Paid vs. Volunteer

[PeteBooth]

Sriker started a topic but IMO got "wrapped up" in being upset with Carl and the article at officiating.com. rather then expressing his own views on the subject matter so I thought I would start the topic to get YOUR views or opinions on "Paid vs. Volunteer" and start a good discussion.

I will list mine.

1. Generally speaking paid umpires are more committed. Example; I assigned at my local LL association for 3 years and I spent more time on the phone then on the field. There are no REAL Penalties when a volunteer doesn't show.

2. Being "paid" allows me to do more games because the Family shares in it. By sharing in it I mean:

A. Part of the money goes into new equipment
B. Take the family on a nice vacation
C. Take the Wife, Significant other, etc. out to dinner after one of those hot days at the field.

All of the above does not come out of the "Regular" Household money.

3. Again generally speaking Paid umpires are more trained then volunteers. I realize this doesn't apply to all volunteers or all paid umpires but there is a correlation between one's pocket book and ability to attend a clinic. When you get paid, you can afford to attend a nice clinic without taking money out of the household especially in today's climate.

So there is a lsit at least to start.

What's yours?

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

There are excellent paid amateur umpires and there are excellent volunteer amateur umpires. But who takes credit for those excellent umpires who do both? I know of a couple umps who work Babe Ruth games for pay and who also work LL games for free. Are they paid or volunteer or a special hybrid class?

I'll provide my own answer. I think anyone who receives financial compensation, not a hot dog and a Dr Pepper, for umpiring is a paid umpire, even if he volunteers in other games. To call him a volunteer would be akin to calling Madonna a virgin becomes she sleeps alone sometimes.

Now to the main topic.

Since it is agreed that both paid amateurs and volunteer amateurs have within their ranks excellent umpires, how do we compare them overall?

Despite Dave Hensley's protest, I submit that we look to the top of each category. In the paid amateur arena that would be, in my opinion, the NCAA College World Series umpires. In the amateur arena, that would be the Little League World Series umpires.

In both arenas we have umpires with many years of experience who have worked their way up through the ranks. In fact, I believe some of the LLWS umpires had more years of exerience than some of the CWS umpires.

We can disregard the talent of the players and concentrate on the performance of the umpires. I believe that it has been obvious over the years that the CWS umpires performed better, looked better, made fewer obvious mistakes and, in Andy Konyars terms, fewer CWS umpires left their "A" game at home.

So at the top end of the amateur food chains, the paid umpires win out.

At the lower ends, it's not as decisive. There are dedicated, talented and ambitious people in both the paid and volunteer ranks. For some, it isn't a matter of choice but a matter of geography. For example, there is no Little League in my area. Every league pays their umpires. I know of some areas where the only youth ball IS Little League, so again, they have no choice to be paid or volunteer. During the first two years there really isn't much of a difference between the two camps.

But as time goes on opportunities to work higher level ball falls more to the paid umpires than to those who wish to remain full time volunteers. High School bekons, Legion and Adult Ball bekon. Many paid umpires prepare for this by attending clinics, seminars and even pro-school.

In the volunteer world, upward mobility, I believe, lies in advancement within the same general league. Still, many of these umpires prepare by attending clinics and seminars. A couple I know went to pro school. The LLWR has a hell of a training school as well.

However, many, if not most of the volunteer umpires I know who spent money on multiple clinics or pro school began to also work paid games. They then come out of the vounteer side of the equation.

Conclusion? In the first couple years of paid and volunteer work, there is no real difference in the performance of umpires, but as time moves on, a higher percentage of paid umpires move up and perform at higher personal levels than do those in the volunteer group, until finally at the top levels the paid umpires have a decided advantage over the pure volunteer.

That is, in everything except desire, love of the activity, effort and satisfaction.

As Mr. Freix would say, of course, that's just my opinion.

(edited for spelling only)

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 5th, 2003 at 10:58 AM]

[Lilblue612]

Both GarthB and Mr. Booth make excellent points; points that I'm inclined to agree with. As a college student slowly climbing the rungs of the umpiring world, I perhaps am a living paradigm of the paid vs. volunteer debate.

At first, no matter what your compensation-- be it an item from the concession stand or a seventy-five dollar check, the quality of umpiring will usually share little if any correlation to the degree of compensation. I will say that working high-school and other higher level baseball at first may lead to a greater bredth of situations, a better quality of play, and faster paced action.

Nonetheless, one will undoubtedly come across his or her fair share of experiences even at the level of eleven and twelve-year olds. Seveal years ago I volunteered as our local commisioner of umpires-- basically doing assigning, evaluating, etc.,. Now, at the same time I got my state high school certification and embarked into the journey of paid umpiring.

