or its hype, that is correct. We don;t set the certification standards although if an org who hires us likes how we do it, good. If not, they get to set their own standards, make up their own courses, quizzes, teasts, the whole sheebang..

One thing people tend to forget (even those with basic training in economics) is that "shortage" is an economic term, and it is something that occurs at a given price level.

Rich, I think (I don't KNOW) certification would provide better umpires. The flip side of the coin is there would be fewer of them. Many officials who see their schedules downgraded (due to their relative standing in a certification environment) would quit. I know I would. I don't think it would happen to me, but if at this point in my career the coaches and eavluators think I'm worse than 4 of 5 umpires they see (per the system below), either they'd be right and I'd need to quit, or they'd be wrong and I'd want to quit. Umpiring's fun, but not that fun.

An idea I proposed several years ago that was shouted down--literally-- was to rate the umpires at three levels, paying the middle level a standard rate, the lowest level 80% of standard, and the highest level 120% of standard. Sort of a master/journeyman/apprentice system. It was to be a 20/60/20 split of the umpires tested. The home teams were to decide what level umpire they wanted that day. If the level they wanted was not available (e.g., demand for top-rated umpires or bottom-rated umpires exceeded supply on a given day) they paid the standard rate for whoever they ended up getting, because likely it was going to be a mid-level umpire being moved up or down.

The biggest complaint was among the top umpires, who protested the schools would "game" the system by never requesting the highest level. That could have been remedied by requiring the schools to request the game officials based on the same split (i.e., highest level for 20% of their dates and lowest level for 20%), but as soon as folks become emotional, logic seldom carries the day.

The second-biggest complainers were those at the bottom, who complained that they could grade out at 95%, and if 80% of the umpires graded higher than that, they'd be in the lowest tier. I said, "Yeah, so what?" The guys in the middle said, "If we're at the bottom of the middle (75th-80th percentile) and the lower guys quit, we could be pushed down into the lowest tier." I said, "Yeah, so what?" My position was that if you wanted to be PAID better than your peers, you had to BE better than your peers.

The masses are seldom in favor of merit pay. Even those that stand to benefit seem to prefer tranquility and egalitarianism over conflict and meritocracy.