What am I getting at? Volunteers are capable of doing a truly spectacular job. But, in my town, the volunteer umpires tend to be high school baseball players looking for something to do in the summer. Now, while they do know a tremendous amount about the game in and of itself, they're often more interested in where the party will be after the game, or whether or not there are any hot babes in the bleachers.

When it comes down to it, volunteers are volunteers for a few simple reasons. They're parents lending a helping hand, they're new guys getting their feet wet, they're teenagers looking for something to do during their summer, or they're more experienced (and usually paid umpires) helping out-- often at the level where they got their start. There is an exception to every rule-- but when all else is equal, paid umpires tend to be certified, they've worked higher levels of play, taken the Fed or other tests, and have been to countless clinics and rules meetings.

I am not going as so far as to say all paid umpires are better than all volunteer umpires, that's simply not true. But, when it comes down to it, paid umpires tend to have a tremendous amount of capability to fulfill their potential-- via resources not available to every volunteer. Obviously wonderful organizations such as Little League could not exist without its volunteers. They are assets to their respective communities. But, when you look at it, LLWS umpires are volunteers. The MLB World Series umpires are paid-- and they're paid for a reason, after all they have reached that rung of umpiring for a reason.

I honestly doubt there is anything that anyone can say that will come remotely near reaching a definitive conclusion on this issue. We, as umpires, all work in different regions, different games, and share different experiences. From mine, I may conclude one thing that will be nowhere close to the conclusion of someone in another area. But, volunteer or paid, we're all umpires at our most basicness. And, no matter what we get out of umpiring, we obviously do it for some love of the game. Perhaps arguing about who or how much makes for good umpiring is not as important on the fact that we're all umpires (not coaches), and that in itself is a good thing-- one of which we can all agree upon.

[Bfair]

If the leagues using the umpires are satisfied..........
Why does it even matter? Why all the comparison?

Should we be comparing left-handed umpires vs. right-handed umpires, northern umpires vs. southern umpires, black umpires vs. white umpires, or even male umpires vs. female umpires?

I don't understand this discussion among umpires, although I might understand it among league officials responsible for satisfying their customers. As for me, I do the best I can to umpire the game I accept whether it's a paid game or a freebie. I don't worry about if my partner elects to work for free or not---that's his choice.


As Garth said,


Freix

[gsf23]

Bfair--

It all comes down to money. If people are willing to volunteer, then they don't have to PAY for the "real" umpires and that pisses some people off. They had this same discussion over on the Basketball board about guys that will officiate ten games in a tourney for very little money. Their complaint wasn't that the guy wasn't a good ref, it was that by him working all those games for that low pay, it brings down the pay for all the other guys. If it wasn't for the volunteer's these leagues would be forced to pay for umpires. That's all it comes down to, money.

[greymule]

I'm surprised that leagues that use volunteer umpires, as well as the volunteers themselves, don't seem to be concerned about legal liability in the inevitable event of injury.

I can imagine the questioning in court, after some guy's knee (or brain) is in pieces after whatever accident: "How much training did you have as an umpire? What tests have you taken and how often did you take them? Did you attend any meetings at which you discussed safety standards? Are you aware of the safety standards for equipment? Why did you not have the illegal bat removed from the game? Were you aware that the bat in question was illegal? What makes a bat illegal? Before the collision in question, had you ever warned any other players about crashing into the catcher? Where in the rule book does it say that a player must slide?"

Leagues might have players sign waivers, but those get you only so far. Here in New Jersey, one of our guys is being sued (along with a dozen other legal entities) because a runner slipped and fell halfway home and messed up his knee. No collision, no wet field, no equipment in the way. Nothing like that. The runner claimed that, halfway home, he remembered that the plate had an edge that was sticking up and, afraid of trying to negotiate a dangerous home plate on a close play, slipped and destroyed his knee when he tried to stop. Whether he has a case or not, do you want to be a volunteer ump in that situation?

[Striker991]

I'm just reading this thread, as I have had my say on the issue and will let others contribute. However, I just wanted to clarify a point on the previous post. Volunteers that work in associations, as well as those that work in Little League, are covered by a good amount of liability insurance. That doesn't excuse the lack of training, knowledge or expertise that an umpire may have, but it does cover them in cases you mentioned above. As for me, I have several sources of insurance, so I am well covered. Hopefully, the jury can see this guy you are talking about for the idiot he is.

[greymule]

My softball association now has everyone take the ASA test every year. I'm all for that, as we can use the refresher. However, the impetus for the policy was a lawsuit that was lost primarily because of the following exchange in a NJ courtroom between the attorney for an injured party and a long-time umpire: Q: "How long have you been umpiring ASA softball?" A: "Twenty-six years." Q: "And when was the last time you were tested on the rules of the game?" A: "Twenty-six years ago."